NationStates Jolt Archive

I think my sentiments over the war is Iraq is summed up in this protest warrior sign http://www.protestwarrior.com/signs.php?sign=26

I'll go for what my friends call the seinfeld explanation; before the invasion hundreds to thousands of people died every day

now, at the worst, dozens of people die every day

and even if the allegations of torture are true they are nothing on the scale of what saddam was up to and at the end of the day the torturers were sent to jail instead of being promoted

in conclusion, I couldn't care less if there are or are not any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

how about WML's weapons of mass loooove :fluffle: :fluffle:

Somebody could take that picture one of two ways.

The way you want, or it being the victims of a US Air Strike.


Incidentally, the estimate of Iraqi civillian deaths in the first year of the war and occupation is on the order of 8-10,000. Pro-rated, that ranks near what is attributed to Saddam during his tenure as leader.

You may not care if their were WMD, but that was the case presented to congress and upon which they voted to go to war. To remove an imminenet threat to America's security. If you want to use the Humanitarian reason after the fact, then this should have been made a central part of the debate that led up to the war.

Somebody could take that picture one of two ways.

The way you want, or it being the victims of a US Air Strike.


Incidentally, the estimate of Iraqi civillian deaths in the first year since the war is on the order of 8-10,000. Pro-rated, that ranks near what is attributed to Saddam during his tenure as leader.

You may not care if their were WMD, but that was the case presented to congress and upon which they voted to go to war. To remove an imminenet threat to America's security. If you want to use the Humanitarian reason after the fact, then this should have been made a central part of the debate that led up to the war.

maybe I got that statistic wrong

are you saying saddam killed 8-10,000 people a year or in his entire leadership preiod?

yeah i think for the average iraqi, the invasion vs. saddam is a dead heat. if things inprove it will have been worth it for them, if they degenerate or stay the same nostalgia for the good old days of uncle saddam may become a real factor.

maybe I got that statistic wrong

are you saying saddam killed 8-10,000 people a year or in his entire leadership preiod?
"during his tenure as a leader" He means his whole leadership period.

maybe I got that statistic wrong

are you saying saddam killed 8-10,000 people a year or in his entire leadership preiod?


per year over about what 25 or 30 i can't quite remember

What happened to;

"No because there were no WMD or international terrorist ties"

No bias in this poll :rolleyes:

"during his tenure as a leader" He means his whole leadership period.
yeah but pro rated for the period of time of the occupation vs. the saddam regime.

"during his tenure as a leader" He means his whole leadership period.

just checking

cause 8-10,000 a year for saddam would be a very conservitive realistic eastimate

but for his whole life would be crap

maybe I got that statistic wrong

are you saying saddam killed 8-10,000 people a year or in his entire leadership preiod?

I am talking pro-rated yearly numbers. The high end estimates do tend towards that range. He was in power for 30 years and people often talk about numbers like 300,000 deaths. Frankly, I think it is often overstated and includes questionable statistics such as those Kurdish seperatists who fought alongside the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. In general, the number of mass graves found has not met with those promised or expected. Some do exist, and I do not deny that Saddam dealt with dissenting groups brutally, however the numbers that became generally accepted regarding Kurdistan largely came from the same group of ex-patriot missinformation specialists that gave the intel on mobie WMD labs and the like.

yeah i think for the average iraqi, the invasion vs. saddam is a dead heat. if things inprove it will have been worth it for them, if they degenerate or stay the same nostalgia for the good old days of uncle saddam may become a real factor.

just in bagdad

electrical production is up 100% for the rest of the country and you don't have to worry about being tourtured/raped/maimed/killed at random (save for the terrorists, but we're working on those)

I am talking pro-rated yearly numbers. The high end estimates do tend towards that range. He was in power for 30 years and people often talk about numbers like 300,000 deaths. Frankly, I think it is often overstated and includes questionable statistics such as those Kurdish seperatists who fought alongside the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. In general, the number of mass graves found has not met with those promised or expected. Some do exist, and I do not deny that Saddam dealt with dissenting groups brutally, however the numbers that became generally accepted regarding Kurdistan largely came from the same group of ex-patriot missinformation specialists that gave the intel on mobie WMD labs and the like.

so then your only talking about civilian deaths directly atributable to saddam's hand

so then your only talking about civilian deaths directly atributable to saddam's hand

What? you want me to comment on the Iran-Iraq war too? and count casualties on both sides?

Perhaps YOU should indicate what numbers you feel are reasonable rather than just getting into your favourite hobby of nitpicking sentances to death for possible semantic interpretations.

What? you want me to comment on the Iran-Iraq war too? and count casualties on both sides?

Perhaps YOU should indicate what numbers you feel are reasonable rather than just getting into your favourite hobby of nitpicking sentances to death for possible semantic interpretations.

if your only talking about civilian deaths directly conributed to saddams hand then you would have to apply the same standards to the deaths caused by coalition forces

at that point the body count drops to about 6

if your only talking about civilian deaths directly conributed to saddams hand then you would have to apply the same standards to the deaths caused by coalition forces

at that point the body count drops to about 6

You must just be talking about Abu Ghraib then....

Look, I do not deny that Saddam was a tyrant. I do not mourn his passing from power.

I just disagree that this war was needed, I especially disagree that this war did anything to further the war against global terrorism which was the rational given, I think this administration made a lot of mistakes in planning the aftermath that have furthered the misery of the average IRaqi, and I am still not convinced that it won't wind up devolving into a bloody civil war shortly after the US pulls out - which will not exctly have helped either.


I hope that the end result, despite my opposition to this effort, works out that it will have made a positive diference in the lives of IRaqi's and the rest of us.

But I have low expectations that this is how it all works out.

You must just be talking about Abu Ghraib then....

Look, I do not deny that Saddam was a tyrant. I do not mourn his passing from power.

I just disagree that this war was needed, I especially disagree that this war did anything to further the war against global terrorism which was the rational given, I think this administration made a lot of mistakes in planning the aftermath that have furthered the misery of the average IRaqi, and I am still not convinced that it won't wind up devolving into a bloody civil war shortly after the US pulls out - which will not exctly have helped either.


I hope that the end result, despite my opposition to this effort, works out that it will have made a positive diference in the lives of IRaqi's and the rest of us.

But I have low expectations that this is how it all works out.

no, I'm talking about all of Iraq

I want situations where coalition soldiers walked up to unarmmed civilians and without any provocation killed them

not civilians that died in an air stike (since they were left out of the saddam stat.s) and not civilians that were shot in firefights (since they too were left out of the saddam stat.s) and not civilians that tried to drive cars through checkpoints

no, I'm talking about all of Iraq

I want situations where coalition soldiers walked up to unarmmed civilians and without any provocation killed them

not civilians that died in an air stike (since they were left out of the saddam stat.s) and not civilians that were shot in firefights (since they too were left out of the saddam stat.s) and not civilians that tried to drive cars through checkpoints

Actually, the bulk of Saddams stats are also made up of people who were bombed. LArgely in putting down the Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions. The number of people who have been attributed to somebody just walking up and just shooting "without provocation" as you contend is not terribly high.


At any rate - I am out of here. Any further lack of response is due to my absence rather than a lack of desire to comment further.

Actually, the bulk of Saddams stats are also made up of people who were bombed. LArgely in putting down the Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions. The number of people who have been attributed to somebody just walking up and just shooting "without provocation" as you contend is not terribly high.


At any rate - I am out of here. Any further lack of response is due to my absence rather than a lack of desire to comment further.

the crowd goes wild and tom walks away with the trophy

actually the bulk of the 300,000 number comes from mass graves where innocent men women and children were lined up in front of holes in the desert and shot in the back of the neck KGB style

if we counted the ones who died in those bombings the stat.s would be a lot higher

in conclution, I win

I think my sentiments over the war is Iraq is summed up in this protest warrior sign http://www.protestwarrior.com/signs.php?sign=26

I'll go for what my friends call the seinfeld explanation; before the invasion hundreds to thousands of people died every day

now, at the worst, dozens of people die every day

and even if the allegations of torture are true they are nothing on the scale of what saddam was up to and at the end of the day the torturers were sent to jail instead of being promoted

in conclusion, I couldn't care less if there are or are not any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

I've been over this with some clown who kept restating his discredited opinion. Then brought up Ayn Rand. I proceeded to taunt him Vigorously.
Hundereds were not murdered everyday. Hundereds may have died due to the sanctions and old age and accidents and all that. (Stay outta the hospitals in Basra, America has a lot to answer for there in its use of depleted uranium as munitions) But the point is in his later years with his land broken, saddam proceeded to lapse into a more passive state of corruption other than active oppression. There were not hundereds of people being murderd every day. Averaged out yes, but averages are irrelivant. The idea behind invading a country to stop terrible oppression is not to avenge past wrongs but to stop future ones. Current ones. Thats how it worked in Kosovo. But iraq was past its prime. All the trouble makers had been executed, or left the country. Everyone else had just decided to get along with the government as best they could.

Iraq is a big place and you could hide the WMD in a hole under the sand easily. And they could have been shipped to Syria or Libya easily, so its stupid to say there are none Saddam Hussein had 10 years to hide the weapons and we have only been in control of Iraq for somewhere around a year.

Iraq is a big place and you could hide the WMD in a hole under the sand easily. And they could have been shipped to Syria or Libya easily, so its stupid to say there are none Saddam Hussein had 10 years to hide the weapons and we have only been in control of Iraq for somewhere around a year.

If Saddam wanted to use the weapons against the US, it'd be stupid to bury them.

If he wanted to hide them, he only had a year or so from when we started accusing Iraq (incorrectly) of Al-Quaeda links and (probably incorrectly) of WMDs to hide them. If he had anything worthwhile, it'd have taken longer to bury it than a year, especially since our satellites were looking exactly for that.

Not that he was a benevolent ruler, but our reasons were false. That said, it's a _little_ bit better over there in the quasi-chaos than under Saddam's governance, but it was still "illegal". That said, it'll probably be eventually much better off if we don't pull out and let a new regime take over.

What happened to;

"No because there were no WMD or international terrorist ties"

No bias in this poll :rolleyes:

I agree with you Steph. Biased polls tend to end up with biased results.

you know, the polacks found chemical weapons in iraq...

look at it this way...we(the US) got rid of a sadistic dictator, freeing the Iraquis...Thats good enough for me

I believe the war was justified whether there were/are WMD or any terror links to whoever.

I thought that Iraq had active WMDs; and I never truly believed Al-Qaeda had some type of ties with Saddam directly. Global terror ties with people like Abu Nidal and the Palestinian groups I knew and were never really hidden. The fact that there have been no WMDs found doesn't temper by belief it was a good idea.

In my eyes, the war was justified simply on the grounds that Iraq violated the terms of the ceasefire. That was enough for me. The fact that he was a Soviet/Stalin admiring dictactor just added some extra reason to invade. When I see people state things like the war was illegal I just roll my eyes. They have zero clue what they are talking about. War is neither legal nor illegal, nor does the U.N. somehow endow a war with any legality. Just vs unjust; now that can be argued. But legality is a ridiculous concept.

Iraq also organised the assassination of Shlomo Argov, Israeli ambassador to England, in 1982. Iraq was losing badly against Iran and Saddam hoped that by killing Argov he could force Menachem Begin to invade Lebanon to clear out the PLO. The Israelis had said that any terrorist act would force them to invade Lebanon which they did.

Saddam also had former PM Abd al-Razzq Sa'id al-Nayif assassinated in London. The Abu Abbas hijackers of Achille Lauro were given sanctuary in Baghdad. The 1985 terrorist attack in Rome was done by two men who had return tickets to Baghdad. The PLO was given operational sanctuary in Baghdad in 1985. Saddam tried also to shake things up in 1990-92 by calling on all Muslims to commit terrorist acts against the West through Baghdad Radio. Nothing happened, but not for lack of trying, his own security organisations also attempted some things but lacked the ability to get antyhing started. One of the men involved in the 1993 World Trade Center attacks in 1993 was Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi American who later fled to Iraq. This 1993 incident had no ties with Saddam (i.e. he didn't order them), but harbored someone who took active part in it.Iraq also supported the PKK in Turkey in the 1970's. It also supported the Mujahedin-e Khalq(MEK) in Iran. Saddam also ordered his security agencies to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 on his visit to Kuwait.(All of this information is from Kenneth Pollack's books on Iraq and Saddam)

While one may say that Saddam did not have close ties to Al-Qaeda he did keep a very interesting assortment of people in Iraq as well as having his hands in several regional terrorist acts.

For those reasons I believe the war was justified.

Iraq is a big place and you could hide the WMD in a hole under the sand easily. And they could have been shipped to Syria or Libya easily, so its stupid to say there are none Saddam Hussein had 10 years to hide the weapons and we have only been in control of Iraq for somewhere around a year.

EVERYONE keeps missing some main points in this WMD theory.

MOST of Iraq's WMD were destroyed by UN inspectors before the US invasion.

During the Gulf War, Iraq used a few Scud missles, but did not employ any WMD against coalition forces.

The UN inspectors were told to GET OUT of Iraq by the US prior to the US invasion. The UN inspectors were NOT finding ANY WMD, and were given access to ANY area of Iraq that they wanted to investigate, including Saddam's palaces.

The burning question is WHY didn't the US listen to her traditional allies and allow the inspections to continue?

I am talking pro-rated yearly numbers. The high end estimates do tend towards that range. He was in power for 30 years and people often talk about numbers like 300,000 deaths. Frankly, I think it is often overstated and includes questionable statistics such as those Kurdish seperatists who fought alongside the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. In general, the number of mass graves found has not met with those promised or expected. Some do exist, and I do not deny that Saddam dealt with dissenting groups brutally, however the numbers that became generally accepted regarding Kurdistan largely came from the same group of ex-patriot missinformation specialists that gave the intel on mobie WMD labs and the like.

Saddam Hussein killed two million people during his leadership of Iraq. This includes the Iraq-Iran War....give me a minute and I'll find the link....

Me!

WMDs were found within the past month so ha!

WMDs were found within the past month so ha!

What? You mean a couple of old rusted shells from the Gulf War?

