NationStates Jolt Archive

Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me.

Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me.
Was bombing Dresden justified? Hiroshima? Rostock? Tokyo? Nagasaki? Kassel?

Is 6000 people more or less than the Baath regime would have killed over the last year?

The bombings in world war 2 yes, that war was just massive and if that had not been done we would have lost. If the war had gone on for two years more, the germans would have made a jet engine and the atom bomb. The reason the Americans made the atom bomb first is because they captured a German scientist, so if nakasaki and hiroshima had not been bombed, then we would have lost and we would probably still be under german rule.

Your next point nobody will know the answer to.

The bombings in world war 2 yes, that war was just massive and if that had not been done we would have lost. If the war had gone on for two years more, the germans would have made a jet engine and the atom bomb. The reason the Americans made the atom bomb first is because they captured a German scientist, so if nakasaki and hiroshima had not been bombed, then we would have lost and we would probably still be under german rule.

Your next point nobody will know the answer to.

Eh, you almost got it.

Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me.

What country are you from? I bet I can find a historical event where YOU had some form of horrible massacre.

Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me.

What country are you from? I bet I can find a historical event where YOU had some form of horrible massacre.

UK

I think that America was foolish to go ahead and train a hundred thousand jehadis in the Middle East to drive out the former Soviet Union around 15 tears ago.The very same group of trainees have become the Al Quaida now,and are causing terror in the hearts of the people who gave birth to it.

Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me.

What country are you from? I bet I can find a historical event where YOU had some form of horrible massacre.


ooooooh can you think of one for New Zealand?

I can think of one or two but I'd be interested to hear :D

I agree with you Shwetaprabhakar. Not a clue what happened in New Zeland, though i know about Africa and the Zulus where we got our ass kicked, though four welsh people fought from some building place and the Zulus stopped just when they were running out of ammo. I don't know how true it is, but apparently we pulled out because Africa was "a waste of ammunition."

Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me.

What country are you from? I bet I can find a historical event where YOU had some form of horrible massacre.

maybe a few hundred years ago or more you could find events for anyone but what about now in these so called 'civilised' times?

maybe a few hundred years ago or more you could find events for anyone but what about now in these so called 'civilised' times?
Ya, whatever. The 20th Century was the most violent century yet.

Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me.
Was bombing Dresden justified? Hiroshima? Rostock? Tokyo? Nagasaki? Kassel?

Is 6000 people more or less than the Baath regime would have killed over the last year?

Nothing like denigrating human life to an equation of facts and figures, is there?

what happened in new zeland dammit!

Nothing like denigrating human life to an equation of facts and figures, is there?
You're right. I totally neglected the qualitative aspect of an emerging free society in Iraq. So not only did less people die because of the invasion, the ones that live won't be under the heel of a tyrant.

Mission Accomplished.

Nothing like denigrating human life to an equation of facts and figures, is there?
You're right. I totally neglected the qualitative aspect of an emerging free society in Iraq. So not only did less people die because of the invasion, the ones that live won't be under the heel of a tyrant.

Mission Accomplished.
I wasn't having a go. I was just saying how depressing it is when we (a collective of people) have to wiegh up human life in such a manner. It's crappy. Neccesary, but crappy. I was anti-war before the war, but now I'm not so sure...

Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me.

What country are you from? I bet I can find a historical event where YOU had some form of horrible massacre.


ooooooh can you think of one for New Zealand?

I can think of one or two but I'd be interested to hear :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wairau_Massacre
:P

And the UK is just WAY too easy.
Zulu, though you guys lost as I recal
India...but you lost there as well
Some Aboriginals on Aussiland
Coughbostoncough
Falklands
Aside from the Zulu thing...any number of African nations
Cossacks

Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me.

What country are you from? I bet I can find a historical event where YOU had some form of horrible massacre.


ooooooh can you think of one for New Zealand?

I can think of one or two but I'd be interested to hear :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wairau_Massacre
:P

And the UK is just WAY too easy.
Zulu, though you guys lost as I recal
India...but you lost there as well
Some Aboriginals on Aussiland
Coughbostoncough
Falklands
Aside from the Zulu thing...any number of African nations
Cossacks

Partial credit. There are more brutal battles during the land wars, and internal wars don't really count.

The correct answer was: Samoa

Yea, we lost the falkland war, although the Falkland islands are still under British control.....

Ya, whatever. The 20th Century was the most violent century yet.

I don't think so, what about the epic massacars that where through intollerance, where there used to be widespread ethnic cleansing, against the weak.

Going back to the point, how was it valid for the US and UK to declare war on a country just to topple it's leader, under the guise of 'weapons of mass destruction' which I'm getting sick of. Then they tried to link mr Bin Laden to Saddem, which is daft because they technically hate each other.

The Osma bin Laden that was occused of planning an attack on america, I can't remeber seeing any proof of it like.

So without UN backing they decalred war to topple a leader. Why. Who knows?

that was educational. Surely we couldn't be that bad when it comes to war. We did own 1/4 of the world at one point.

And the UK is just WAY too easy.
Zulu, though you guys lost as I recal
India...but you lost there as well
Some Aboriginals on Aussiland
Coughbostoncough
Falklands
Aside from the Zulu thing...any number of African nations
Cossacks

Falkland war we won. I reckon the most casulties were due to American friendly fire!. Zulus beat us, though the welsh thing is true. India? As i remember, we were in control until we gave them indipendance...I guess there were probaly some battles we lost in "Aussiland". Don't know much about the other African nations. Who are the bloody Cossacks!?!

Going by your respnse to Kelhsan camment of how Americans could be seen as terrorists, i guess your American donotgothere.

yes we've all got skellitons in our closets: but why make new ones?

making big holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people is
certainly dramatic and impressive but is it neccessary or contribute
to any real positive objective.

was invading iraq at all either neccessary or accomplish anything
good or desirable. i can't see that it is has yet or is likely to.

everything sadam is being condemed for was at the behest, instruction,
and with materiel provided for by the u.s. and other super powers,
but the u.s. primarily.

there are and were other genocidal tinpot dictators setting on oceans
of oil. sadam hussain was singled out because he was the only one of
them to have had the balls to give americal oil interests the finger.

the thousands of civilian casualties were and are unjustified.
there was no clear and present danger from iraq. there was
however an opportunity to gain dictatorail stratigic control
of remaining international oil reserves, and to advance the political carreers and influence of the fanatical loonitic 'right'.

so several thousand iraqi minding their own bussiness housewives and shopkeeprs and several hundred u.s. military so far have died to advance the political careers of the fanatical loonitic right and so that the average american joe six pack can play soldger in his civilian hum vee.

and even the september 11 of 2001 thing, supposedly the actual operatives who carried it out came from al quieda. but what do we know of who actualy planed it, where, when and how?

if i could prove what i suspect i would probably be dead or incomunicado someplace like guantanimo, but every time someone mentions 9-11 there is a movie i once saw about how hittler staged his justification for invading poland that keeps running throuh my mind.

ok that doesn't prove anything but you add the two and two of vested interests and i at least cannot help but be drawn to that suspicion

=^^=
.../\...

As far as I know the british never fought the cossacks, Unless you mean the Crimean war?