The burning question is WHY didn't the US listen to her traditional allies and allow the inspections to continue?Simple answer--and I'm sure you already know this; I'm just providing it for the less questioning present--is that Bush wanted this war against this enemy. He'd been planning an Iraq invasion since before 9/11/2001--he'd been planning since his inauguration and perhaps before then. It didn't matter what the inspectors found or didn't find--we were invading--end of story.

We invaded when we did because it was becoming clear to the world--and to Americans, slowly but surely despite the efforts of the corporate media to hide the fact--that the inspectors weren't finding anything and weren't likely to. If Bush had delayed even another month, it was possible that Blair wouldn't have backed us and that public opinion would be so firmly against it that he couldn't make the move.

What? You mean a couple of old rusted shells from the Gulf War?
I agree.

The US has more Mustard Gas than that by several orders of magnitude in just a single one of its storage facilities (specifically, Anniston Chemical Acticity in Alabama, according to FAS)... if Mustard Gas and Sarin in some forgotten old shells are WMD, the US better watch out for being liberated. :)

What? You mean a couple of old rusted shells from the Gulf War?

By rusted old shells, I persume you mean the twenty plus artillary rounds we've found that were filled with sarin, cylcosarin, and mustard gas -- three forms of WMD. Sarin and cylcosarin have a shelf-life of over forty years. It doesn't matter how old they were, they were still WMDs. Saddam was supposed to account for ALL of his weapons of mass destruction, according to the UN regulations. Obviously, he did not....

Me!

By rusted old shells, I persume you mean the twenty plus artillary rounds we've found that were filled with sarin, cylcosarin, and mustard gas -- three forms of WMD. Sarin and cylcosarin have a shelf-life of over forty years. It doesn't matter how old they were, they were still WMDs. Saddam was supposed to account for ALL of his weapons of mass destruction, according to the UN regulations. Obviously, he did not....

Me!

Small amounts of Sarin and Cyanide are NOT WMDs in the sense that the US was hunting for. They are Chemical Agents, and not the vast quantity of Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons Bush promised us that Saddam had. And if we're going after him for losing a few chemical weapons, why not liberate Russia, who has lost over 40 Suitcase Nukes since the collapse of the Soviet Union?

and

Bush was supposed to stop the invasion of Iraq before it began, according to the UN regulations. Obviously, he did not....

By rusted old shells, I persume you mean the twenty plus artillary rounds we've found that were filled with sarin, cylcosarin, and mustard gas -- three forms of WMD. Sarin and cylcosarin have a shelf-life of over forty years. It doesn't matter how old they were, they were still WMDs. Saddam was supposed to account for ALL of his weapons of mass destruction, according to the UN regulations. Obviously, he did not....

Me!

The US kicked the UN inspectors out. Do you have a source for your claim?

The US kicked the UN inspectors out. Do you have a source for your claim?

Wrong.

UNSCOM was kicked out by Iraq in 1998. They were allowed to return in the same year then UNSCOM ended the mission stating that Iraq was not cooperating. Previously they had been denied access to sites in 1996 and 1997, somtimes they were set to leave when Iraq changed its mind.

In 1999, the U.N. created UNMOVIC headed by Blix. They only start in August, 2002.

The US kicked the UN inspectors out. Do you have a source for your claim?

Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998. And a source for what claim? The statistic of the 2 million deaths? If so, it's right here: http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.htm

Me!

Wrong.

UNSCOM was kicked out by Iraq in 1998. They were allowed to return in the same year then UNSCOM ended the mission stating that Iraq was not cooperating. Previously they had been denied access to sites in 1996 and 1997, somtimes they were set to leave when Iraq changed its mind.

In 1999, the U.N. created UNMOVIC headed by Blix. They only start in August, 2002.

Ok then, Bush ordered UNMOVIC headed by Blix to get out of Iraq in 2003, before the US attacked. The fact remains that they were inspecting for the UN and were making great headway.

WHY did Bush order them out? Don't evade the question.

the crowd goes wild and tom walks away with the trophy

actually the bulk of the 300,000 number comes from mass graves where innocent men women and children were lined up in front of holes in the desert and shot in the back of the neck KGB style

if we counted the ones who died in those bombings the stat.s would be a lot higher

in conclution, I win

Sorry that my family comes before a message board.

And too bad the facts thus far don't support your assertion.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html

Not that any number is a good number, but you see - much of those inflated execution claims also came via that fountain of useless info - Chalabi.


In conclusion - nice attempt, but please try again.

-Z-

I've been over this with some clown who kept restating his discredited opinion. Then brought up Ayn Rand. I proceeded to taunt him Vigorously.
Hundereds were not murdered everyday. Hundereds may have died due to the sanctions and old age and accidents and all that. (Stay outta the hospitals in Basra, America has a lot to answer for there in its use of depleted uranium as munitions) But the point is in his later years with his land broken, saddam proceeded to lapse into a more passive state of corruption other than active oppression. There were not hundereds of people being murderd every day. Averaged out yes, but averages are irrelivant. The idea behind invading a country to stop terrible oppression is not to avenge past wrongs but to stop future ones. Current ones. Thats how it worked in Kosovo. But iraq was past its prime. All the trouble makers had been executed, or left the country. Everyone else had just decided to get along with the government as best they could.

all the trouble makers had left the country? yes damn those pro-democracy leaders, stirring up trouble for saddam. they totaly deserved to have a video where every member of their family was raped sent to their prison cell

#1 - I could have sworn there was some sort of a program set up durring the sanctions to make sure iraqis had vital non-military supplies. something about food for oil, or something like that. but I know the UN would never let us down and saddam's word is as good as gold so it had to be the American military who was responsable for the sortages in iraq

#2 - you sound like the typical back yard racist coming trying to argue about wether or not the number of people dying a day was decreacing. THERE WERE STILL PEOPLE DYING!!! INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS WHOSE LIVES WE COULD HAVE EASILY SAVED, AND PROBOBLY WOULD HAVE IF THEY WERE WHITE

#3 - on the DU, unless those pacients in the basra hospital were sitting inside a tank they don't have radiation posioning. maimings and forced amputations from saddam and his thugs are big medical concerns down there, but radiation isn't

#4 - as per concentraighting on current situations it may surprise you that the greatest military force in the history of man-kind can walk and chew gum at the same time. we can occupy iraq and still fight several more wars without calling a draft if we have to

Ok then, Bush ordered UNMOVIC headed by Blix to get out of Iraq in 2003, before the US attacked. The fact remains that they were inspecting for the UN and were making great headway.

WHY did Bush order them out? Don't evade the question.

I wasn't answering the original question. I believe Colerica was.

Bush didn't order them out. They left after the U.N. ordered them out for safety reasons. Now you've said they were making "great headway", prove it; sources please.

Bush didn't order anyone out. The U.N. did, you don't want people working for you in a hotzone.

Actually, here is a good selection of news clips from '98

http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/unabs.htm

Saddam stopped cooperating because he claimed that certain members of the team were spying, and indeed UNSCOM wound up removing one member for using a camera against policies.

Saddam also insisted that sanctione be lifted in accordance with the treaty he had signed that started this whole process. As you may recall it called for phased reductions in sanctions tied to disarmament. By '98 huge levels of disarmament had occured with no reductions ever made.

Saddam was justifiable in insisting that the other side also live up to the treaty was he not?


But it clearly shows the news report where the UN pulled the teams out.

-Z-

Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998

The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning

--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98/

you know, the polacks found chemical weapons in iraq...

yes, but those don't count in liberal's eyes becasue they validate GW's reason for war

so despite the fact that they are chemical wepons and saddam was in clear violation of SC resolution 1441 and America was legaly obligated to act...

...iraq still has no WMDs ;)

Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998. And a source for what claim? The statistic of the 2 million deaths? If so, it's right here: http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.htm

Me!

A source for your claim about finding the following WMD:

"twenty plus artillary rounds we've found that were filled with sarin, cylcosarin, and mustard gas -- three forms of WMD. Sarin and cylcosarin have a shelf-life of over forty years. It doesn't matter how old they were, they were still WMDs"


http://www.rightsided.org/2004/05/shelf-life-of-sarin-speculating-about.html

In the 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush stated that Iraq had 500 tons of sarin. This sarin was manufactured in 1990 or 1991. The shelf life of this sarin is approximately 2 months, according to Peter Zimmerman, former Chief Scientist of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He says that weapons inspectors and analysts confirmed this, and that there was no way the Bush administration could not know it. Bush spoke of 38,000 liters of anthrax. Anthrax has a shelf life of 3 years. According to Scott Ritter, the last known anthrax production in Iraq was 1991.

Now who is correct, you or the experts?

Indeedy. And it should be noted that was has been found were not new but throwbacks to before the gulf war. They have found chemical weapons but not not biological ones which anyone would have to deem to be a much greater threat since one can be used to make others. Chemical wepons dont really belong, they just get heaped in there imported from the previous and for more applicable term "unconventional weponary"

The burning question is WHY didn't the US listen to her traditional allies and allow the inspections to continue?

if by traditional you mean the ones that have a tradition stabing us in the back and then running to us when they need help, we kicked them out of the club

we are with our traditional allies; the UK, Australia, New zealand, Poland, Norway, and to some extent Italy

yes, but those don't count in liberal's eyes becasue they validate GW's reason for war

so despite the fact that they are chemical wepons and saddam was in clear violation of SC resolution 1441 and America was legaly obligated to act...

...iraq still has no WMDs ;)

You also realize that the Sarin had a shelf life of 2 months? It was left over from the Iran/Iraq war? Probably not safe to drink, but certainly not WMD.

Further, no where does 1441 say that if Saddam failed to comply that "invasion" was the next step, nor did it authorize it.

Spin, spin, spin!

What? You mean a couple of old rusted shells from the Gulf War?

those still constitute WMDs and grounds for war

so do the roland III missiles that france sold saddam illegaly

I agree.

The US has more Mustard Gas than that by several orders of magnitude in just a single one of its storage facilities (specifically, Anniston Chemical Acticity in Alabama, according to FAS)... if Mustard Gas and Sarin in some forgotten old shells are WMD, the US better watch out for being liberated. :)

but we never signed and international treaty that said we wouldn't have them

and there isn't a UN SC resolution that says if we are ever found in the posetion of these things it is the duty of every SC member (funny how france and russia forgot about that one) to subdue us for the good of the world

those still constitute WMDs and grounds for war

so do the roland III missiles that france sold saddam illegaly

All of your strawman arguments, you have yet to show how ANY of this was a threat to the United States, which was the claim of the president, the sec. of Defense, Condi Rice.. etc..etc..etc..

those still constitute WMDs and grounds for war

so do the roland III missiles that france sold saddam illegaly

No, they don't.

Roland III- Source?

And if France sold Saddam WMDs, why hasn't Bush invaded at the start- France- instead of the end- Iraq?

Ok then, Bush ordered UNMOVIC headed by Blix to get out of Iraq in 2003, before the US attacked. The fact remains that they were inspecting for the UN and were making great headway.

WHY did Bush order them out? Don't evade the question.

they were making great head way

they toured the mass graves, the rape rooms, the tourture chambers, saw a few executions, a few maimings, some forced amputations to top it off

but no large scale WMD's

some how I don't care

but we never signed and international treaty that said we wouldn't have them

Yet, you did sign international treaties that made the invasion illegal.. funny how we like to pick and choose treaties.. would it matter if you did sign them? It's not like you're following the ones you signed any way.. :rolleyes:

yes, but those don't count in liberal's eyes becasue they validate GW's reason for war

so despite the fact that they are chemical wepons and saddam was in clear violation of SC resolution 1441 and America was legaly obligated to act...

...iraq still has no WMDs ;)


Ahh yes, 20 old artillery shells found in the back of an old storage facility from a war 15 years ago indicates a clear intent to hide WMD, and also a clear threat to the US...

:headbang:

You know, they still turn up old ordinance all over Europe from WWI and WWII that got missed and forgoten. If you honestly think that these shells show a material breach - ie a deliberate withholding of weapons, then you are the one grasping at straws.

Sorry that my family comes before a message board.

And too bad the facts thus far don't support your assertion.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html

Not that any number is a good number, but you see - much of those inflated execution claims also came via that fountain of useless info - Chalabi.


In conclusion - nice attempt, but please try again.

-Z-

1 - that is still well under the number killed by coalition soldiers

2 - 5,000 civilians the first time saddam used chemical wepons on his one people, and more than 80% of those graves havn't been looked at

1 - that is still well under the number killed by coalition soldiers


At the current rate, it won't be in a decade.

And Saddam took three to get his numbers...

Personally I'm done debating this dude, he doesn't respond to me any way.. guess I win by his logic..

*yawn* tired old already disproved arguments do get a little boring... suck some one else in, I'm done.

All of your strawman arguments, you have yet to show how ANY of this was a threat to the United States, which was the claim of the president, the sec. of Defense, Condi Rice.. etc..etc..etc..

it wasn't a threat to the US, and I don't care

but it was grounds for war

Actually, here is a good selection of news clips from '98

http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/unabs.htm

Saddam stopped cooperating because he claimed that certain members of the team were spying, and indeed UNSCOM wound up removing one member for using a camera against policies.

Saddam also insisted that sanctione be lifted in accordance with the treaty he had signed that started this whole process. As you may recall it called for phased reductions in sanctions tied to disarmament. By '98 huge levels of disarmament had occured with no reductions ever made.

Saddam was justifiable in insisting that the other side also live up to the treaty was he not?


But it clearly shows the news report where the UN pulled the teams out.

-Z-

Very quick on the edit button Zepp. Though I did get the original thing you wrote:

Bull!

Saddam never kicked the inspectors out. Butler - the leader - pulled them out on UN orders.

http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-myths.html

Here are the sources I used for my information:

Guardian Unlimited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0%2C12438%2C793802%2C00.html

BBC News, UK edition
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0%2C12438%2C793802%2C00.html

Info Please
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline1.html#1980

Now I wasn't commenting on the validity of whatever Saddam was doing simply on who kicked whose arse out first. As far back as 1997, American members of the team were expelled.