The Zulus won the first war, because of shambolic leadership of the British, if I remeber rightly the commander of the army was having tea while his troops somewhere else where routed and then massacerd in retreat. After that the Zulu nation fell into revolt and in typical British style they conquered and annexed them.

Didn't hitler first try to pretend his mission was to unite the german speaking people? Which is why some places welcomed them with open arms.

I think this has become some sort of "Compare which country who massacred most people 200 years ago"-thing. It hasn't derailed ye, but I don't wan't it to. Myself, I have problems of choosing sides in this discussion. On one hand, we have the americans, fighting for unclear reasons and even though they have "advanced technology" they kill thousands of innocents. On the other hand, we have the power-mad, torturing, insane dictator Saddam Hussein who's palace doctor ususally treated bullet-wounds... I think the most important thing now is to help Iraq back to its feet, by international support from the UN. (And at least give Saddam a fair trial)

You're right. I totally neglected the qualitative aspect of an emerging free society in Iraq. So not only did less people die because of the invasion, the ones that live won't be under the heel of a tyrant.

Mission Accomplished.

*cough* George dubya *cough* puppet government *cough*

Didn't hitler first try to pretend his mission was to unite the german speaking people? Which is why some places welcomed them with open arms.

You're right.

Everyone forgets that hitler was democratically elected, not a dictator

Didn't hitler first try to pretend his mission was to unite the german speaking people? Which is why some places welcomed them with open arms.

You're right.

Everyone forgets that hitler was democratically elected, not a dictator

Not strictly true. Though his first election was democratic, he never reached a legal majoirty in the Reichstag. Instead, he was appointed by decree by Hindenburg, the President. He then broke the law by intimidating and killing his opponenets, so he wasn't really democratically elected, just came to power through the corrupt execution of the democratic system. Then illegally stayed in power.

Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me.
Was bombing Dresden justified? Hiroshima? Rostock? Tokyo? Nagasaki? Kassel?

Is 6000 people more or less than the Baath regime would have killed over the last year?

Ummm less.

Nothing like denigrating human life to an equation of facts and figures, is there?
You're right. I totally neglected the qualitative aspect of an emerging free society in Iraq. So not only did less people die because of the invasion, the ones that live won't be under the heel of a tyrant.

Mission Accomplished.

Yeah, yeah. I'll believe it when I see it. The way things are going it seems that Iraq will be nothing but a guerrilla infested, suicide-bomber ridden hell for the next 10 years. And after that they may still end up with a tyrannical government.

After all, wasn't the US the country that backed, trained and financed the last tyrannical governemnt in Iraq?

Unless, of course, the Americans are ready to keep their 150,000 men for a few decades.

Falkland war we won. I reckon the most casulties were due to American friendly fire!.

Problem here! We never participated in the Faukland war which England did win. Sorry to disuade you from this though. All we did was send more forces to bases in England for NATO Purposes so that England can go off and fight in the Faulklands.

I always thought they did, and i was just fucking about.

The bombings in world war 2 yes, that war was just massive and if that had not been done we would have lost. If the war had gone on for two years more, the germans would have made a jet engine and the atom bomb. The reason the Americans made the atom bomb first is because they captured a German scientist, so if nakasaki and hiroshima had not been bombed, then we would have lost and we would probably still be under german rule.

Your next point nobody will know the answer to.

The germans serrendured before we dropped the bomb. Now the japanese also was about to get jet capabilaty that was better than the germans THEN we would have been screwed :?

almost got it right, oh well.

The bombings in world war 2 yes, that war was just massive and if that had not been done we would have lost. If the war had gone on for two years more, the germans would have made a jet engine and the atom bomb. The reason the Americans made the atom bomb first is because they captured a German scientist, so if nakasaki and hiroshima had not been bombed, then we would have lost and we would probably still be under german rule.

Your next point nobody will know the answer to.

The germans serrendured before we dropped the bomb. Now the japanese also was about to get jet capabilaty that was better than the germans THEN we would have been screwed :?

You do know the first bomb was originally meant for Germany, right? I've never heard about Japanese jet capability, but they didn't have any fuel for their planes by that time anyway.

To whoever said there was no proof Al Quaeda was responsible for 9/11, do you not consider a confession proof? Hasn't bin Laden sent out a number of videos in which he claims responsibility for the attacks? That's enough proof right there.

"Kelhsan wrote:
Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me. "

Where are you getting these numbers?

I don't see how everyone has a problem with trying to eradicate terrorists and evil governments. Saddam was a ruthless, dispicable, malicious leader. If left in power, he could pose a huge threat to the world. The only reason Hitler became so powerful is because nations like the U.S., that could have stopped him from the start, ignored him because his atrocities weren't affecting us directly. Saddam was a mini-Hitler himself. People so easily forget the mass grave sites found, filled with the skeletons of women and children ordered killed by Hussein because he didn't like thier type of Islam. The U.S. bombed and invaded Iraq to attempt to remove a terrible government. To prevent Hussein from becoming a serious threat. The world is so afraid to prevent disaster. The US, admittedly, has made some costly mistakes in the process. But you can't honestly beleive they've done it for oil.

Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me.

Hm... I dont support the whole thing because there WAS NO QUADA INVOLVMENT.

but other than that. In afganistan it was justified so I'll use that as an example.

They were a threat.
Better them than Us.
I dont care that it was the big bad USA killed a bunch of the poor improvished Afgans.
Tough...dont harbor terrorists next time.

To whoever said there was no proof Al Quaeda was responsible for 9/11, do you not consider a confession proof? Hasn't bin Laden sent out a number of videos in which he claims responsibility for the attacks? That's enough proof right there.

"Kelhsan wrote:
Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me. "

Where are you getting these numbers?

I don't see how everyone has a problem with trying to eradicate terrorists and evil governments. Saddam was a ruthless, dispicable, malicious leader. If left in power, he could pose a huge threat to the world. The only reason Hitler became so powerful is because nations like the U.S., that could have stopped him from the start, ignored him because his atrocities weren't affecting us directly. Saddam was a mini-Hitler himself. People so easily forget the mass grave sites found, filled with the skeletons of women and children ordered killed by Hussein because he didn't like thier type of Islam. The U.S. bombed and invaded Iraq to attempt to remove a terrible government. To prevent Hussein from becoming a serious threat. The world is so afraid to prevent disaster. The US, admittedly, has made some costly mistakes in the process. But you can't honestly beleive they've done it for oil.



The problem lies in one's judgement of "evil governments". Evil is dynamic, as it describes anything that goes against one's own goals. We attacked iraq because:

1) they had weapons of Mass Destruction - but we can't find them

2) They had a direct link to Al-Qaeda - but, no, he didn't.

3) Bush Jr was angry because of what his dad went through - ok, so personal vendetta

and

4) He was a brutal dictator who oppressed a majority of his people - whom the American's supported during the majority of the genocidal acts, and considered a "close ally" until about 15 years ago.

Taking down dictators who oppress their people, it's a noble cause, but the states has and continues to support brutal governments when it helps their cause (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Russia, etc)

so the point is, if America was really serious about stopping terrorism and bettering the human condition, they'd stop associating with bad governments, but they're NOT, so it's really just a opportunist grab for a nation that is in desperate need of oil anyway.

Nonexistent Isthmus, you're missing the point i was making completely. I was saying that the Americans were all up in arms about 9/11, but they went and did something twice as bad and didn't give a f---. Which is worse, killing 3000 innocents or 6000 innocents?