Yet, you did sign international treaties that made the invasion illegal.. funny how we like to pick and choose treaties.. would it matter if you did sign them? It's not like you're following the ones you signed any way.. :rolleyes:

What treaty would that be?

if by traditional you mean the ones that have a tradition stabing us in the back and then running to us when they need help, we kicked them out of the club

we are with our traditional allies; the UK, Australia, New zealand, Poland, Norway, and to some extent Italy

NEW ZEALAND? New Zealand doesnt even have an Airforce. Europe is America traditional allies. Poland, norway? They are in europe. They dont backstb, they simply speak their mind and persue their own interests. Like all allies do, and as America does. Its was in their interests to ally in the first place.

No, they don't.

Roland III- Source?

And if France sold Saddam WMDs, why hasn't Bush invaded at the start- France- instead of the end- Iraq?

source - time magazine, I read it while I was researching to be france (the irony) at a MUN cofference that took place inside the UN (that place gave me the creeps)

and france wasn't the only violater, russia sold iraq military equipment (nightvision goggles) that it wasnt supposed to have and china sold it due use chemicals which were probobly just used as fertalizers but were still a breach of international law

Yet, you did sign international treaties that made the invasion illegal.. funny how we like to pick and choose treaties.. would it matter if you did sign them? It's not like you're following the ones you signed any way.. :rolleyes:

treaties like................?

Ahh yes, 20 old artillery shells found in the back of an old storage facility from a war 15 years ago indicates a clear intent to hide WMD, and also a clear threat to the US...

:headbang:

You know, they still turn up old ordinance all over Europe from WWI and WWII that got missed and forgoten. If you honestly think that these shells show a material breach - ie a deliberate withholding of weapons, then you are the one grasping at straws.

old allied ordinence that didn't explode, this stuff was never fired and still usable

At the current rate, it won't be in a decade.

And Saddam took three to get his numbers...

how many innocent civilians in iraq have we killed that were not accedentialy shot cause they were in the middle of military opperations?

source - time magazine, I read it while I was researching to be france (the irony) at a MUN cofference that took place inside the UN (that place gave me the creeps)

and france wasn't the only violater, russia sold iraq military equipment (nightvision goggles) that it wasnt supposed to have and china sold it due use chemicals which were probobly just used as fertalizers but were still a breach of international law

Unsubstantiated. Cite.

So why aren't we declaring war on Russia and China right now, like we did with Iraq, who didn't even have Chemical weapons that we've found?

NEW ZEALAND? New Zealand doesnt even have an Airforce. Europe is America traditional allies. Poland, norway? They are in europe. They dont backstb, they simply speak their mind and persue their own interests. Like all allies do, and as America does. Its was in their interests to ally in the first place.

hunney, Poland and Norway are in the war

I wasn't answering the original question. I believe Colerica was.

Bush didn't order them out. They left after the U.N. ordered them out for safety reasons. Now you've said they were making "great headway", prove it; sources please.

Bush didn't order anyone out. The U.N. did, you don't want people working for you in a hotzone.

Come now, you are toying with the facts. The UN ordered the inspectors out because Bush warned that the US was going to attack Iraq.

Although Blix was somewhat miffed by the gentle distractions of Saddam, he was convinced that with an all out effeort, the inspectors would be able to complete their assignment but it would take months not days. I believe his guesstimate was in the 3 to 6 month range. Bush would have none of that, despite the urgings of France, China, Russia, and Germany to mention a few, to allow the inspections to continue and if necessary, increase inspectors.

Unsubstantiated. Cite.

So why aren't we declaring war on Russia and China right now, like we did with Iraq, who didn't even have Chemical weapons that we've found?

because france isn't murdering hudreds of thousands of innocent civilians

saddam was, so we went to war with him for frivilous (but legal) reasons

and in the end of the day it was a good thing

Come now, you are toying with the facts. The UN ordered the inspectors out because Bush warned that the US was going to attack Iraq.

Although Blix was somewhat miffed by the gentle distractions of Saddam, he was convinced that with an all out effeort, the inspectors would be able to complete their assignment but it would take months not days. I believe his guesstimate was in the 3 to 6 month range. Bush would have none of that, despite the urgings of France, China, Russia, and Germany to mention a few, to allow the inspections to continue and if necessary, increase inspectors.

they had months

and they didnt find the botchulitum, the sarin, the gas or the roland III's

go UN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

your competant when you want to be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

how many innocent civilians in iraq have we killed that were not accedentialy shot cause they were in the middle of military opperations?

uhhh, whats that got to do with it. The whole country is a military opperation.

Come now, you are toying with the facts. The UN ordered the inspectors out because Bush warned that the US was going to attack Iraq.

Although Blix was somewhat miffed by the gentle distractions of Saddam, he was convinced that with an all out effeort, the inspectors would be able to complete their assignment but it would take months not days. I believe his guesstimate was in the 3 to 6 month range. Bush would have none of that, despite the urgings of France, China, Russia, and Germany to mention a few, to allow the inspections to continue and if necessary, increase inspectors.

Toying with the facts? The U.N. ordered them out because they believed the risk of war was too high.

Why would Blix have done a better job where Butler had met only stonewalling? Another point, had the invasion been postponed 3-4 weeks then the window of opportunity would have closed. The daytime and nightime heat would have made a mechanized invasion impossible. For anyone whose had to ride in uniform, with kevlar in an APC its hell and impossible to be effective.

Well, I'll just end with a quote from the trials that the US used to prosecute the offenders at Nurmburg at the end of WWII.

"The Tribunal now turns to the consideration of the Crimes against Peace charged in the Indictment. Count One of the Indictment charges the defendants with conspiring or having a common plan to commit crimes against peace. Count Two of the Indictment charges the defendants with committing specific crimes against peace by planning, preparing, initiating, and waging wars of aggression against a number of other states. It will be convenient to consider the question of the existence of a common plan and the question of aggressive war together, and to deal later in this Judgment with the question of the individual responsibility of the defendants.

The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."


Congratulations America, by the legal precedent set down just a few decades ago in the description of your own convictions, your leaders are war criminals.

-Z-

because france isn't murdering hudreds of thousands of innocent civilians

saddam was, so we went to war with him for frivilous (but legal) reasons

and in the end of the day it was a good thing

Even though by now we've killed 4 times the number of Civilians so far confirmed dead by Saddam, and just over 1/4 the number of Civilians claimed dead by Saddam? In just 3 years, whereas that is over Saddam's 30?

uhhh, whats that got to do with it. The whole country is a military opperation.


ask the people saddam put in mass graves

dumbass

hunney, Poland and Norway are in the war
So Is Australia and I believe new Zealand. But they arent traditionaly thought of as major military forces. My point is All of europe are Americas traditional allies, you cant erase that history when it suits your rhetoric. Or to put it another way, you can.

Those countries and even to an extent the UK are simply there to make the list of coalition partners look longer. Japan does the same thing with its Whaling lobbying. No country comes close to matching the commitment of the U.S.

Even though by now we've killed 4 times the number of Civilians so far confirmed dead by Saddam, and just over 1/4 the number of Civilians claimed dead by Saddam? In just 3 years, whereas that is over Saddam's 30?

who the hell are you

4 times

can I see a credebla source?

dumbass

Knock off the flaming! Consider yourself warned. Don't do it again!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

ask the people saddam put in mass graves

dumbass

I was a bit bewildered by this at irst. Then I smiled.

So Is Australia and I believe new Zealand. But they arent traditionaly thought of as major military forces. My point is All of europe are Americas traditional allies, you cant erase that history when it suits your rhetoric. Or to put it another way, you can.

Those countries and even to an extent the UK are simply there to make the list of coalition partners look longer. Japan does the same thing with its Whaling lobbying. No country comes close to matching the commitment of the U.S.

hunney, they are our traditional military allies, and a hell of alot more than france and germany ever were (since when was germany our "traditional ally" I like the people, but traditionaly we've been killing them)

and the reason we have more people in iraq is becasue we are a bigger nation

we're 7 times the size of the UK (population wise, and even bigger land mass wise)

it would only stand to reason we'd have more troops in there

Toying with the facts? The U.N. ordered them out because they believed the risk of war was too high.

Why would Blix have done a better job where Butler had met only stonewalling? Another point, had the invasion been postponed 3-4 weeks then the window of opportunity would have closed. The daytime and nightime heat would have made a mechanized invasion impossible. For anyone whose had to ride in uniform, with kevlar in an APC its hell and impossible to be effective.

This so called "window of opportunity" is yet another cleverly devised deception to force the invasion of Iraq. How long has the US been in Iraq now (Mar. 2003 to July 2004)?

Do you believe that if this so called "window of opportunity" had closed that Iraq was going to launch an imminent attack against the US?

Erm, slight calculation error- I was off by almost an order of magnitude. :headbang:

Number of people confirmed killed by Saddam's government, as admitted by Britain- 25,000+
Iraqi Body Count's Civilian Deaths- 11252-13213
Claimed by Bush and Co.- 400,000+

Corrections-
Already killed- 1/2 the confirmed kills of Saddam's 30 years in over a year, 1/40th the number killed as claimed by Bush in a year.

Total- in 29 more years, we'll have at this rate 337560-369390. Almost as much as Bush claims, and 12 times more than the confimed so far.

hunney, they are our traditional military allies, and a hell of alot more than france and germany ever were

Here is the last thing I'm saying tonight, then I'm going to bed..

Here's a freaking clue Schrandtopia, NATO!

No flaming.. good night!~

Erm, slight calculation error- I was off by almost an order of magnitude. :headbang:

Number of people confirmed killed by Saddam's government, as admitted by Britain- 25,000+
Iraqi Body Count's Civilian Deaths- 11252-13213
Claimed by Bush and Co.- 400,000+

Corrections-
Already killed- 1/2 the confirmed kills of Saddam's 30 years in over a year, 1/40th the number killed as claimed by Bush in a year.

Total- in 29 more years, we'll have at this rate 337560-369390. Almost as much as Bush claims, and 12 times more than the confimed so far.

those are the counts from the known mass graves, what about the ones that were bombed, put in other graves, boddies returned to their families or dissapeared

and thats not to count the rapes, maining, forced amputation and tourter

Here is the last thing I'm saying tonight, then I'm going to bed..

Here's a freaking clue Schrandtopia, NATO!

No flaming.. good night!~

us and Australia go back 31 years before NATO

Well, I'll just end with a quote from the trials that the US used to prosecute the offenders at Nurmburg at the end of WWII.

"The Tribunal now turns to the consideration of the Crimes against Peace charged in the Indictment. Count One of the Indictment charges the defendants with conspiring or having a common plan to commit crimes against peace. Count Two of the Indictment charges the defendants with committing specific crimes against peace by planning, preparing, initiating, and waging wars of aggression against a number of other states. It will be convenient to consider the question of the existence of a common plan and the question of aggressive war together, and to deal later in this Judgment with the question of the individual responsibility of the defendants.

The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."


Congratulations America, by the legal precedent set down just a few decades ago in the description of your own convictions, your leaders are war criminals.

-Z-

By that interpretation, Canada is guilty of participating in the commitment of war crimes during WW2, Korea and Bosnia.

Nuremberg was a victors trial. It is not a treaty.

Stephistan said that the U.S. signed a treaty prohibiting them from invading another state. Some of us wish to know the name of the treaty.

hunney, they are our traditional military allies, and a hell of alot more than france and germany ever were (since when was germany our "traditional ally" I like the people, but traditionaly we've been killing them)

and the reason we have more people in iraq is becasue we are a bigger nation

we're 7 times the size of the UK (population wise, and even bigger land mass wise)

it would only stand to reason we'd have more troops in there

Traditionally Germany was the first line of defense against the Soviets. The U.S has military bases there. The U.S may be a bigger nation, however compared to its population its Military is tiny. The proportion of its forces compared to other nations commitment is well and truly whacked out.

By that interpretation, Canada is guilty of participating in the commitment of war crimes during WW2, Korea and Bosnia.

Nuremberg was a victors trial. It is not a treaty.

Stephistan said that the U.S. signed a treaty prohibiting them from invading another state. Some of us wish to know the name of the treaty.

count me in

and I'd really like to see the clause the in that treaty that overrides a direct mandate from the SC

This so called "window of opportunity" is yet another cleverly devised deception to force the invasion of Iraq. How long has the US been in Iraq now (Mar. 2003 to July 2004)?

Do you believe that if this so called "window of opportunity" had closed that Iraq was going to launch an imminent attack against the US?

Yes they have been there longer now...thanks for air conditioned buildings and zero need to constantly stay on the move in the open desert...You can also add the bonus of being able to stay close to a water source and a generous amount of shade.

And no, Iraq wasn't going to launch any attack within the window of opportunity, they didn't even have the means to transport their troops that far. As for launching a few scuds to cause some fireworks similar to what they did during the first Gulf War, most likely yes.

Too bad they barely had any. In fact I dont think they had any at all.

So Is Australia and I believe new Zealand. But they arent traditionaly thought of as major military forces. My point is All of europe are Americas traditional allies, you cant erase that history when it suits your rhetoric. Or to put it another way, you can.

Those countries and even to an extent the UK are simply there to make the list of coalition partners look longer. Japan does the same thing with its Whaling lobbying. No country comes close to matching the commitment of the U.S.

Poland is in charge of NATO countries and has its own zone of control. Its understandable that no country can match the U.S. current deployment in Iraq, most states don't have that many troops.

Traditionally Germany was the first line of defense against the Soviets. The U.S has military bases there. The U.S may be a bigger nation, however compared to its population its Military is tiny. The proportion of its forces compared to other nations is well and truly whacked out.

traditionaly Americans and Britons IN Germany have been the first line of defence against the USSR

a 40 year forced occupation does not make us traditional allies

we've NEVER FOUGHT A WAR WITH GERMANY AS AN ALLY

and there is culture to consider - who are our closest cultural brothers? the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and to a lesser extent Canada and Ireland

we are with our traditional military allies and good ones too

going to war without france, now we're going to fall apart


and when you consider population size, military spending and the availibility of special forces units the troops sizes make perfact sense

Cultural brothers means nothing. Americas Allies is who suits it. The point of colonial culture is thats its largely nonexistant. Its turning into a new politically correct global culture. All part of globalisation, its not just an economic thing.

Cultural brothers means nothing. Americas Allies is who suits it. The point of colonial culture is thats its largely nonexistant. Its turning into a new politically correct global culture. All part of globalisation, its not just an economic thing.

if you don't belive in culture, there is the lanuage barrier

Stephistan said that the U.S. signed a treaty prohibiting them from invading another state. Some of us wish to know the name of the treaty.

Oh for pete's sake, I want to go to bed. Let me make this as simple as possible for you.. I won't be responding tonight.. I will tomorrow.. I'm tired.

A) The USA is a signatory member to the UN Charter

B) It is against international law via the charter to preemptively attack another country, except in self defense. It has been proven there was no self defense case in Iraq for the United States. The SC did not authorize military force to invade Iraq.

C) Illegal war..

I can't put it any simpler. It doesn't matter what you may or may not feel about the UN, the fact is the USA is a signatory member, if the USA wants to be a rogue nation FINE! sign away from it, until such time they are legally bound to uphold the charter. End of freaking story..

Now, for the last time, good night!

Oh for pete's sake, I want to go to bed. Let me make this as simple as possible for you.. I won't be responding tonight.. I will tomorrow.. I'm tired.

A) The USA is a signatory member to the UN Charter

B) It is against international law via the charter to preemptively attack another country, except in self defense. It has been proven there was no self defense case in Iraq for the United States. The SC did not authorize military force to invade Iraq.

C) Illegal war..

I can't put it any simpler. It doesn't matter what you may or may not feel about the UN, the fact is the USA is a signatory member, if the USA wants to be a rogue nation FINE! sign away from it, until such time they are legally bound to uphold the charter. End of freaking story..

Now, for the last time, good night!

resolution 1441:

if iraq is found to be in violation of this resolution it is the duty of every member nation to take what ever action is deemed nessecary

And who does the deeming. When you say the troop sizes make perfect sense do you mean the Military at large or the deployment contingent to Iraq?

resolution 1441:

if iraq is found to be in violation of this resolution it is the duty of every member nation to take what ever action is deemed nessecary

Cite. My copy of Resolution 1441 ( http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm ) says nothing of the sort.

Please, I beg of you, find where it says America had the right to unilaterally invade Iraq with UN SC authorization? I can't wait to see the spin on this tomorrow.. :rolleyes:



Security Council
Provisional
7 November 2002
Original: English

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council?s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq?s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC?s or the IAEA?s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. DecidesZ further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

? All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq?s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

? Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

And who does the deeming. When you say the troop sizes make perfect sense do you mean the Military at large or the deployment contingent to Iraq?

the memberstates

the memberstates

But where does it actually say this? In both my and Stephistan's R1441, there is no provision of any sort for any attack besides a vague "serious consequences".

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);


sorry I got the wording a little wrong

but there you have it

resolution 660 authorized memberstates to use any meany nessecary to enforce the relevant resolutions

and 1441 decided that under international law iraq was in breach of these resolutions

But where does it actually say this? In both my and Stephistan's R1441, there is no provision of any sort for any attack besides a vague "serious consequences".

see the above paraphrasing

But uhh, isnt the point that Iraq was complying?

just in bagdad

electrical production is up 100% for the rest of the country and you don't have to worry about being tourtured/raped/maimed/killed at random (save for the terrorists, but we're working on those)

Wait wait, I'm confused, Linndy England was working for Al-Queda?

But uhh, isnt the point that Iraq was complying?

no, iraq was deemed in breach

which was deemed grounds for war

sorry I got the wording a little wrong

but there you have it

resolution 660 authorized memberstates to use any meany nessecary to enforce the relevant resolutions

and 1441 decided that under international law iraq was in breach of these resolutions

No, it didn't.
The Security Council,

Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,

Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,

Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;r

3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;

4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.

No, it didn't.

Security Council
Provisional
7 November 2002
Original: English

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council?s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq?s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC?s or the IAEA?s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. DecidesZ further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

? All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq?s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

? Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

BAM

Security Council
Provisional
7 November 2002
Original: English

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council?s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq?s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC?s or the IAEA?s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. DecidesZ further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

? All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq?s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

? Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

BAM

PING! The "any means nescessary" applies only to 660. It makes no mention of 687. That second bolded paragraph is completely irrelated.

PING! The "any means nescessary" applies only to 660. It makes no mention of 687. That second bolded paragraph is completely irrelated.

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

not only 660, but any resolution subsequent to 660

those would be the ones about the WMDs

the fine print will screw you

hell they even added in "and to restore security in the area" that could be anything

Oh for pete's sake, I want to go to bed. Let me make this as simple as possible for you.. I won't be responding tonight.. I will tomorrow.. I'm tired.

A) The USA is a signatory member to the UN Charter

B) It is against international law via the charter to preemptively attack another country, except in self defense. It has been proven there was no self defense case in Iraq for the United States. The SC did not authorize military force to invade Iraq.

C) Illegal war..

I can't put it any simpler. It doesn't matter what you may or may not feel about the UN, the fact is the USA is a signatory member, if the USA wants to be a rogue nation FINE! sign away from it, until such time they are legally bound to uphold the charter. End of freaking story..

Now, for the last time, good night!

Iraq violated the terms of the ceasefire by firing unto coalition planes during the sanctions of the 1990's. It also violated the no-fly zones and the Kurdish areas where no Iraqi military personnel was allowed to enter. Article 51 is VERY vague. It doesn't even make the differentiation between armed attacks or potential threats. It only states that the SC must act in order to maintain peace. Article 2 states that you must solve conflict issues peacefully, however, article 33 also states the peaceful resolution is only the first step. Iraq lost the Gulf War thus it conceded defeat and was placed with the blame for starting the war. The Iraq cannot be looked as an issue dating back to 2000, it dates all the way back to 1990. It is a long standing conflict with the United States, beginning with the territorial integrity of Kuwait, to the terms of the ceasefire agreement between the U.S. and Iraq and then onwards to the present second Gulf War.

You also blatantly lumped signing and ratifying into the same thing. A gross oversimplification. The President does NOT have the power to make any laws. Congress must approve of every treaty signedl same thing for, I assume, all democracies. It must be ratified by the state legislatures before it has the force of law domestically.

On top of all this international law jargon you have the fact that international law is NON-BINDING. No state is forced to obey any type of international ruling, regulation or treaty even if it signed it. States are the principal actors and retain their right to act unilaterally when they deem it necessary.

I just noticed- both of those refer only to Kuwait. Now if only the UN could enforce its own laws...

I just noticed- both of those refer only to Kuwait. Now if only the UN could enforce its own laws...

the resolutions subsequent to 660 expand into WMDs

so in that way atleast, they jump the boarder

the resolutions subsequent to 660 expand into WMDs

so in that way atleast, they jump the boarder

Name your source, I'm not going to read through every resolution past 660 to find an elusive "US can ignore us if they think iraq has WMDs" resolution.

Name your source, I'm not going to read through every resolution past 660 to find an elusive "US can ignore us if they think iraq has WMDs" resolution.

the subsequent resolutions would be the ones that ended the war, the peace deal ones

the ones where iraq agrees to have no more WMDs (didn't), not to invade its neighbors (finnialy, we can put a check in the did collum), to sanctions of military goods(circumvented), to repatriate hostages(didn't), and to only wear sweatpants once a week (hell no)

the subsequent resolutions would be the ones that ended the war, the peace deal ones

the ones where iraq agrees to have no more WMDs (didn't), not to invade its neighbors (finnialy, we can put a check in the did collum), to sanctions of military goods(circumvented), to repatriate hostages(didn't), and to only wear sweatpants once a week (hell no)

I'm going to say this one more time.

CITE SPECIFIC SOURCES. NAME THE RESOLUTIONS.

I'm off for the night anyhow, but I'll be back tomorrow. Remember, your argument is worth nothing, folks, if you don't show where it's proven.

I'm going to say this one more time.

CITE SPECIFIC SOURCES. NAME THE RESOLUTIONS.

I'm off for the night anyhow, but I'll be back tomorrow. Remember, your argument is worth nothing, folks, if you don't show where it's proven.

it means ANY RESOLUTION THAT PERTAINS TO IRAQ, AS A SECURITY THREAT

I must say as an Australian who has been to the US once or twice...

1) We are culturally very different. In some areas there are similarities, but there are certainly more than enough differences. And this is something I am eternally greatful for. Americans are not a bad people or anything, but they have values and and a culture that differs wildly from ours.

2) Traditional allies. Get real. Take a look at it from our p.o.v- US has a big military and we do not. The only real reason we tag along in bullshit conflicts like this one and Vietnam has been because we realize that by sucking up to the US, they will (hopefully) bail us out against the one or two potential threats in our region (Indonesia, and a few other SE Asian countries) if there is a problem later on, and of course the perceived economic benefits that we will receive from from having so cozy a relationship. It is not realistically for any major love of the US or belief in what has been done.

We are using them, and to a lesser extent they are using us (strategic purposes such as gaining hegemony in the SE Asia region).I suspect the above rationale can only apply even more to Thailand, Japan (especially with the 'happy' relationships they enjoy with such countries as China and North Korea), New Zealand (with their complete lack of air force) and maybe the others as well.

One last thing to ponder- Saddam was a nightmarishly brutal dictator, though stats provided from many sources in the US seem to be greatly exaggerated (400,000+) etc. This is a fact conceeded by the majority of administrations around the world. However, by this logic of going after whoever may or may not be a bad guy, the question I then pose is, "cool, so when do we go after that scumbag war-criminal Sharron in Isreal?" I'm sure GWB is planning just this, nevermind the lack of oil and loss of a strong Jewish constituency in the US.

I must say as an Australian who has been to the US once or twice...

1) We are culturally very different. In some areas there are similarities, but there are certainly more than enough differences. And this is something I am eternally greatful for. Americans are not a bad people or anything, but they have values and and a culture that differs wildly from ours.

2) Traditional allies. Get real. Take a look at it from our p.o.v- US has a big military and we do not. The only real reason we tag along in bullshit conflicts like this one and Vietnam has been because we realize that by sucking up to the US, they will (hopefully) bail us out against the one or two potential threats in our region (Indonesia, and a few other SE Asian countries) if there is a problem later on, and of course the perceived economic benefits that we will receive from from having so cozy a relationship. It is not realistically for any major love of the US or belief in what has been done.

We are using them, and to a lesser extent they are using us (strategic purposes such as gaining hegemony in the SE Asia region).I suspect the above rationale can only apply even more to Thailand, Japan (especially with the 'happy' relationships they enjoy with such countries as China and North Korea), New Zealand (with their complete lack of air force) and maybe the others as well.

One last thing to ponder- Saddam was a nightmarishly brutal dictator, though stats provided from many sources in the US seem to be greatly exaggerated (400,000+) etc. This is a fact conceeded by the majority of administrations around the world. However, by this logic of going after whoever may or may not be a bad guy, the question I then pose is, "cool, so when do we go after that scumbag war-criminal Sharron in Isreal?" I'm sure GWB is planning just this, nevermind the lack of oil and loss of a strong Jewish constituency in the US.

1 - we are different, but you're the closest thing we have (eireily mutters "brother")

2 - you know its about mor than that, we Americans absolutly HATE france, but we've bailed them out of two world wars and trade openly with them

you know we would gladly beat the tar out of indonesia for you, assuming you couldn't do it yourself

3 - don't be silly, you might hate Sharon but hes killed far fewer people than saddam and for far more justifiable reasons. and he Isreal responds to international legeslature and presure, mind you, as soon as the palestinians cross the line the consider anything signed irrelevent but it the PLO behaves itself the Isrealis play ball

1 - we are different, but you're the closest thing we have (eireily mutters "brother")

2 - you know its about mor than that, we Americans absolutly HATE france, but we've bailed them out of two world wars and trade openly with them

you know we would gladly beat the tar out of indonesia for you, assuming you couldn't do it yourself

3 - don't be silly, you might hate Sharon but hes killed far fewer people than saddam and for far more justifiable reasons. and he Isreal responds to international legeslature and presure, mind you, as soon as the palestinians cross the line the consider anything signed irrelevent but it the PLO behaves itself the Isrealis play ball


Don't be silly; I'm an american, and I love france. So do many others.

Only bigots who make sweeping generalizations say that everyone hates france -_-


And I don't recall seeing it posted that the US was in charge of getting rid of evil dictators.

**glances at Africa**

Ah hell, we're not even CLOSE to being done...

There was no WMD!!!!!!!!!!!!

There was no WMD!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, there wasn't, Iraq basically got invaded for bad book-keeping..

As for the parts of 1441 that people are trying to cite (which I know they would when I posted it last night) to say 1441 had the right to invade Iraq, those resolutions were old resolution in regards to Kuwait.. not the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I also note how some have decided to omit clause 14 of 1441 in their argument.. which means.. that is where in ends.. that no further action would take place by member states until the inspections were over, which never happened because the Americans decided to invade Iraq with the inspectors only in for 3 months.. to which Saddam was complying.. he was having trouble explaining where some of the WMD went that was believed he had.. yet, was the conclusion to date that they couldn't find any WMD, but the USA decided they didn't care, as the WMD argument was a lie all along, the fact that there were no WMD actually puts the United States in breach of 1441.. not Iraq!

Don't be silly; I'm an american, and I love france. So do many others.

Only bigots who make sweeping generalizations say that everyone hates france -_-


And I don't recall seeing it posted that the US was in charge of getting rid of evil dictators.

**glances at Africa**

Ah hell, we're not even CLOSE to being done...

if we don't do it, no one else will

and we're getting to africa, we're just starting at the top of the pile

No, there wasn't, Iraq basically got invaded for bad book-keeping..