Nonexistent Isthmus, you're missing the point i was making completely. I was saying that the Americans were all up in arms about 9/11, but they went and did something twice as bad and didn't give a f---. Which is worse, killing 3000 innocents or 6000 innocents?

You do realize that Hussein killed more than we did during the war don't you? We have apologized for killing civilians and offered compensation to the affected parties. Hussein used a carbomb in a market place and tried to blame us. That didn't pan out. Every civilian casualty was investigated. If it was caused by us, we paid. Normally though it was caused by Hussein.

You do realize that Hussein killed more than we did during the war don't you? We have apologized for killing civilians and offered compensation to the affected parties. Hussein used a carbomb in a market place and tried to blame us. That didn't pan out. Every civilian casualty was investigated. If it was caused by us, we paid. Normally though it was caused by Hussein.Well Saddam didn't kill more than the US during this war, he killed less. Saddam didn't use car bombs and actually kept the terrorists in check in Iraq. every civilian casualty is not investigated (except the western civilian casualties which are systematically investigated). Nothing is paid to the victims. And finally the iraqis have paid and are paying for the war while Halliburton takes their oil.

You do realize that Hussein killed more than we did during the war don't you? We have apologized for killing civilians and offered compensation to the affected parties. Hussein used a carbomb in a market place and tried to blame us. That didn't pan out. Every civilian casualty was investigated. If it was caused by us, we paid. Normally though it was caused by Hussein.Well Saddam didn't kill more than the US during this war, he killed less. Saddam didn't use car bombs and actually kept the terrorists in check in Iraq. every civilian casualty is not investigated (except the western civilian casualties which are systematically investigated). Nothing is paid to the victims. And finally the iraqis have paid and are paying for the war while Halliburton takes their oil.

Very funny. BACK IT UP! I want to see the facts of what you just said. I know that we investigated them. News Conferences, which I taped so I could watch them when I got home, said for a FACT that they were investigated and they paid when we did cause them.

Very funny. BACK IT UP! I want to see the facts of what you just said. I know that we investigated them. News Conferences, which I taped so I could watch them when I got home, said for a FACT that they were investigated and they paid when we did cause them.Who did say that in the news conference? Was it Wolfovitz, Bush or Cheney?
It is simple you can't pay someone who is dead. You can't investigate all the civilian deaths, especially when you are dropping a bomb from miles away. And even if you pay the family (if he has one) it doesn't mean you replace the lost one.

Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me.

Not only was it not justified, it was also illegal under international law.

So, I'm going with a big "NO!" it was not just!

Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me.

Not only was it not justified, it was also illegal under international law.

So, I'm going with a big "NO!" it was not just!

Ok! How was it illegal under international law? If your talking that we needed UN permission, then your sadly mistaken. All we need to attack another nation is authorization from our Congress which Bush GOT!!!!!

We don't need UN permission to attack anyone. It'll be nice to have but not necessary. Sorry Lady, but International Law wasn't broken when we attacked.

International Law:
Chapter MXVI
Subsection 4
Paragraph 2
Sentence 1
"LOLZOR! PEACE OUT DUDEZ!"

There you have it.

Wait a minute. Didn't the US sign the UN charter and recognized the UN as an internatinnal regulator?
In my opinion, the UN charter supercedes the american law. If the american government say the UN charter does not exist after signing it, let me warn you that you can go burn your patents and all that bullshit that the other nations around the world agreed to abide by. Don't ever ask Iran to stop nuclear weapon research and don't ever complain if Afghanistan produce heroin like mad.

Wait a minute. Didn't the US sign the UN charter and recognized the UN as an internatinnal regulator?
In my opinion, the UN charter supercedes the american law. If the american government say the UN charter does not exist after signing it, let me warn you that you can go burn your patents and all that bullshit that the other nations around the world agreed to abide by. Don't ever ask Iran to stop nuclear weapon research and don't ever complain if Afghanistan produce heroin like mad.

Sorry minor difference.Yes we did recognize the UN! However the UN has no authority over soveriegn issues. Iran is a member of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, as was North Korea till they got caught and resigned from it. That was a UN Treaty. As such, UN has authority in this case.

UN can only go by its framework. As such, we don't need UN permission to wage war on another nation. Did Argentina have permission to dispute the Faulklands? Did Britian have UN authorization to Declare War on Argentina? The answer was no.

If you follow Stephistan's logic, the Faulkland War was illegal too. Besides, we had 17 UN resolutions on Iraq, all authorizing the use of Force if he disobeyed them. He did and the UN did nothing. US used past UN resolutions to justify their actions in Iraq. Therefore, it isn't an illegal war.

You didnt have a resolution to declare war, the war was a "War of Aggression" - based on lies. The US Administration tried to get the world in bed by lieing blatantly and multiple times in front of the UN Security Council. If anyhting, then the US should be banned from the UN and be treated like those regimes that disobey the UN and violate human rights left and right. The US is no different and my personal disgust against the US grows every day.

You didnt have a resolution to declare war, the war was a "War of Aggression" - based on lies. The US Administration tried to get the world in bed by lieing blatantly and multiple times in front of the UN Security Council. If anyhting, then the US should be banned from the UN and be treated like those regimes that disobey the UN and violate human rights left and right. The US is no different and my personal disgust against the US grows every day.
http://www.languish.org/forums/html/emoticons/lmfao.gif

You didnt have a resolution to declare war, the war was a "War of Aggression" - based on lies. The US Administration tried to get the world in bed by lieing blatantly and multiple times in front of the UN Security Council. If anyhting, then the US should be banned from the UN and be treated like those regimes that disobey the UN and violate human rights left and right. The US is no different and my personal disgust against the US grows every day.

Thanks Gigatron I was waiting for a post like this! About time!

OK here it goes.

First things first I'll post the Purposes and Principles!

Chapter I

Purposes and Principles

Article 1

The purpose of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of act of aggression or other breaches of conformity with-the priciples of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strenthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international cooperation in solving internatoinal problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. to be a center for harmonizing the actoins of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The organization and its members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following principles.

1. the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from memberships, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

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.

5. All members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Naitons is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations are act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Naitons to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiciont of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the applicaiton of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

Chapter II

Membership

The original Members of the United Nations shall be the states which, having participated in the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, or having previously signed the Declaration by United Nations of January 1, 1942, sign hte present Charter and ratify it in accordance with Article 110.


Article 4

1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

2. The admission of any such state to memberships in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council

Article 5

A member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council [i]may be suspended from the exercise of rights and privileges of membership by the General Assemyly upon the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges maybe restored by the Security Council.

Article 6

A Member of the United Naitons which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter MAY BE EXPELLED from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Taken from The Charter of the United Nations And Statute of the International Court of Justice

Gigatron, if we follow what you said, then Russia, France, and Germany could legally be expelled too. We have tried to do things through the Council regarding Iraq but these three nations failed to act. As such, in accordance with the Charter (which I have infront of me and I will write more if warrented) could have and should have been thrown out. The US has done nothing to warrent what you suggest.

Sorry minor difference.Yes we did recognize the UN! However the UN has no authority over soveriegn issues. Iran is a member of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, as was North Korea till they got caught and resigned from it. That was a UN Treaty. As such, UN has authority in this case.