As for the parts of 1441 that people are trying to cite (which I know they would when I posted it last night) to say 1441 had the right to invade Iraq, those resolutions were old resolution in regards to Kuwait.. not the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I also note how some have decided to omit clause 14 of 1441 in their argument.. which means.. that is where in ends.. that no further action would take place by member states until the inspections were over, which never happened because the Americans decided to invade Iraq with the inspectors only in for 3 months.. to which Saddam was complying.. he was having trouble explaining where some of the WMD went that was believed he had.. yet, was the conclusion to date that they couldn't find any WMD, but the USA decided they didn't care, as the WMD argument was a lie all along, the fact that there were no WMD actually puts the United States in breach of 1441.. not Iraq!

remember 1441? that DECIDED that Iraq was in breach of the resolutions subsequent of 660

that would mean that we had an obligation under international law to invade iraq

who are we to question the UN's infoulability?

remember 1441? that DECIDED that Iraq was in breach of the resolutions subsequent of 660

that would mean that we had an obligation under international law to invade iraq

who are we to question the UN's infoulability?


LMFAO!

1441 was a directive obligating the US to go to war.

Good one!

Hell - I didn't know you were a comedian.


That explains your posts a lot better.....

LMFAO!

1441 was a directive obligating the US to go to war.

Good one!

Hell - I didn't know you were a comedian.


That explains your posts a lot better.....


Security Council
Provisional
7 November 2002
Original: English

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council?s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq?s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC?s or the IAEA?s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. DecidesZ further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

? All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq?s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

? Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. BAM.

quit abusing futurama.

Security Council
Provisional
7 November 2002
Original: English

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council?s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq?s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC?s or the IAEA?s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. DecidesZ further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

? All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq?s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

? Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. BAM.

Nowhere in the above Resolution is the US authorized to attack Iraq!! I have highlighted some glaring areas of concern that demonstrate that fact. Also as a matter of fact, the US itself violated the above Resolution!!

Below is a Timeline that further demonstrates the UN did NOT authorize the US to attack Iraq. The US invasion was in FACT a violation of the UN Charter!!

March 20 2003
War begins.
At around 0230 GMT, shortly after the 48-hour deadline for Saddam to quit Iraq expires, America launches its first series of air strikes on Baghdad. George Bush says the US has begun attacks against 'targets of military opportunity'. Saddam Hussein gives a televised address to the Iraqi people at around 0530 GMT, calling the attack a 'shameful crime' and vowing to win the war. China, France and Russia denounce the US-led action.

At around 1805 GMT, US planes begin a heavy bombardment of military targets in central Baghdad. Later on, British marines invade the Faw peninsula in the south of the country.
Iraq launches Scud missiles

March 19 2003
Government aide David Kinley confirms he has resigned, bring the total of government casualties over Iraq to nine.
With 170,000 coalition troops massed on the Kuwaiti border, coalition aircraft bomb military targets in Iraq to 'soften up' the country's defences ahead of a US and British invasion.

The foreign ministers of Germany, France and Russia condemn the impending military action in strong terms, saying that the use of force against Iraq has not been approved by any UN resolution.
Bid to assassinate Saddam


March 18 2003
In a televised address at 0100GMT, Mr Bush gives Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq or face invasion.

During the course of the day, British government ministers John Denham and Lord Hunt resign in protest, along with four government aides. In the evening parliament holds a debate over military action in Iraq. The government's motion endorsing an attack is passed by 412 to 149, although the number of rebel Labour MPs voting for an anti-war amendment rises to 139, up from 122 three weeks ago.
Bush gives Saddam and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq


March 17 2003
With China, France and Russia opposed to an attack, the US and UK abandon hope of gaining security council support for a second resolution authorising war on Iraq. They withdraw the resolution, blaming the French veto threat.

The leader of the Commons, Robin Cook, resigns in protest at the government's decision to back a war without 'international authority nor domestic support'.


March 16 2003
Speaking at a hastily-arranged summit in the Azores, Mr Bush and Mr Blair give the United Nations a 24-hour ultimatum to enforce its own demands for immediate Iraqi disarmament, or face an American- and British-led coalition that will go to war within days.


March 14 2003
The French president, Jacques Chirac, removes any lingering doubts about France's intentions on Iraq, confirming to Mr Blair in a brief phone call that France was willing to seek a compromise on disarming Saddam Hussein but would not accept any UN resolution that set an ultimatum.
Chirac spells it out: no ultimatum


March 11 2003
The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, causes a poltical storm after suggesting America could attack President Saddam alone. Mr Blair later stresses Britain will fight alongside the US in any attack.
US may go it alone as Blair is caught in diplomatic deadlock


March 10 2003
Britain announces 'six key tests' for Iraq to comply to if it is to avoid war, including President Saddam making a TV address admitting having weapons of mass destruction. The idea galvanises some diplomatic support, but not enough to suggest the US/UK could win a second UN resolution, effectively authorising an attack.


March 9 2003
Following lobbying from undecided UN security council members, the US and Britain agree to set out the precise acts of disarmament that Saddam would have to undertake by March 17 to avoid war. Meanwhile, Clare Short, the international development secretary, threatens to resign if the UN fails to pass a second resolution authorising war. A parliamentary aide to Margaret Beckett, Andy Reed, earlier resigned over the issue.
Britain and US spell out steps to avoid attack


March 7 2003
Hans Blix gives another ambivalent report to the UN security council on Iraqi compliance, which is followed by a tense debate that further deepens the divide within the council. The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, proposes the UN sets an ultimatum that Iraq will be invaded unless the country demonstrates 'full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation' by March 17. France makes a clear threat that it will veto such a resolution.
Showdown as Britain sets March 17 deadline on Iraq


March 6 2003
In a nationwide television address, the US president, George Bush, indicates that war is very close.
Iraq attack very close, says Bush


March 5 2003
The foreign ministers of France, Russia and Germany release a joint declaration stating that they will 'not allow' a resolution authorising military action to pass the UN security council. The hardening stance from the anti-war bloc increases the pressure on the US and Britain to compromise on their draft UN resolution.
France, Russia and Germany harden stance


March 4 2003
The chancellor, Gordon Brown, makes clear his support for war by saying he is prepared to 'spend what it takes' to disarm Iraq. Mr Brown has already earmarked £1.75bn to fund a war.
Brown signs blank cheque for conflict


March 3 2003
Iraq claims that six civilians were killed and 15 wounded in last night's allied raid on the port city of Basra. Meanwhile, the Russian foreign minister, Ivan Ivanov, hints, on BBC radio, that his country may use its UN veto to block a resolution authorising war.
No-fly zone raids 'opening new war'


March 2 2003
It emerges that Britain and the US have been increasing their air strikes on Iraq in recent days, in an apparent bid to 'soften up' the country's defences ahead of a war. The two countries insist that there has been no change in the policy of no-fly zone bombing.

March 1 2003
In an unpleasant surprise for the Bush administration, the Turkish parliament narrowly rejects a plan to deploy 62,000 US troops in the country, to form a northern front in the event of war.

February 28 2003
Hans Blix's interim report to the UN is published, giving a mixed assessment of Iraqi cooperation with weapons inspectors, but hailing Saddam Hussein's commitment to comply with tomorrow's UN deadline for the destruction of Iraq's illegal Samoud 2 missiles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html

i'm a little mixed on this one, yeah sadam was a 'bad man', and yeah i think the iraq's are better off without him, but i think that the way the war took place was equally as bad as the entire war...

war is a very dangerous and important thing, it scared me how easaly blair (living in the uk and all) managed to take my country to war. he didn't consider the feelings of his people and ignored protesters. the priminister is (supposedly) the prime representative of his people. how is it he can get away with totaly ignoring us and our views?

the war MIGHT have been needed and i can understand that, but we are not a despotism... are we?

It wasn't just 1441 but other resolutions stated in said resolution.

Those resolutions gave the memberstates the right to invade Iraq if found in Material breach. They were found in material breach with 1441. If Iraq wasn't in material breach Iraqi resolution 17 (1441) wouldn't have been needed.

Iraq was found in breach of past resolutions. 1441 (yea grammer i know) said serious consequences! Yes it means anything but what is more serious than an invasion? More sanctions? More weapons inspectors? no! Invasion was the only way. Hussein believed us weak for negiotiating.

Funny how history repeats. Hitler thought Britian and France weak. France was conquered in less than a month. Britian was on the verge till the US came sweeping in and help in the defeat of Rommel. US and Britian, mostly US, Freed Sicily. Invaded Normandy and took massive casualties. Patton gained more ground in Europe than any other General. In the end, Hitler was defeated. Japan launched a war on us because we were a threat to their pacific Expansion. They thought we would concede after a fatal blow at Pearl. Over 2 thousand dead and most of the Pacific Fleet gone, they took most of the pacific. We stopped them from taking Port Moresby, thus saving Australia, sunk 4 carriers, albeit by luck, at Midway. Over the course of the following years, Japan was pushed back. In the end, Japan too was defeated.

Hussein thought he could get away with what he was doing. He may not have had WMD, however, he led the world into believing that he did. He bluffed his way manytimes without action. He tried again and this time, the US and her allies called the bet and he was defeated. I don't care about the WMD. It was still the right thing to do in light of recent reports. He thought us weak and he found out otherwise.

It wasn't just 1441 but other resolutions stated in said resolution.

Those resolutions gave the memberstates the right to invade Iraq if found in Material breach. They were found in material breach with 1441. If Iraq wasn't in material breach Iraqi resolution 17 (1441) wouldn't have been needed.

Iraq was found in breach of past resolutions. 1441 (yea grammer i know) said serious consequences! Yes it means anything but what is more serious than an invasion? More sanctions? More weapons inspectors? no! Invasion was the only way. Hussein believed us weak for negiotiating.

Funny how history repeats. Hitler thought Britian and France weak. France was conquered in less than a month. Britian was on the verge till the US came sweeping in and help in the defeat of Rommel. US and Britian, mostly US, Freed Sicily. Invaded Normandy and took massive casualties. Patton gained more ground in Europe than any other General. In the end, Hitler was defeated. Japan launched a war on us because we were a threat to their pacific Expansion. They thought we would concede after a fatal blow at Pearl. Over 2 thousand dead and most of the Pacific Fleet gone, they took most of the pacific. We stopped them from taking Port Moresby, thus saving Australia, sunk 4 carriers, albeit by luck, at Midway. Over the course of the following years, Japan was pushed back. In the end, Japan too was defeated.

Hussein thought he could get away with what he was doing. He may not have had WMD, however, he led the world into believing that he did. He bluffed his way manytimes without action. He tried again and this time, the US and her allies called the bet and he was defeated. I don't care about the WMD. It was still the right thing to do in light of recent reports. He thought us weak and he found out otherwise.


With what, my dear boy, would Hitler attack Britian with? A wet noodle?

Learn some history, the brits had won the air war by late 1941, and Germany wouldn't be able to pull off an attack over the channel for quite some time, by which the Russians would have taken Berlin.

i'm a little mixed on this one, yeah sadam was a 'bad man', and yeah i think the iraq's are better off without him, but i think that the way the war took place was equally as bad as the entire war...

war is a very dangerous and important thing, it scared me how easaly blair (living in the uk and all) managed to take my country to war. he didn't consider the feelings of his people and ignored protesters. the priminister is (supposedly) the prime representative of his people. how is it he can get away with totaly ignoring us and our views?

the war MIGHT have been needed and i can understand that, but we are not a despotism... are we?

In Canada, our Prime Minister at the time, Jean Chretien, stated that he would NOT go to war against Iraq without the consent of the UN. Since the US and Britain did NOT get that consent, Canada did not join the "coalition of the willing".

Chretien took a lot of heat for his decision, especially from the Conservatives. However, the last poll I saw on this confirms that Chretien made the correct choice. Almost 80% of Canadians disagree with the War in Iraq.

As far as Tony Blair is concerned, will there be political repercussions?

Frankly, anyone here arguing the legality of this invasion is doubtless unqualified to render a legal opinion on that matter. Myself included in that mix. Nor can you simply point to UN resolutions as the sum totality of the body of laws and treaties that would have to be considered.

I have certainly seen the legal briefs written by both the British and Australian Attorney Generals argueing for the legality, and various briefs from other noted groups arguning against it. One of the more compelling briefs, is here: http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf

I DO find it relevant that opposition groups in both Australia and Britain suggested that under the circumstances of uncertainty that existed in this matter that the legality should be tested before the courts prior to embarking on war, but both Parliaments refused. It would have been nice to see a judge hear and adjudicate this matter.

The fact is that the legality of this war has not been tested, but it is certain that the only instance that the charter of the UN, which lets face it was largely written by America, allows where it considers the party that starts a war to be righteous is the case a pre-emptive attack in the face of a clear and immediate threat.

Iraq was clearly not such a case, and so those that point to tiny technical violations of resolutions clearly do not have much of a leg to stand on. However the courts would also have to consider whether the United States was reasonable in it's belief as to if Iraq were an imminent threat rather than just the facts of the threat, as in any self defense case that is the standard test even if subsequent investigation turns out to indicate that the threat did not exist. The recent Senate Report makes this very clear that it was known not to be the case. Indeed the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq specifically stated that it only considered that Saddam would ever likely consider threatening the US either directly or by proxy via a terrorist group if an invasion occurred.

However the SSCI has not yet properly apportioned the blame for missleading the public between the Administration and the Intelligence Community, which should be an interesting read. If the blame falls entirely on the Intelligence Community - which does not seem likely from the comments by the members at the end of the report which specifically state that exaggeration was done by the administration, I think that the courts would overturn any such claim.

But given that the war is a fait accompli, there is not likely to be any channels available for anyone to test the legality of the war. Ecept for one possible exception, that being if the US were to pull out of Iraq without completing it's rebuilding promises. I would imagine that the Iraqi government at that point might force this case to be considered by the UN or the World Court by bringing suit for damages and reparations against the coalition. After all, such reparations are considered a normal course of business in the world at the end of conflicts such as both world wars, and as the damaged party Iraq would certainly have a case.

The US might never recognize or pay for damages, but at least the legality issue would be settled.

Frankly, I doubt the US would win. After all, if the legality was clear they would not have even bothered going back to the UN for a specific resolution authorizing it would they?

-Z-

With what, my dear boy, would Hitler attack Britian with? A wet noodle?