Actually, neither the UN nor any other treaty has authority over sovereign issues. No country has been brave enough to let international law supersede its own. However, the UN was created as an attempt to solve problems between nations diplomatically and without resorting to war. Skipping the UN, trying to twist its decisions and blatantly disregarding its conclusions is hypocritical at best.

Every country is in its right to do it, of course, not only the US. But they should be wary of the consequences. Even the US.


UN can only go by its framework. As such, we don't need UN permission to wage war on another nation. Did Argentina have permission to dispute the Faulklands? Did Britian have UN authorization to Declare War on Argentina? The answer was no.


And was Argentina's attack on the Falklands justified or sanctioned? Of course not. And since it was an act of pure aggression the UK didn't need to wait for UN sanctioning to retaliate.

In the case of Iraq there was no attack against the US or others. There also was no threat of attack or even the possibility of attack. When the US said otherwise those statements were highly suspect and have since been proven false.

Was the Iraqi people suffering? Yes (they still are, as a matter of fact), but as you point out the UN has no authority over sovereign matters, much less the US.


If you follow Stephistan's logic, the Faulkland War was illegal too. Besides, we had 17 UN resolutions on Iraq, all authorizing the use of Force if he disobeyed them. He did and the UN did nothing. US used past UN resolutions to justify their actions in Iraq. Therefore, it isn't an illegal war.

And the Falklands war was illegal! Not the British reaction, but the Argentinian attack which led to the war.

Iraq comply with the UN resolutions for the most part. The parts that they didn't comply with certainly didn't merit an armed invasion. And before the invasion Iraq was bending over backwards to comply and avoid it.

If you follow Stephistan's logic, the Faulkland War was illegal too.

IIRC, the Falklands War was not actually a war, but rather a conflict, in that no declaration of war was made by either side. It was more of the nature of a border dispute than a war between the UK and Argentina.

Gigatron, if we follow what you said, then Russia, France, and Germany could legally be expelled too. We have tried to do things through the Council regarding Iraq but these three nations failed to act. As such, in accordance with the Charter (which I have infront of me and I will write more if warrented) could have and should have been thrown out. The US has done nothing to warrent what you suggest.

Failing to act is not grounds for expulsion, much less failing to act as the US wants them to act. It is hypocritical to resort to the UN and then disregard it when the conclusion is not the desired one. That in itself goes against the purpose of the UN and the spirit of its charter.

Let's take a look at just a couple of principles and see if we can find some cases in which the US has not followed them. 3 and 4 are very related:


3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

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.


Let's see, I remember the invasion of Panama, Grenada; toppling legally established governments in Chile and Guatemala; arming and inciting guerrillas in Nicaragua, Afghanistan; and providing murderous tyrannical governments with weapons, training and money to provoke wars or allow them to oppress their people in Haiti, Philippines, Indonesia, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq. I'm sure there are other examples, but these are the ones I remember right now.

Has the US ever been called on these actions? Yes. But since they have veto power in the Security Council no resolutions have been approved. The General Assembly has passed resolutions condemning several of these attorocities, that the US has quickly dismissed as UN interventionism and attempted to justify with the eternal fight for freedom and democracy.

Should France, Russia, the UK and others be expelled for the same reasons? Sure. They have committed many of the same attrocities in different parts of the world. No one is innocent. Problem is the UN would be left only with El Salvador and the Maldives very quickly.

Still, that doesn't give the US justification or reason to do whatever they want. Or to anybody else, mind you.

Altight people, heres the deal.

1) to all you people saying "the saudi government is bad. They are a ruthless etc.. THAT ISNOT TRUE!!! Havent you guys seen what these guys do agaisnt AL Qaeda? There hav been hundred of small battles and skirmishes between Al Qaeda terrorists and Saudi Soldiers.

2) And to all you people saying "it was just about the oil". Do you think that america would sacrifice nearl 1,000 soldiers and thousands more wounded JUST FOR OIL? Theres a bigger picture than that! Just because there wasnt a Confirmed alliance between AL Qaeda and Saddam doesnt meen we shouldnt have atacked him. This man had WMD's and used them not only on human walls of Iranian children, he used them on his OWN PEOPLE!!! Like some have stated, This man is like Hiler his rise to power, his regime, the way he invaded people. All of it! The onl main reason i see different is that when he lost a war he survived and when his government wastoppled he surrendered instead of killing himself.

3) (Boy this is getting long) Sure american have killed around 5=6 thousand people. Bu not on purpose. This may make me sound liek a warmongering evil maniac but this stuff happens! When you fight a guerilla war against an army of Terrorist whos only purpose is too kil hundreds of there own people while killing Amercans, Brits, poles, etc. friendly fire ocurs. On the two attacks on the Twin Towers (the one in the early ninteys and 9/11) These were dilleberate attacks.

4) In some ways the world is a safer place now. Now the only country that officially backs terrorists is Syria( and possibly Iran. Down from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Palestine(which was then a country bu doesnt count now) And Pakistan, which had a military Coup, supported by the majority of the population(id know cause iv elived there recently) which helped destroy the Afghani Taliban and has been THE major ally in the War on Terror, having many battles in its mountanous regions.

5) Saddam Hussein DID kill his own people using car bombs and such. HE ALSO Tortured thousands upon thousands of People in his orture chambers. and Tens of thousands of iraqis were buried ALIVE in mass graves. If we had waited TOO long, then Iraq woulda have re-gained power. It would have once again had and army of a million people. It would have created a significant relation with Al Qaeda, and would have become significanly closer to createing Nuclear Weapons(which he was very close too before the Kuwait War). And stop acting like is only AMERICA which commits friendly fire. The British do it too. PLUS the British have certainly done worse (and created worse) wars and attrocities. Where Terrorism started, Afghanistan-Northen Pakistan and Kashmir Areas, It was started because the British were trying to eliminate them, and the Kahmir issue has created tone of the Areas most likely for Nuclear WAr, Pakistan and India.

Failing to act is not grounds for expulsion, much less failing to act as the US wants them to act. It is hypocritical to resort to the UN and then disregard it when the conclusion is not the desired one. That in itself goes against the purpose of the UN and the spirit of its charter.

In this case it is! The three named member didn't hold up to their end of the bargin. They turned their backs on a populace. They didn't go after Hussein when the 17th resolution (part 1 of 2) called for serous consequences. They balked on Part 2 when it came up. As such, Yes they could have been thrown out. They were called upon to act and they didn't!

Let's see, I remember the invasion of Panama, Grenada; toppling legally established governments in Chile and Guatemala; arming and inciting guerrillas in Nicaragua, Afghanistan; and providing murderous tyrannical governments with weapons, training and money to provoke wars or allow them to oppress their people in Haiti, Philippines, Indonesia, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq. I'm sure there are other examples, but these are the ones I remember right now.

Mostly all related to what we did in Iraq. With panama, we went after a drug lord and Panama welcomed the Regime Change. Grenada was different and I don't know much about what went on there so I won't comment. Chile is the same. Don't know what we did so not stating till I have facts.

As for your last few countries, they were all fight socialism/communism! That I do know. You support people that are fighting your enemies. That is how things work. As for haiti, Philippines (they sorted that out mostly on their own), Indonesia (democracy now), and the others I have no info on. We supported Iraq during their war with Iran because we didn't want the leader of Iran to expand is brand of Islam to the rest of the Muslim world. As for Saudi Arabia, we were asked by them for help and we gave them that help.

Gentlemen,
In this discussion, according to you, everyone seems to be a "terrorist". Care must be taken when it comes to use of words.
For instance, although you do not approve of George Bush's action, it cannot be described as terrorism. You say "6000 dead sounds a lot more like terrorism". Is terrorism determined by the number of deaths? Then I suppose all leaders of world war I, World War II, The Napoleonic wars, the Civil war, the war of succession, etc etc were all terrorists?

Terrorism is not determined by the number of deaths, for it ranges from a simple carbomb that causes no deaths and a macroterrorist assault like 9-11.

Therefore, I ask that you make sure you are not saying pointless things in a purely demagogical sense. That is dishonest, manipulative and worthy of Nazi propaganda.

Gentlemen

Not all of us are gentlemen Sietch. I'm a lady!

I do agree with you on everything else you say though.

Gentlemen

Not all of us are gentlemen Sietch. I'm a lady!

I do agree with you on everything else you say though.

Sorry about that, Milady :wink:

Gentlemen

Not all of us are gentlemen Sietch. I'm a lady!

I do agree with you on everything else you say though.

Sorry about that, Milady :wink:

Accepted! giggles

In this case it is! The three named member didn't hold up to their end of the bargin. They turned their backs on a populace. They didn't go after Hussein when the 17th resolution (part 1 of 2) called for serous consequences. They balked on Part 2 when it came up. As such, Yes they could have been thrown out. They were called upon to act and they didn't!


The actions that was called for in this situation was 1. determine if Iraq was really in contemp, 2. determine how much, and 3. define serious consequences. This was not for the US to decide, but for the UN, and they were in the middle of doing that when the US said "to hell with it! I got an itch and I'm gonna scratch it."


Mostly all related to what we did in Iraq. With panama, we went after a drug lord and Panama welcomed the Regime Change. Grenada was different and I don't know much about what went on there so I won't comment. Chile is the same. Don't know what we did so not stating till I have facts.


Try to find out more about the US role in these events. They are not all related to Iraq, in fact they are very unrelated. In Panama, Manuel Noriega was the big boss and main druglord thanks to the support received by Reagan and Bush. They not only allowed him to run drugs up and down the Caribbean, but also staged a coup d'etat to put him in power. The people would have welcomed the regime change even if Genghis Khan had taken over. It would have been even better if the US had let the actual winner of the elections take the presidency instead of the heavily pro-American runner up. Do you remember any of Noriega's trial? Me neither, because it was conducted in secret. Hmm... I wonder why.

Grenada was invaded when the US financed and backed guerrillas couldn't fight anymore against the socialist-leaning government. So the US invaded and imposed it's own regime. In Chile the CIA financed and carried on an operation that saw the democratically elected president of a nation being replaced by a military dictator who kept power for the next 20 years.


As for your last few countries, they were all fight socialism/communism! That I do know. You support people that are fighting your enemies. That is how things work. As for haiti, Philippines (they sorted that out mostly on their own), Indonesia (democracy now), and the others I have no info on. We supported Iraq during their war with Iran because we didn't want the leader of Iran to expand is brand of Islam to the rest of the Muslim world. As for Saudi Arabia, we were asked by them for help and we gave them that help.

That's right. That's how things work. This is all I ask, an honest view. It doesn't matter if thousands of people get killed, if they go oppresed and starve, as long as the interests of the US are protected and its policies followed. How many millions have died because of this policies and the "fight" against communism? Does it matter or is the uncontested power of the US more important?

Haiti, Philippines and Indonesia endured decades of tyrannical murderous rulers supported by the US, even when it was known that they killed their own population and, in the case of Iraq, gassed their own people. Even so, the US kept arming them and financing them. These places came to democracy mostly because the US stopped supporting the dictatorships, not thanks to the US doing something to help it along. Haiti is still not out of it, as Iraq, the coin is still in the air.

The House of Saud in Arabia took power violently 30 or 40 years ago (can't remember exactly when) and since then has been happily supported by Western powers in their search to ban civil liberties and occupy absolutely every niche of power in the country. US and other nations insterests are very high in Saudi Arabia, so it's no wonder that the US sent military help when they conveniently asked for it. It's also no wonder that the US didn't leave after that help was no longer needed.

Did you know that Saddam Hussein actually checked with the US Ambassador before invading Kuwait?

ok if he did check, what was the Ambassador's answer?

If he did ask and we said don't do it, why did he? If he did ask and said try it and see what happens then Hussein had his answer. If he did ask and said sure go ahead then why did we support to drive him away?

Were the Americans right to bomb Iraq? They called Al-quiada(sp) terrorists for the incident on 9/11, which they killed 3000 people, but then the Americans went and bombed Iraq killing 6000 innocent people, now this sounds wosre than killing 3000. I understand they wanted to get Sadam for there "war on terrorism", but killing 6000 innocent people sounds alot like terrorism to me.

Not only was it not justified, it was also illegal under international law.

So, I'm going with a big "NO!" it was not just!

Ok! How was it illegal under international law? If your talking that we needed UN permission, then your sadly mistaken. All we need to attack another nation is authorization from our Congress which Bush GOT!!!!!

We don't need UN permission to attack anyone. It'll be nice to have but not necessary. Sorry Lady, but International Law wasn't broken when we attacked.

I did have to go to bed at some point, or I would of addressed you last night..

For one thing it's against international law to preemptively wage war on a nation that hasn't done any thing to you. Preemptive war is against international law. There was no threat directly to America from Iraq, thus it WAS against international law. You can say all you like Congress this or that, fact is the USA is a signatory member to said international laws. So, until the USA signs away from treaties etc, they are in fact bound by them.

I did have to go to bed at some point, or I would of addressed you last night..

For one thing it's against international law to preemptively wage war on a nation that hasn't done any thing to you. Preemptive war is against international law. There was no threat directly to America from Iraq, thus it WAS against international law. You can say all you like Congress this or that, fact is the USA is a signatory member to said international laws. So, until the USA signs away from treaties etc, they are in fact bound by them.

Ok show me where it is illegal to wage a preemptive war? Incase you have forgotten they were a THREAT TO THE WORLD! Since they were a threat to the world, we came to the UN! UN didn't do crap so the US and our allies did it for the UN! As such it wasn't an illegal war. We did have previous resolutions which we used.

To be honest, Я не даю гречиху. :roll:

Gentlemen,
In this discussion, according to you, everyone seems to be a "terrorist". Care must be taken when it comes to use of words.
For instance, although you do not approve of George Bush's action, it cannot be described as terrorism. You say "6000 dead sounds a lot more like terrorism". Is terrorism determined by the number of deaths? Then I suppose all leaders of world war I, World War II, The Napoleonic wars, the Civil war, the war of succession, etc etc were all terrorists?

Terrorism is not determined by the number of deaths, for it ranges from a simple carbomb that causes no deaths and a macroterrorist assault like 9-11.

Therefore, I ask that you make sure you are not saying pointless things in a purely demagogical sense. That is dishonest, manipulative and worthy of Nazi propaganda.Is drawing a parallel between anti-Bush and the nazis any better?

ok if he did check, what was the Ambassador's answer?