Learn some history, the brits had won the air war by late 1941, and Germany wouldn't be able to pull off an attack over the channel for quite some time, by which the Russians would have taken Berlin.

Giggles, I'm a girl sweetie. not a boy.

hello? did I mention air war? no! Why? Because I already knew this. In Africa, you didn't win the air war till the US got in. In Europe, you only won the Battle of Britian. The Air War was officially won in the prelude to Normandy when we start to bomb Nazi Air Fields thus eliminating their planes. They did get planes back in the air, like the first Jet Aircraft in which American Propellar planes knocked them down. Thus the Air War was truely won Before Berlin Fell. ANother fact. If Russia did take Berlin before Normandy, which wasn't going to happen since Berlin fell in 1945, not quite a year after Normandy, we would be looking at a Red Communist Russia that has nearly every country in Western Europe. The Allies bogged down troops that could ahve been shipped east to Fight the Soviets. By invading, we pinned them there in Western Europe. History? That is the history! If Germany unleashed their wonder weapons earlier, we probably would have lost WWII.

With what, my dear boy, would Hitler attack Britian with? A wet noodle?

Learn some history, the brits had won the air war by late 1941, and Germany wouldn't be able to pull off an attack over the channel for quite some time, by which the Russians would have taken Berlin.


You are drastically overstating the case here. The Brits and allies had won the battle of Britain in late '41 and staved off the planned invasion, but the Luftwaffe was still a powerful fighting force far exceeding that of the British.


If the allies had owned the skies in '42 and '43, they would not have taken such punishing damage to their bombers during the subsequent years of allied air raids. Which they did.

At best, the Battle of Britain came close to evening the air strengths. The fact that this resistance put off the plans for a landed invasion is hardly an indication of the power of the Luftwaffe, but rather a statement as to how hard the Germans realized such an invasion would be. Dover (or wherever) would have been their Omaha Beach, and we all know how many troops we had to devote to the task to pull that off. They decided that they were not up to it from a naval perspective to get the troops over in enough strength to survive, or the manpower to devote to both that and the Africa and Eastern fronts as well as garison duty. If anything, the Dieppe experience may also have painted an ugly picture to them on how wrong things could go.

-Z-

With what, my dear boy, would Hitler attack Britian with? A wet noodle?

Learn some history, the brits had won the air war by late 1941, and Germany wouldn't be able to pull off an attack over the channel for quite some time, by which the Russians would have taken Berlin.

Too add on. Rommel was defeated at El-Alamain. His supply lines were all but gone it was only a matter of time before the Brits would have taken him on their own. North Africa served to "train" some troops while the army was getting built.

As to Pearl? Most of the fleet gone? It was quickly raised. Only a few ships were perminantly lost.

Only a few in the Goverment thought Pearl would make the americans quit. It was thought that an attack at Pearl would cripple the American efforts so they could grab enough in order to negotiate with the Americans from a position of strength....

As to Australia? You make it sound like they were helpless. The Aussies experiences probably saved a great deal of american lives. The only time you can count the Aussies out is when they are dead. Japan respected/feared them. The nastiest prisoner punishment tended to fall on the Aussies.....

I'm gonna sorry first to any and all Britains out there who I'm going to dearly offend...

There is many reasons why British commanders were disregarded and why the British could not have survived without the assistance of the United States:

1) Without the Lend-Lease program by the United States, the British would have been starved out of much need equipment and machinery to continue the war. As an example, General Bernard Montgomery had a tank advantage before the Battle of El Alamein only because of the American Lend-Lease program. Without American assistance, the British would have lost the Battle of El Alamein and quite possibly have lost Egypt. Montgomery is often hailed as the successful British army commander, but he wasn't successful at all. None by his American counterparts as an ineffectual and dimwitted commander, Montgomery won his battles not through strategy but with numerical superiority, much of it provided by American equipment, armor, and weaponry.

2) British naval action in the Pacific Ocean was positively horrendous. After the debacle at Savo Island off of Guadalcanal, in which the Allies under a British Admiral was surprised by a Japanese attack force lost 4 heavy cruisers sunk, 1 light cruiser and two destroyers sunk at the cost of only 2 Japanese light cruisers damaged, not a single British commander was allowed command of an Allied task force.

However, I do concede that the British were helpful to a certain extent in supporting the Americans and the Soviets in defeating the Germans.

It wasn't just 1441 but other resolutions stated in said resolution.

Those resolutions gave the memberstates the right to invade Iraq if found in Material breach. They were found in material breach with 1441. If Iraq wasn't in material breach Iraqi resolution 17 (1441) wouldn't have been needed.

You are totally incorrect. NOTHING in this Resolution OR the previous Resolutions gave the US the authority to attack Iraq.

Read Points # 2, 4, 11, and 12. Read them over and over. Perhaps the truth will register with you then?

The rest of your argument is pure rhetoric.

Too add on. Rommel was defeated at El-Alamain. His supply lines were all but gone it was only a matter of time before the Brits would have taken him on their own. North Africa served to "train" some troops while the army was getting built.

El-Alamain would've been a defeat if it wasn't for what the US gave Great Britian. It might have been a huge victory but Patton had to Bail out Montgomery several times and many a times, Patton had a better plan than monty but Eisenhower went with Monty on most of those occassions.

As to Pearl? Most of the fleet gone? It was quickly raised. Only a few ships were perminantly lost.

Not as quickly as you think. It took several months to get the fleet ready again. Our actions at Coral Sea and Midway where used with what remaining ships we had left. If we lost Midway, they could have taken out Hawaii and then the west coast.

Only a few in the Goverment thought Pearl would make the americans quit. It was thought that an attack at Pearl would cripple the American efforts so they could grab enough in order to negotiate with the Americans from a position of strength....

Those few being the leaders. Admiral Yamamoto stated that he could garuntee victory for six months to a year. He was right! After Midway, The japanese went on the defensive. When they launched an attack, The US Navy beat them back with far superior carrier planes and submarines. In the end, Japan was outgunned in every category.

As to Australia? You make it sound like they were helpless. The Aussies experiences probably saved a great deal of american lives. The only time you can count the Aussies out is when they are dead. Japan respected/feared them. The nastiest prisoner punishment tended to fall on the Aussies.....

Never stated that they were helpless. I stated that American Forces prevented Japan from Invading Australia. Australian troops helped American forces extensively in the pacific. They really aren't mentioned because they really didn't do awhole lot in the grand scheme of History. I however, recognize the importance Australia played in the victory over Japan. New Zealand also played a part in our victory there too!

You are totally incorrect. NOTHING in this Resolution OR the previous Resolutions gave the US the authority to attack Iraq.

Read Points # 2, 4, 11, and 12. Read them over and over. Perhaps the truth will register with you then?

The rest of your argument is pure rhetoric.

Actually, no its not. We had the backing of previous UN resolutions to wage war against Hussein. Its been proven time and again in this thread.

Actually, no its not. We had the backing of previous UN resolutions to wage war against Hussein. Its been proven time and again in this thread.

Wrong again, and WHO has proven it in this thread? I read those Resolutions, and NOTHING specifically gives the US the right to attack Iraq. If anything, Resolution 1441, was meant to be an all encompassing Resolution, incorporating the previous Resolutions, and giving Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council".

Like I said before......Read Points # 2, 4, 11, and 12. Read them over and over.

El-Alamain would've been a defeat if it wasn't for what the US gave Great Britian. It might have been a huge victory but Patton had to Bail out Montgomery several times and many a times, Patton had a better plan than monty but Eisenhower went with Monty on most of those occassions.

The mainland, however, was safe from German attacks.



Not as quickly as you think. It took several months to get the fleet ready again. Our actions at Coral Sea and Midway where used with what remaining ships we had left. If we lost Midway, they could have taken out Hawaii and then the west coast.


We already had ships in drydock being built before pearl harbor, so we did have a large influx of ships coming.

From what I'm reading, the US government under Bush liberally implied from that last part of the Resolution 1441 that the US could go to war with Iraq if it didn't reveal its WMD arsenal or allowed UN or US inspectors in...

The mainland, however, was safe from German attacks.

German attacks sure, unless you count German U-Boats as a threat to the mainland. If Midway fell to the Japs, however, the west coast would've been open to invasion. As such the US wasn't safe from Japanese attacks.

We already had ships in drydock being built before pearl harbor, so we did have a large influx of ships coming.

Not a large influx! I will admit that we did have ships in drydock. Some ships getting repaired. Most ships built where on the West Coast but even then it wasn't a large influx till after the battle of Midway was over and Gaudalcanal began.

German attacks sure, unless you count German U-Boats as a threat to the mainland. If Midway fell to the Japs, however, the west coast would've been open to invasion. As such the US wasn't safe from Japanese attacks.



Not a large influx! I will admit that we did have ships in drydock. Some ships getting repaired. Most ships built where on the West Coast but even then it wasn't a large influx till after the battle of Midway was over and Gaudalcanal began.


Mainland is in the UK.

Yes, but we would have had those ships after Midway to launch a counter-attack if need be. Certainly we would be able to defend Hawaii.

German attacks sure, unless you count German U-Boats as a threat to the mainland. If Midway fell to the Japs, however, the west coast would've been open to invasion. As such the US wasn't safe from Japanese attacks.



Not a large influx! I will admit that we did have ships in drydock. Some ships getting repaired. Most ships built where on the West Coast but even then it wasn't a large influx till after the battle of Midway was over and Gaudalcanal began.

I believe this is off topic? I know how much that normally gets you upset, but you were also the one who initiated this piece of off topic material.

I believe that you really would like to change the subject?

Mainland is in the UK.

Yes, but we would have had those ships after Midway to launch a counter-attack if need be. Certainly we would be able to defend Hawaii.

The Japs had more ships than we did. If they attacked, we're toast. We only had the following carriers:

Saratoga--laid up
Yorktown--Nearly destroyed at Coral Sea, was destroyed at Midway by a Jap Sub
Enterprise--Charmed Life (only ship next to Saratoga to finish the war)
Hornet--Lost at Guadal Canal
Lexington--Lost at Coral Sea

That was it. If we lost midway, the Yorktown, Hornet, and Enterprise would've been lost as was what was left of the Pacific Fleet unless they were able to disengage. The Japanese out gunned us up till about 1943 I think. Defend Hawaii? Maybe for abit but the Japs would have beatin us there then drove on to Mainland and invaded. Do I think we could have thrown them back? Probably could. Would we? who knows!

I believe this is off topic? I know how much that normally gets you upset, but you were also the one who initiated this piece of off topic material.

I believe that you really would like to change the subject?

Sorry but I was answering a question. Thus history had to be mentioned!

I believe this is off topic? I know how much that normally gets you upset, but you were also the one who initiated this piece of off topic material.

I believe that you really would like to change the subject?

This is a thread hijacking!

Keep quiet and you won't be hurt!

Allah Ackbar!

Whoops did I say that? :eek:

The Japs had more ships than we did. If they attacked, we're toast. We only had the following carriers:

Saratoga--laid up
Yorktown--Nearly destroyed at Coral Sea, was destroyed at Midway by a Jap Sub
Enterprise--Charmed Life (only ship next to Saratoga to finish the war)
Hornet--Lost at Guadal Canal
Lexington--Lost at Coral Sea

That was it. If we lost midway, the Yorktown, Hornet, and Enterprise would've been lost as was what was left of the Pacific Fleet unless they were able to disengage. The Japanese out gunned us up till about 1943 I think. Defend Hawaii? Maybe for abit but the Japs would have beatin us there then drove on to Mainland and invaded. Do I think we could have thrown them back? Probably could. Would we? who knows!

I doubt we would lose Hawaii, its too far away for an effective supply chain and we would have an advantage as far as land forces go.

From what I'm reading, the US government under Bush liberally implied from that last part of the Resolution 1441 that the US could go to war with Iraq if it didn't reveal its WMD arsenal or allowed UN or US inspectors in...
Well the UN inspectors were still in Iraq, and were making headway, and it is rather irrelevant what the US Government may imply, if in fact, that the UN Security Council would make the ultimate decision whether force was necessary. Such force was not granted.

This is a thread hijacking!

Keep quiet and you won't be hurt!

Allah Ackbar!

Whoops did I say that? :eek:

LOL

:mp5: Shoots the thread hijicker :mp5:

I think my sentiments over the war is Iraq is summed up in this protest warrior sign http://www.protestwarrior.com/signs.php?sign=26

I'll go for what my friends call the seinfeld explanation; before the invasion hundreds to thousands of people died every day

now, at the worst, dozens of people die every day

and even if the allegations of torture are true they are nothing on the scale of what saddam was up to and at the end of the day the torturers were sent to jail instead of being promoted

in conclusion, I couldn't care less if there are or are not any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

It's kind of like breaking into someone's house to steal their DVD player and finding the man of the house about to kill his wife. If you stop him from killing his wife, you might be called a hero, but it doesn't change the fact you were there to steal in the first place.

Is it good that Saddam was ousted? Yes.
Is it good that Bush flauted UN law and destabilised world peace? No.
Do I personally believe the invasion had anything to do with WMD or terrorist connections? No.
Do I think beheading of innocent Westerners is wrong? yes.
Do I think Iraqi prisoners being tortured, humiliated and some even beaten to death is wrong? yes.

Basically, I just can't get my head around the fact that anyone who speaks out against the Bush admin.'s policies regarding Iraq is labelled pro-Saddam. It's like if someone were trying to extinguish a housefire by throwing truckloads of kittens on it - if I suggested water might be more appropriate to fight the fire with, would people turn around and say "You're just pro-fire! Pyromaniac!".

To sum up: the ends do not justify the means.

This is a thread hijacking!

Keep quiet and you won't be hurt!

Allah Ackbar!

Whoops did I say that? :eek:

I note the threat and remind the honourable debater that I unlike Iraq, have WMD (Wisdom, Manners, and Decorum), and I am not afraid to use them!!

So can we please return to the thread on WMD?