If he did ask and we said don't do it, why did he? If he did ask and said try it and see what happens then Hussein had his answer. If he did ask and said sure go ahead then why did we support to drive him away?

Saddam 101

A Brief history of Saddam (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)

To be honest, Я не даю гречиху. :roll:Means he doesn't care.

ok if he did check, what was the Ambassador's answer?

If he did ask and we said don't do it, why did he? If he did ask and said try it and see what happens then Hussein had his answer. If he did ask and said sure go ahead then why did we support to drive him away?

Saddam 101

A Brief history of Saddam (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)

Very Nice! I actually thought it quite fun to watch.

Most of that was true too! However, it forgot to mention that we did go after Afghanistan first then Iraq for SUPPORTING TERRORISM!!!

It also failed to mention what he did to HIS OWN PEOPLE that was CONDEMN by the USA and MOST OF THE WORLD COMMUNITY! He also violated UN resolutions which gave us Justification for action.

As for the State Department, I never trust it! Still don't! As for the Ambassador, she was instructed if what I've saw was correct to say that. However, we did care. If we didn't then we wouldn't have gotten involved. Since we did care about the Kuwaitis we supported the action and supplied the troops to oust him.

Stephistan, I know we'll never agree over this, however, think of what he did to his people before you denounce a war. Sometimes war is necessary to be fought without UN authorization. To fight a war, all the US needs is Authorization from our Congress. Not 15 members in some defunct body that has never kept a single resolution they passed.

Let's start over! Desolve the UN and replace it with a body with more teeth and a backbone.

Ok show me where it is illegal to wage a preemptive war? Incase you have forgotten they were a THREAT TO THE WORLD! Since they were a threat to the world, we came to the UN! UN didn't do crap so the US and our allies did it for the UN! As such it wasn't an illegal war. We did have previous resolutions which we used.The UN charter forbids any member to wage war against any other member, unless :
1. Directly attacked, as self defense.
2. To protect internationnal peace, with the agreement of the security council.

Saddam was no more a threat to the world than the US BTW (at least him didn't have weapons of mass destruction and wasn't on a war on terrorism frenzy)

5) Saddam Hussein DID kill his own people using car bombs and such.Question : why would Saddam have to use car bombs since he had execution rooms, VX agents and a 400 000 people army?

HE ALSO Tortured thousands upon thousands of People in his orture chambers. and Tens of thousands of iraqis were buried ALIVE in mass graves. If we had waited TOO long, then Iraq woulda have re-gained power. It would have once again had and army of a million people. It would have created a significant relation with Al Qaeda, and would have become significanly closer to createing Nuclear Weapons(which he was very close too before the Kuwait War).Saddam buried people alive 13 years ago, during an uprising to protect his power.
At the time of the second war, Saddam was not increasing his forces (exept just before the war, as a defense). Saddam was fighting the islamist extremists and was afraid of Al-Qaeda. He assassinated many islamists. He was not close to have nuclear weapons (unlike some big countries which in a very bad shape to give lessons on that matter).

And stop acting like is only AMERICA which commits friendly fire. The British do it too. PLUS the British have certainly done worse (and created worse) wars and attrocities. Where Terrorism started, Afghanistan-Northen Pakistan and Kashmir Areas, It was started because the British were trying to eliminate them, and the Kahmir issue has created tone of the Areas most likely for Nuclear WAr, Pakistan and India.Terrorism did not start in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Kashmir.

Actually,
Saddam supported the families of the HAMAS Palestinian suicide bombers against Israel (nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or the US), as a tool to increase his popularity at home.
And if you want to learn the roots of islamist terrorism, you have to look deeper than what you see on Fox News. Try to inform yourself about Zionism, Wahhabism. Get a book about the history of the conflict and Colonialism.

If this is something that you actually have to debate about, I think you've been spending too much time playing around with these fake countries rather than reading up on the real world.
America had the Iraqi war planned out well before September 11th. Back in 2000, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby, all members of the conservitive Project for the New American Century (PNAC), published a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century," which called for a "new Pearl Harbor" to rally the American public into war with Iraq. Odd, isn't it?
The US had very specific intelligence regarding the 9-11 attacks-- so much that certain people knew not to fly on the 11th:

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on September 12th 2001:
"For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security-- a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks-- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel... Exactly where the call came from is a bit of a mystery. The mayor would day only that it came from 'my security people at the airport.'"

Newsweek reported on September 24th 2001:
On September 10th, the day before the attacks, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

And let's not forget about the conclusion of the 9-11 Commission- that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. And we still haven't found those pesky weapons of mass destruction, most likely because they don't exist.
This "War on Terror" has nothing to do with making the world a safer place; terrorist activity has spiked since the start of Bush's bullsh-t war-- a fact the Bush Administration "accidentally" got wrong when they recently claimed the exact opposite.
If this war were truly about making the world a safer place, we eventually would have made our way to Iraq, but I would assume that we would have started with countries that actually HAD weapons of mass destruction, like North Korea. They've been waving their WMD in the face of the world for quite some time now, but I guess since they don't have any oil...
America was NOT justified in its invasion and occupation of Iraq. Every person who died on September 11th and in the "wars" that followed are victims of murder and the members of the Bush administration are the murderers. I shudder to think of how many more people will die after the Bushies steal another election this year...

ok if he did check, what was the Ambassador's answer?

If he did ask and we said don't do it, why did he? If he did ask and said try it and see what happens then Hussein had his answer. If he did ask and said sure go ahead then why did we support to drive him away?

Saddam 101

A Brief history of Saddam (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)

Very Nice! I actually thought it quite fun to watch.

Most of that was true too! However, it forgot to mention that we did go after Afghanistan first then Iraq for SUPPORTING TERRORISM!!!

It also failed to mention what he did to HIS OWN PEOPLE that was CONDEMN by the USA and MOST OF THE WORLD COMMUNITY! He also violated UN resolutions which gave us Justification for action.

Ok, lets take a look at what Saddam did to his people and how the Americans let it slide at the time.. Lets talk "Liberation" the last excuse for this war. Lets take a look at some cold hard facts. You just don't get it do you? Has it ever crossed your mind that the biggest problem with the UN is the Americans? You seem to claim to have an open mind.. now lets see if it's true!

Lets look at some American policy decisions over time..


The Abstention
http://www.gulfinvestigations.net/document469.html

The VETO (Resolution 582: Iraq-Islamic Republic of Iran (24 Feb))

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1986/scres86.htm

Read em and weep folks. Note that the Americans knew as early as 1983 that Saddam was using chem weapons on Iran, but then went ahead and Vetoed the resolution in 1986. This was even before Rumsfeld even went over to Iraq in that famous picture we have all seen of him shaking hands with Saddam.

So, the next time you want to rant to me about what human rights advocates the Americans are and how they're "liberating" the Iraqi people, spare me.. :roll:

Also, let me share some other resolutions the Americans in all their humanitarian ways Vetoed, right down to my favorite..

1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.

I guess they just kept Vetoing that one to this day huh!

From 1972-2002


The following is a list of resolutions vetoed by the USA during the period:

1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.

1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs ofstates.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.

1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.

1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.

1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.

1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.

1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.

Like I said, spare me the liberation rotuine.

sighs

You know, there is more proof that Hussein and Al Qaeda where linked. The commission is looking at new evidence.

I still support the Iraq war and always will. We got a dictator out of power and a new democratic government is taking over.

The people are happy for this. They are looking forward to it as well. Mosul has had full control for 2 MONTHS!! Other parts of the nation also have control of their cities and regions. The Iraqi Cabinet is also running their own shows without US interference.

The people are overjoyed to be free from Husseins rule. They also know why we are in Iraq. To establish security. Outside of Fallujia (sp?), the nation is somewhat stable. Yes there are still TERROR ATTACKS, but no one is flinching. Well Spain did and that gave the Terrorists a victory.

Sorry. We did have justification. UN Resolutions that the UN never decided to act upon but now a Coalition of Forces DID ACT on these RESOLUTIONS. God Bless the nations that supported us in getting rid of a Dictator.

As for stealing an election, sorry Liberal Gibberish. No election was stolen. The Constitution was crystal clear on the issue and the Supreme Court ruling reflected as such. If you want to talk about stealing, blame the Florida Supreme Court for rewriting state election laws. Something the US Supreme Court called them on too I might add.

sighs

I still support the Iraq war and always will. We got a dictator out of power and a new democratic government is taking over.

Ok, so now we know, you really don't care what the truth is or isn't, you've made up your mind the truth be damned!.. At least we now know.

It's been fun, but you'll excuse me if I don't respond to your posts any more. It has become obvious you don't care about truth, just about what you're spoon fed!

That was easy ;)

sighs

I still support the Iraq war and always will. We got a dictator out of power and a new democratic government is taking over.

Ok, so now we know, you really don't care what the truth is or isn't, you've made up your mind the truth be damned!.. At least we now know.

It's been fun, but you'll excuse me if I don't respond to your posts any more. It has become obvious you don't care about truth, just about what you're spoon fed!

That was easy ;)

If that is the way you feel fine. However, that was a false statement that you made. I do care for the truth! And the truth is that Iraq is better off without Hussein. What he did to the populace appalls me and I'm glad we went in there and kicked him out of power.

That is the only truth I looked at. I looked at what his people suffered because of him. If that isn't worth kicking him out then Shame on you. What we found brought back the horror of the Holocaust. If that didn't make you squirm then Shame on You. I filled me with rage that we waited as long as we did. That is the truth!

@Formal Dances: Does that bother you that at least 50 000 people have dies in this war?
Also are you aware Saddam's mass murder happened 13 years ago?
And are you aware the US blocked the UN from giving the green light to intervene in Rwanda, where 4 million people have died? How can the humanitarian action is Iraq have any credibility?

Steph you rule!

pwned!

@Formal Dances: Does that bother you that at least 50 000 people have dies in this war?
Also are you aware Saddam's mass murder happened 13 years ago?
And are you aware the US blocked the UN from giving the green light to intervene in Rwanda, where 4 million people have died? How can the humanitarian action is Iraq have any credibility?

Yes it bothers me on how many people died in this war. My dad lost a couple of friends in this conflict. As for his mass murders, some did happen 13 years ago and others happened after the First Gulf War, mostly after the shia uprising that we pulled support for and that really made my dad mad.

As for Rwanda, I know nothing of this. If we did block it then I condemn it wholeheartedly. I believe in trying to prevent mass murder by any means and if that means going in and taking them out, then I will support it.

As for humanitarian action in Iraq, the past resolutions were clear on this matter. If Saddam disobeyed these resolutions then he will be attacked and dethrowned. He did disobey them and the UN failed to act. We used previous resolutions to back up what we are doing. Sorry if that was unacceptable to most of you but I do firmly believe that it was time for him to go.

You may THINK that its okay to go around doing what we want around the world when we feel that it is in our best interest, but this kind of action is directly responsible for therise in terrorism against the US.

You may THINK that its okay to go around doing what we want around the world when we feel that it is in our best interest, but this kind of action is directly responsible for therise in terrorism against the US.

You may be right Gods Bowels!

As for humanitarian action in Iraq, the past resolutions were clear on this matter. If Saddam disobeyed these resolutions then he will be attacked and dethrowned. He did disobey them and the UN failed to act. We used previous resolutions to back up what we are doing. Sorry if that was unacceptable to most of you but I do firmly believe that it was time for him to go.

Ok, let's concentrate then on the people he murdered (with the help and permission of the US) and see if this course of action was the best. It certainly was time for Saddam to go... twenty years ago!!! Unfortunately the US were only too happy to have him on board as a their own personal hitman in the Middle East.

Now, the US don't want him anymore, preferring a less controversial government instead. Since Saddam wasn't going to leave voluntarely (unlike Marcos, Suharto and Duvalier who were nice little campers) the US decided to launch an invasion. The justification: Saddam is a bad person and kills too many people. Ok, let's suppose for a moment that that is a valid justification for war. (BTW: If I'm Iran and I don't like what the government in Afghanistan is doing to their people, can I invade and put my own?)

So far so good. The problem is that now you have a lot of people being killed daily, terrorist organizations running rampart all over Iraq, even more discontent in the Middle East against the US, alienation of the international community and a government that's shaky at best. People still don't enjoy the benefits of democracy and freedom and it's unknown when they will be able to enjoy them, if ever. The situation for the everyday person is hardly better than before Hussein was ousted.

Truth is the US dropped the ball in the execution of what basically was a plan with good intentions: 1. get rid of Saddam, 2. everybody is happy. They just forgot a few steps in between.

Could it have been done better? You bet. There were many ideas and discussions regarding how to get rid of Saddam or bringing in more of an international prescense into Iraq (essentially making Saddam irrelevant) without engaging in an all out war and with a ready to go plan for peace and democratization.

The only problem is that those plans would take longer to implement (i.e. beyond the election of 2004) than an invasion and the US would not have absolute power over Iraq. Both things unacceptable to the current administration.

You tell me, was the loss of life and general chaos, plus the current probable outcomes in Iraq (because this isn't finished yet) preferable to an alternative peaceful solution?

As for humanitarian action in Iraq, the past resolutions were clear on this matter. If Saddam disobeyed these resolutions then he will be attacked and dethrowned. He did disobey them and the UN failed to act. We used previous resolutions to back up what we are doing. Sorry if that was unacceptable to most of you but I do firmly believe that it was time for him to go.

Ok, let's concentrate then on the people he murdered (with the help and permission of the US) and see if this course of action was the best. It certainly was time for Saddam to go... twenty years ago!!! Unfortunately the US were only too happy to have him on board as a their own personal hitman in the Middle East.

Now, the US don't want him anymore, preferring a less controversial government instead. Since Saddam wasn't going to leave voluntarely (unlike Marcos, Suharto and Duvalier who were nice little campers) the US decided to launch an invasion. The justification: Saddam is a bad person and kills too many people. Ok, let's suppose for a moment that that is a valid justification for war. (BTW: If I'm Iran and I don't like what the government in Afghanistan is doing to their people, can I invade and put my own?)