The Japs had more ships than we did. If they attacked, we're toast. We only had the following carriers:

Saratoga--laid up
Yorktown--Nearly destroyed at Coral Sea, was destroyed at Midway by a Jap Sub
Enterprise--Charmed Life (only ship next to Saratoga to finish the war)
Hornet--Lost at Guadal Canal
Lexington--Lost at Coral Sea

That was it. If we lost midway, the Yorktown, Hornet, and Enterprise would've been lost as was what was left of the Pacific Fleet unless they were able to disengage. The Japanese out gunned us up till about 1943 I think. Defend Hawaii? Maybe for abit but the Japs would have beatin us there then drove on to Mainland and invaded. Do I think we could have thrown them back? Probably could. Would we? who knows!

Since you listed those boats, I should point out that frankly the biggest piece of luck the Americans had - besides winning the "find the fleet" game at Midway - was that the carriers weren't at Pearl. If they had been, as it was expected by the Japanese, it would have been a far different war.

It's kind of like breaking into someone's house to steal their DVD player and finding the man of the house about to kill his wife. If you stop him from killing his wife, you might be called a hero, but it doesn't change the fact you were there to steal in the first place.

Is it good that Saddam was ousted? Yes.
Is it good that Bush flauted UN law and destabilised world peace? No.
Do I personally believe the invasion had anything to do with WMD or terrorist connections? No.
Do I think beheading of innocent Westerners is wrong? yes.
Do I think Iraqi prisoners being tortured, humiliated and some even beaten to death is wrong? yes.

Basically, I just can't get my head around the fact that anyone who speaks out against the Bush admin.'s policies regarding Iraq is labelled pro-Saddam. It's like if someone were trying to extinguish a housefire by throwing truckloads of kittens on it - if I suggested water might be more appropriate to fight the fire with, would people turn around and say "You're just pro-fire! Pyromaniac!".

To sum up: the ends do not justify the means.


Very intellegent post, and I completely agree.

On a side note, the idea of stopping a fire by throwing kittens on it is both horrifing and hilarious at the same time o.O

Since you listed those boats, I should point out that frankly the biggest piece of luck the Americans had - besides winning the "find the fleet" game at Midway - was that the carriers weren't at Pearl. If they had been, as it was expected by the Japanese, it would have been a far different war.

That I will give you! It was pure luck that they weren't there. The Enterprise was supposed to have been there but was late due to weather.

The Japs had more ships than we did. If they attacked, we're toast. We only had the following carriers:

Saratoga--laid up
Yorktown--Nearly destroyed at Coral Sea, was destroyed at Midway by a Jap Sub
Enterprise--Charmed Life (only ship next to Saratoga to finish the war)
Hornet--Lost at Guadal Canal
Lexington--Lost at Coral Sea

That was it. If we lost midway, the Yorktown, Hornet, and Enterprise would've been lost as was what was left of the Pacific Fleet unless they were able to disengage. The Japanese out gunned us up till about 1943 I think. Defend Hawaii? Maybe for abit but the Japs would have beatin us there then drove on to Mainland and invaded. Do I think we could have thrown them back? Probably could. Would we? who knows!

CSW makes a point you have over looked. It takes time to assemble a fleet and troops for an invasion.

The Japanese fleet also had obligations around the pacific as well.

But looking at carrier commisions after Midway:

Jun. 15, 1942 - USS Copahee (CVE 12)
Aug. 24, 1942 - USS Santee (ACV 29)
Sept. 15, 1942 - USS Wasp (CV 7)
Dec. 31, 1942 - USS Essex (CV 9)
Jan. 14, 1943 - USS Independence (CVL 22)
Feb. 17, 1943 - USS Lexington (CV 16)
Feb. 25, 1943 - USS Princeton (CV 23)
Apr. 15, 1943 - USS Yorktown (CV 10)
May 25, 1943 - USS Bunker Hill (CV 17)
May 28, 1943 - USS Cowpens (CVL 25)
Jun. 17, 1943 - USS Monterey (CV 26)

Obviously this does not include other ship launches as well.

They may have been able to invade Hawai and even the Aluets but the force they would need to attack invade the west coast? :eek:

Much of the army was tied up in China and the Islands of the Pacific.

Ahhh but what ifs are fun! ;)

The aluetians where already taken during Midway. It was used as a rouse to get us mobilized. Problem was we were reading their mail otherwise, it could've worked. As for the fleet? They already had it assembled.

I note the threat and remind the honourable debater that I unlike Iraq, have WMD (Wisdom, Manners, and Decorum), and I am not afraid to use them!!

So can we please return to the thread on WMD?

The wisdom and CanuckHeaven is so noted and I apologise for my historical transgresions.

As such I will cease discussion of WWII and so return the thread to WMD.

The wisdom and CanuckHeaven is so noted and I apologise for my historical transgresions.

As such I will cease discussion of WWII and so return the thread to WMD.

I second the motion!

Now a slight attempt of humor.

In the overusage of WMD, I have wondered if that phrase was created since the shrub couldn't say Nuclear?

Now seriously.

The argument of Sadaam the bad man is rather weak.

Kim of NK is far worst. He is a threat to the region and to the argument of a "clear and present" danger; people forget we are still at war with NK. There was never a peace just a cease fire.

I see Iran is now being discussed? October surprise?

I second the motion!

I'll third.

I doubt we have the forces necessary to invade/occupy Iran without robbing peter to pay paul. Iran will be a whole different ballgame then Iraq, and I think we face a real chance of a Vietnam (just because of the religious differences) in Iran if we invade.

I'll third.

I doubt we have the forces necessary to invade/occupy Iran without robbing peter to pay paul. Iran will be a whole different ballgame then Iraq, and I think we face a real chance of a Vietnam (just because of the religious differences) in Iran if we invade.

Well it would be more difficult but maybe not either. A popular uprising could accompany a US Invasion. I doubt we'll invade though!

The wisdom and CanuckHeaven is so noted and I apologise for my historical transgresions.

As such I will cease discussion of WWII and so return the thread to WMD.
You are too kind sir and your co-operation is acknowledged.

In regards to Iraq, and WMD. Does anyone honestly believe that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US? Certainly Iraq didn't have any long range missles, and many of us saw the futile use of Iraqi Scud missles in the Gulf War.

Iraq had NO air force, because it was pinned down on a daily basis. Most of it was destroyed in the Gulf War.

Iraq's army had also been decimated and I am sure US intelligence knew that much. Most people, even people on the street, figured an invasion of Iraq would not take too long for US forces to gain control.

Even if Iraq had chemical weapons, she had no way of delivering them to the shores of the US. Iraq was a lame duck at best, barely capable of defending itself against her neighbours, let alone combined US and British forces.

Now when you consider how much money has been spent fighting this war in Iraq, well over a $100 Billion, then imagine how that money would have helped improve living conditions in the US, it is mind boggling.

Well it would be more difficult but maybe not either. A popular uprising could accompany a US Invasion. I doubt we'll invade though!

Yes, well they claimed that about Iraq too. People would be throwing flowers and welcoming the liberators....

In Iran's case, despite their being some shady work on excluding candidates, let's not forget that the current Islamic government is the one that was already put there by popular uprising only 25 years ago, and is one that has been voted back in. There is a reformist movement looking to relax some of the stricter elements of Islamic rule, however it IS still a democracy (to some extent) that has a huge populist base.

Yes, well they claimed that about Iraq too. People would be throwing flowers and welcoming the liberators....

In Iran's case, despite their being some shady work on excluding candidates, let's not forget that the current Islamic government is the one that was already put there by popular uprising only 25 years ago, and is one that has been voted back in. There is a reformist movement looking to relax some of the stricter elements of Islamic rule, however it IS still a democracy (to some extent) that has a huge populist base.

Ahh but is not the base made up of those that were in the revolt 25 years ago.

The last time I looked at photos of protests, I noticed there was a noticable lack of "young" protestors.

It appears they were loosing the youth.

Has that changed?

So, if the point was saving people from terror and deadly government, why are we not in Sudan? Or any of a dozen other African hellholes? Oh, wait. No oil, and most of the people are black.

And we're backing celibacy as the answer to AIDS. Well, that will certainly work in countries where all there IS is sex. No food. No water. No shelter. No medical. Sucky government. Well, geez yeah, virtue would be my first concern.

If evil was the point, there's plenty of it in a dozen other places worldwide. But, hey, they didn't try to kill his Dad. So we ain't concerned.

Ahh but is not the base made up of those that were in the revolt 25 years ago.

The last time I looked at photos of protests, I noticed there was a noticable lack of "young" protestors.

It appears they were loosing the youth.

Has that changed?

No, I think that the youth of Iran are yearning for a more secular government, and I would expect that in another decade or so the shift will become pronounced enough that a change may well come about from within. A true popular uprising requires more than one subset of the population or what you have is more like a civil war on your hands, and Iran still isn't quite there yet. At least when they booted the Shah it WAS the bulk of the population that wanted that puppet despot out.

No, I think that the youth of Iran are yearning for a more secular government, and I would expect that in another decade or so the shift will become pronounced enough that a change may well come about from within. A true popular uprising requires more than one subset of the population or what you have is more like a civil war on your hands, and Iran still isn't quite there yet. At least when they booted the Shah it WAS the bulk of the population that wanted that puppet despot out.

Zep? Don't Faint! But for once, I actually have to agree with you

Zep? Don't Faint! But for once, I actually have to agree with you

Well, you can't be wrong ALL of the time I guess.... ;)

lol

I'm not sure how made the mistake but someone referred to Saddam as "Hussein" which is is misnomer. Arabic names place the father's name after in the form of [Given Name], Son of [Father's Name]. Again not sure who did it, I think it was Formal Dances, just a nitpick.

As for the international law discussion, your all discussing points of law as if it were domestic law you were referring to. International Law does not resemble, it attempts to imitate domestic laws. All international treaties, laws and regulations are non-binding. I hate repeating this. No one is bound by some legal notion to obey any of them. There is no higher authority then the individual states. The U.N. Charter is NOT a constitution forming a state, hell, the U.N. does not even have legal status.

You cannot label a war legal or illegal. If you can then I challenge people to explain to whether WW1, WW2, Serbia/Kosovo, Vietnam, Korea, the Crusades, the Polish-Teutonic Wars, the Punic Wars were legal or not? The argument itself is ridiculous. The only thing you can logically argue is whether a war was justified or not, and there only on ideas of morality. War is neither legal nor illegal, its not endowed with the capacity to be either. That's why killing during a war is not murder, it is killing. Read Walzer or Aquinas on the subject of Just War theory.

Again, I repeat, war is not endowed with any legal nature. You could have rules in war, such as the obligation to wear uniforms, use sufficient force, etc...But no one is there to enforce them. There is no objective referee on the sideline telling me or penalizing me for using something or doing something I am not "allowed". The argument is flawed right off the start.

I'm not sure how made the mistake but someone referred to Saddam as "Hussein" which is is misnomer. Arabic names place the father's name after in the form of [Given Name], Son of [Father's Name]. Again not sure who did it, I think it was Formal Dances, just a nitpick.

As for the international law discussion, your all discussing points of law as if it were domestic law you were referring to. International Law does not resemble, it attempts to imitate domestic laws. All international treaties, laws and regulations are non-binding. I hate repeating this. No one is bound by some legal notion to obey any of them. There is no higher authority then the individual states. The U.N. Charter is NOT a constitution forming a state, hell, the U.N. does not even have legal status.

You cannot label a war legal or illegal. If you can then I challenge people to explain to whether WW1, WW2, Serbia/Kosovo, Vietnam, Korea, the Crusades, the Polish-Teutonic Wars, the Punic Wars were legal or not? The argument itself is ridiculous. The only thing you can logically argue is whether a war was justified or not, and there only on ideas of morality. War is neither legal nor illegal, its not endowed with the capacity to be either. That's why killing during a war is not murder, it is killing. Read Walzer or Aquinas on the subject of Just War theory.

Again, I repeat, war is not endowed with any legal nature. You could have rules in war, such as the obligation to wear uniforms, use sufficient force, etc...But no one is there to enforce them. There is no objective referee on the sideline telling me or penalizing me for using something or doing something I am not "allowed". The argument is flawed right off the start.


Yeah, we do. They are called war crimes tribunals.

I'm not sure how made the mistake but someone referred to Saddam as "Hussein" which is is misnomer. Arabic names place the father's name after in the form of [Given Name], Son of [Father's Name]. Again not sure who did it, I think it was Formal Dances, just a nitpick.

As for the international law discussion, your all discussing points of law as if it were domestic law you were referring to. International Law does not resemble, it attempts to imitate domestic laws. All international treaties, laws and regulations are non-binding. I hate repeating this. No one is bound by some legal notion to obey any of them. There is no higher authority then the individual states. The U.N. Charter is NOT a constitution forming a state, hell, the U.N. does not even have legal status.

You cannot label a war legal or illegal. If you can then I challenge people to explain to whether WW1, WW2, Serbia/Kosovo, Vietnam, Korea, the Crusades, the Polish-Teutonic Wars, the Punic Wars were legal or not? The argument itself is ridiculous. The only thing you can logically argue is whether a war was justified or not, and there only on ideas of morality. War is neither legal nor illegal, its not endowed with the capacity to be either. That's why killing during a war is not murder, it is killing. Read Walzer or Aquinas on the subject of Just War theory.

Again, I repeat, war is not endowed with any legal nature. You could have rules in war, such as the obligation to wear uniforms, use sufficient force, etc...But no one is there to enforce them. There is no objective referee on the sideline telling me or penalizing me for using something or doing something I am not "allowed". The argument is flawed right off the start.


Well, it WAS the US that defined war as a crime in and of itself at Nuremburg and used that as part of the charges and convictions of the men before them.

To repeat the quote from that trial


"The Tribunal now turns to the consideration of the Crimes against Peace charged in the Indictment. Count One of the Indictment charges the defendants with conspiring or having a common plan to commit crimes against peace. Count Two of the Indictment charges the defendants with committing specific crimes against peace by planning, preparing, initiating, and waging wars of aggression against a number of other states. It will be convenient to consider the question of the existence of a common plan and the question of aggressive war together, and to deal later in this Judgment with the question of the individual responsibility of the defendants.

The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."


If it was good enough for the Germans....