So far so good. The problem is that now you have a lot of people being killed daily, terrorist organizations running rampart all over Iraq, even more discontent in the Middle East against the US, alienation of the international community and a government that's shaky at best. People still don't enjoy the benefits of democracy and freedom and it's unknown when they will be able to enjoy them, if ever. The situation for the everyday person is hardly better than before Hussein was ousted.

Truth is the US dropped the ball in the execution of what basically was a plan with good intentions: 1. get rid of Saddam, 2. everybody is happy. They just forgot a few steps in between.

Could it have been done better? You bet. There were many ideas and discussions regarding how to get rid of Saddam or bringing in more of an international prescense into Iraq (essentially making Saddam irrelevant) without engaging in an all out war and with a ready to go plan for peace and democratization.

The only problem is that those plans would take longer to implement (i.e. beyond the election of 2004) than an invasion and the US would not have absolute power over Iraq. Both things unacceptable to the current administration.

You tell me, was the loss of life and general chaos, plus the current probable outcomes in Iraq (because this isn't finished yet) preferable to an alternative peaceful solution?

It may not be finished and it wont be finished for awhile. As for the deaths, I will have to say no it wasn't. We did underestimate the insurgence. That has cost us and the Iraqis many lives. That I don't find preferable at all. Now I have a question for you. What peaceful alternative could we have gotten Saddam to take?

Yes it bothers me on how many people died in this war. My dad lost a couple of friends in this conflict. As for his mass murders, some did happen 13 years ago and others happened after the First Gulf War, mostly after the shia uprising that we pulled support for and that really made my dad mad.First this.
The First gulf war ended 13 years ago, in 1991.
The mass killing happened just after the end of the first gulf war, against the uprising, 13 years ago. I don't know what other mass killing you are talking about.

Was bombing Iraq just?

No.

Could it have been?

No.

As much as I don't like what Saddam was doing, the United States created the United Nations and we are a member of it. As bad as the stuff Saddam was doing is (which was only to his own people in the sense that they live inside the political [meaningless] borders of Iraq), the United Nations does not allow for Nations to make war on other Nations unless it is in self-defense or the Security Council deems that the nation to be attacked truly is a threat to the world abroad. Clearly, Saddam wasn't a threat to the world abroad, and even if you still are ignorant enough to think he was, the Security Council never thought so; Bush's war was illegal.

It may not be finished and it wont be finished for awhile. As for the deaths, I will have to say no it wasn't. We did underestimate the insurgence. That has cost us and the Iraqis many lives. That I don't find preferable at all. Now I have a question for you. What peaceful alternative could we have gotten Saddam to take?
first, give a light at the end of the tunnel. There was sanctions, which were harming the iraqi population much more than they were harming Saddam. Well actually, thye were serving Saddam.
But, there was no end in sight. The sanctions were a farce. To end it, the iraqi government had to prove it was peaceful and had no weapon. How can you prove that kind of stuff?
A good first step would have been to setup clear objectives and a timetable to end the sanctions. More political freedom would have made a good condition, but something clear cut and objectivelly achievable.
After the end of the sanctions, Saddam would have lost most of his power.

The only drawback is that the US would not have taken the control of Iraq.

[quote="Wildcratercheese"]If this is something that you actually have to debate about, I think you've been spending too much time playing around with these fake countries rather than reading up on the real world.
America had the Iraqi war planned out well before September 11th. Back in 2000, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby, all members of the conservitive Project for the New American Century (PNAC), published a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century," which called for a "new Pearl Harbor" to rally the American public into war with Iraq. Odd, isn't it?
The US had very specific intelligence regarding the 9-11 attacks-- so much that certain people knew not to fly on the 11th:

I strongly agree with you. To attack onether country in order to get better position to control natural resources in the area is certainly bad enough. But to fool whole nation to stand behind this war by telling it's a necessary act in the war against terror and because the people of Iraq had to be liberated. Whoa! Well human nature is a bit naive and people want to think positively about their leaders but enough is enough. This war has nothing to do with freedom.

It may not be finished and it wont be finished for awhile. As for the deaths, I will have to say no it wasn't. We did underestimate the insurgence. That has cost us and the Iraqis many lives. That I don't find preferable at all. Now I have a question for you. What peaceful alternative could we have gotten Saddam to take?


As I said, some ideas were passed around. These would include gradually lifting the sanctions, carry out elections under international observation, offer Saddam a gratious exit (it has been done with even worse people), and basically give more control to the UN over a transition period. Then international troops could move in to keep the peace alongside the existing Iraqi army.

This idea would have needed more thought, of course, and details would have had to work our, and it certainly wouldn't work without the US military pending like a sword of Damocles over Saddam's head. But it would have been a peaceful, far less bloody alternative. No much point now, but Sun-Tzu said that a great general is not one that wins many battles, but one that fights no battle.

It may not be finished and it wont be finished for awhile. As for the deaths, I will have to say no it wasn't. We did underestimate the insurgence. That has cost us and the Iraqis many lives. That I don't find preferable at all. Now I have a question for you. What peaceful alternative could we have gotten Saddam to take?


As I said, some ideas were passed around. These would include gradually lifting the sanctions, carry out elections under international observation, offer Saddam a gratious exit (it has been done with even worse people), and basically give more control to the UN over a transition period. Then international troops could move in to keep the peace alongside the existing Iraqi army.

This idea would have needed more thought, of course, and details would have had to work our, and it certainly wouldn't work without the US military pending like a sword of Damocles over Saddam's head. But it would have been a peaceful, far less bloody alternative. No much point now, but Sun-Tzu said that a great general is not one that wins many battles, but one that fights no battle.

You couldn't negiotate with Saddam. We've tried for twelve years to negiotate. He never followed UN Resolutions so anymore would've been a waste of time.

As for inviting a gratious exit, we did. It was a deadline. We told him that if he stepped down, we wouldn't come in. He didn't and we did.

Your right though. We did do this with other leaders but they also know how to negiotate. They've negiotiated. As for the UN, the UN has done some good but it didn't have any backbone when it came to enforcing resolutions. If they had that backbone then maybe the invasion wouldn't have happened and that Saddam would've negiotated something that would've been beneficial to both sides. WIth that, I would agree with you but until the UN gets teeth, I don't see it happening.

Please forgive me if I sound like I don't know what i'm talking about. Just going with what i've heard and read in books. This is all my opinion on the matter.

I see...
Just for a check, how old are you? And are your parents conservative? (well yes they obviously are).
Anyway, if the subject is of interest to you, I think you will find easily some informations on the internet.
If you want to know about the geopolitic involved, you should read about the colonialist era of great-britain, zionism and whahhabism. The cold war as well.

I see...
Just for a check, how old are you? And are your parents conservative? (well yes they obviously are).
Anyway, if the subject is of interest to you, I think you will find easily some informations on the internet.
If you want to know about the geopolitic involved, you should read about the colonialist era of great-britain, zionism and whahhabism. The cold war as well.

Its not polite to ask a lady her age :lol:

Thanks for the advice and I will do some research, that is when I find the time. Right now my personal life is in a tizzy and I'm trying to straighten it out!

Thanks again Psylos!

[quote=Stirner]
Ya, whatever. The 20th Century was the most violent century yet.

I don't think so, what about the epic massacars that where through intollerance, where there used to be widespread ethnic cleansing, against the weak.

Haven't you abserved how as humans evolve,the violence(human against human)is increasing.it's in our nature.