Nowhere in the above Resolution is the US authorized to attack Iraq!! I have highlighted some glaring areas of concern that demonstrate that fact. Also as a matter of fact, the US itself violated the above Resolution!!

Below is a Timeline that further demonstrates the UN did NOT authorize the US to attack Iraq. The US invasion was in FACT a violation of the UN Charter!!

March 20 2003
War begins.
At around 0230 GMT, shortly after the 48-hour deadline for Saddam to quit Iraq expires, America launches its first series of air strikes on Baghdad. George Bush says the US has begun attacks against 'targets of military opportunity'. Saddam Hussein gives a televised address to the Iraqi people at around 0530 GMT, calling the attack a 'shameful crime' and vowing to win the war. China, France and Russia denounce the US-led action.

At around 1805 GMT, US planes begin a heavy bombardment of military targets in central Baghdad. Later on, British marines invade the Faw peninsula in the south of the country.
Iraq launches Scud missiles

March 19 2003
Government aide David Kinley confirms he has resigned, bring the total of government casualties over Iraq to nine.
With 170,000 coalition troops massed on the Kuwaiti border, coalition aircraft bomb military targets in Iraq to 'soften up' the country's defences ahead of a US and British invasion.

The foreign ministers of Germany, France and Russia condemn the impending military action in strong terms, saying that the use of force against Iraq has not been approved by any UN resolution.
Bid to assassinate Saddam


March 18 2003
In a televised address at 0100GMT, Mr Bush gives Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq or face invasion.

During the course of the day, British government ministers John Denham and Lord Hunt resign in protest, along with four government aides. In the evening parliament holds a debate over military action in Iraq. The government's motion endorsing an attack is passed by 412 to 149, although the number of rebel Labour MPs voting for an anti-war amendment rises to 139, up from 122 three weeks ago.
Bush gives Saddam and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq


March 17 2003
With China, France and Russia opposed to an attack, the US and UK abandon hope of gaining security council support for a second resolution authorising war on Iraq. They withdraw the resolution, blaming the French veto threat.

The leader of the Commons, Robin Cook, resigns in protest at the government's decision to back a war without 'international authority nor domestic support'.


March 16 2003
Speaking at a hastily-arranged summit in the Azores, Mr Bush and Mr Blair give the United Nations a 24-hour ultimatum to enforce its own demands for immediate Iraqi disarmament, or face an American- and British-led coalition that will go to war within days.


March 14 2003
The French president, Jacques Chirac, removes any lingering doubts about France's intentions on Iraq, confirming to Mr Blair in a brief phone call that France was willing to seek a compromise on disarming Saddam Hussein but would not accept any UN resolution that set an ultimatum.
Chirac spells it out: no ultimatum


March 11 2003
The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, causes a poltical storm after suggesting America could attack President Saddam alone. Mr Blair later stresses Britain will fight alongside the US in any attack.
US may go it alone as Blair is caught in diplomatic deadlock


March 10 2003
Britain announces 'six key tests' for Iraq to comply to if it is to avoid war, including President Saddam making a TV address admitting having weapons of mass destruction. The idea galvanises some diplomatic support, but not enough to suggest the US/UK could win a second UN resolution, effectively authorising an attack.


March 9 2003
Following lobbying from undecided UN security council members, the US and Britain agree to set out the precise acts of disarmament that Saddam would have to undertake by March 17 to avoid war. Meanwhile, Clare Short, the international development secretary, threatens to resign if the UN fails to pass a second resolution authorising war. A parliamentary aide to Margaret Beckett, Andy Reed, earlier resigned over the issue.
Britain and US spell out steps to avoid attack


March 7 2003
Hans Blix gives another ambivalent report to the UN security council on Iraqi compliance, which is followed by a tense debate that further deepens the divide within the council. The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, proposes the UN sets an ultimatum that Iraq will be invaded unless the country demonstrates 'full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation' by March 17. France makes a clear threat that it will veto such a resolution.
Showdown as Britain sets March 17 deadline on Iraq


March 6 2003
In a nationwide television address, the US president, George Bush, indicates that war is very close.
Iraq attack very close, says Bush


March 5 2003
The foreign ministers of France, Russia and Germany release a joint declaration stating that they will 'not allow' a resolution authorising military action to pass the UN security council. The hardening stance from the anti-war bloc increases the pressure on the US and Britain to compromise on their draft UN resolution.
France, Russia and Germany harden stance


March 4 2003
The chancellor, Gordon Brown, makes clear his support for war by saying he is prepared to 'spend what it takes' to disarm Iraq. Mr Brown has already earmarked £1.75bn to fund a war.
Brown signs blank cheque for conflict


March 3 2003
Iraq claims that six civilians were killed and 15 wounded in last night's allied raid on the port city of Basra. Meanwhile, the Russian foreign minister, Ivan Ivanov, hints, on BBC radio, that his country may use its UN veto to block a resolution authorising war.
No-fly zone raids 'opening new war'


March 2 2003
It emerges that Britain and the US have been increasing their air strikes on Iraq in recent days, in an apparent bid to 'soften up' the country's defences ahead of a war. The two countries insist that there has been no change in the policy of no-fly zone bombing.

March 1 2003
In an unpleasant surprise for the Bush administration, the Turkish parliament narrowly rejects a plan to deploy 62,000 US troops in the country, to form a northern front in the event of war.

February 28 2003
Hans Blix's interim report to the UN is published, giving a mixed assessment of Iraqi cooperation with weapons inspectors, but hailing Saddam Hussein's commitment to comply with tomorrow's UN deadline for the destruction of Iraq's illegal Samoud 2 missiles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html

well, actually as you can clearly see while resolution 1441 tells memberstates to remember iraqs soverenty introductory clause 4 and clause 1 clearly authorise war

I'm not sure how made the mistake but someone referred to Saddam as "Hussein" which is is misnomer. Arabic names place the father's name after in the form of [Given Name], Son of [Father's Name]. Again not sure who did it, I think it was Formal Dances, just a nitpick.

As for the international law discussion, your all discussing points of law as if it were domestic law you were referring to. International Law does not resemble, it attempts to imitate domestic laws. All international treaties, laws and regulations are non-binding. I hate repeating this. No one is bound by some legal notion to obey any of them. There is no higher authority then the individual states. The U.N. Charter is NOT a constitution forming a state, hell, the U.N. does not even have legal status.

You cannot label a war legal or illegal. If you can then I challenge people to explain to whether WW1, WW2, Serbia/Kosovo, Vietnam, Korea, the Crusades, the Polish-Teutonic Wars, the Punic Wars were legal or not? The argument itself is ridiculous. The only thing you can logically argue is whether a war was justified or not, and there only on ideas of morality. War is neither legal nor illegal, its not endowed with the capacity to be either. That's why killing during a war is not murder, it is killing. Read Walzer or Aquinas on the subject of Just War theory.

Again, I repeat, war is not endowed with any legal nature. You could have rules in war, such as the obligation to wear uniforms, use sufficient force, etc...But no one is there to enforce them. There is no objective referee on the sideline telling me or penalizing me for using something or doing something I am not "allowed". The argument is flawed right off the start.

So to summarize (if I understand you correctly) - might makes right? Whoever has the biggest guns should make the rules?

i'm a little mixed on this one, yeah sadam was a 'bad man', and yeah i think the iraq's are better off without him, but i think that the way the war took place was equally as bad as the entire war...

war is a very dangerous and important thing, it scared me how easaly blair (living in the uk and all) managed to take my country to war. he didn't consider the feelings of his people and ignored protesters. the priminister is (supposedly) the prime representative of his people. how is it he can get away with totaly ignoring us and our views?

the war MIGHT have been needed and i can understand that, but we are not a despotism... are we?

YOU elected him

YOU gave him this power

YOU ordained him to use it

why is it so shocking that he did?

No, I think that the youth of Iran are yearning for a more secular government, and I would expect that in another decade or so the shift will become pronounced enough that a change may well come about from within. A true popular uprising requires more than one subset of the population or what you have is more like a civil war on your hands, and Iran still isn't quite there yet. At least when they booted the Shah it WAS the bulk of the population that wanted that puppet despot out.

It's funny you mention the Shah. A little story. Never verified it myself but it sounds interesting.

I once met the son of one of the Shahs gernerals. He was a decent honorable man(the son talking of his father). For example, he said a rather poor looking individual would always show up once a year. His father would great him like a long lost brother, invite him into his study, and they would talk away the night. He would not see him till another year. Finally, he asked his mom and she explained that his father was taking care of this man who had 12 children and no wife(she died).

He must have been ok as when the rebellion happened, they grabbed the family and told him he could take an hour to grab what ever was in his house and leave the country.

Well his father once said the shah had his problems but one thing people don't realise(ie westerners) is that the shah did want to help people. One thing in particular was a land reform measure. He wanted to parsel out land so as he put it, people could at least grow food and feed themselves.

Well there was one group that got a tad upset at the idea of loosing their holdings; the ayatollahs. Word got to them and the revolution suddenly began.....

Sounds interesting but like I said, never investigated.....

In Canada, our Prime Minister at the time, Jean Chretien, stated that he would NOT go to war against Iraq without the consent of the UN. Since the US and Britain did NOT get that consent, Canada did not join the "coalition of the willing".

Chretien took a lot of heat for his decision, especially from the Conservatives. However, the last poll I saw on this confirms that Chretien made the correct choice. Almost 80% of Canadians disagree with the War in Iraq.

As far as Tony Blair is concerned, will there be political repercussions?

I bet if white people were dying canada would have gone

YOU elected him

YOU gave him this power

YOU ordained him to use it

why is it so shocking that he did?


Elected? I think that 48.38% of the US population would disagree with you.

Yeah, we do. They are called war crimes tribunals.

No we don't. Those are also not binding. The judges there can only give advisory opinions, they don't have the force of law, unless states give it to them. Again, no. If you want to talk about Slobodan Milosevic's trial then we can talk about gross miscarriages of justice and the corruption of the presumption of innocence.

Well, it WAS the US that defined war as a crime in and of itself at Nuremburg and used that as part of the charges and convictions of the men before them.

To repeat the quote from that trial



If it was good enough for the Germans....

The Allies defined war as a crime, because it suited them at the time. Nuremberg was a victors trial, if you believe that the judges were fair and that there was ANY presumptions of innocence then your dead wrong. Those accused of crimes were dead or doomed for jail off the start.

Again, international law is not binding, hence we didn't see trials spring up after every single war in the following decades. If war is a crime then every soldier who participates in war (including myself) is a criminal, hence the argument is ridiculous. War is not legal or illegal, its actions you take against the enemy that may land you in trouble if you lose. So whatever you do in war, don't lose.

You are totally incorrect. NOTHING in this Resolution OR the previous Resolutions gave the US the authority to attack Iraq.

Read Points # 2, 4, 11, and 12. Read them over and over. Perhaps the truth will register with you then?

The rest of your argument is pure rhetoric.

read subclause 4 and clause 1

the rest of the resolution is pretty much a reminder that iraq is a soveringe country, now you can steam roll it

Elected? I think that 48.38% of the US population would disagree with you.

sorry but he was elected CSW. Verified by 4 newspapers and Cable networks. LA Times, NY Times, CNN, and the Miami Herold. They all did recounts and found that if they used the most lenient of standards, Bush would've won Florida. Thus He was duly elected. Doesn't matter about popular vote. What matters is the Electoral votes. Thus Florida gave Bush 271 electoral votes. One vote over the minimum.

Mainland is in the UK.

Yes, but we would have had those ships after Midway to launch a counter-attack if need be. Certainly we would be able to defend Hawaii.

and how could you have survived if we didn't break international law to deliver supplies to you?

I bet if white people were dying canada would have gone

Whoaaaa. White people?

Canada = racism?

Wow who would have thought :rolleyes:

Have you ever been to Canada?

Now a slight attempt of humor.

In the overusage of WMD, I have wondered if that phrase was created since the shrub couldn't say Nuclear?

Now seriously.

The argument of Sadaam the bad man is rather weak.

Kim of NK is far worst. He is a threat to the region and to the argument of a "clear and present" danger; people forget we are still at war with NK. There was never a peace just a cease fire.

I see Iran is now being discussed? October surprise?

yes, but if we invaded n. korea kim would launch nukes and tens of millions of people would die

and iran is next

and how could you have survived if we didn't break international law to deliver supplies to you?

Doesn't matter. Germany couldn't touch Great Britian.

sorry but he was elected CSW. Verified by 4 newspapers and Cable networks. LA Times, NY Times, CNN, and the Miami Herold. They all did recounts and found that if they used the most lenient of standards, Bush would've won Florida. Thus He was duly elected. Doesn't matter about popular vote. What matters is the Electoral votes. Thus Florida gave Bush 271 electoral votes. One vote over the minimum.
No, the most lenient of standards said that Gore won. Along with quite a few other standards.

So, if the point was saving people from terror and deadly government, why are we not in Sudan? Or any of a dozen other African hellholes? Oh, wait. No oil, and most of the people are black.

And we're backing celibacy as the answer to AIDS. Well, that will certainly work in countries where all there IS is sex. No food. No water. No shelter. No medical. Sucky government. Well, geez yeah, virtue would be my first concern.

If evil was the point, there's plenty of it in a dozen other places worldwide. But, hey, they didn't try to kill his Dad. So we ain't concerned.

actually sudan has a hell of alot of oil

so does nigeria, and angola

we'll get to them eventually

but it wont be for oil

yes, but if we invaded n. korea kim would launch nukes and tens of millions of people would die

and iran is next

That makes sense. In the war against evil despots who terrorize their countrymen and represent a threat to the US... the highest priority should always go for the least threats....

Elected? I think that 48.38% of the US population would disagree with you.

actually that one was about tony

but the same applies for GW

he got the most votes, electoral college votes

and you guys claim to be such suckers for legal protical

I bet if white people were dying canada would have gone


cough FLAMEBAIT cough

Whoaaaa. White people?

Canada = racism?

Wow who would have thought :rolleyes:

Have you ever been to Canada?

we go to invade yugoslavia (who were no threat to us) and the canadians cheer

we do the same for arab country and they call us war mongerers

actually that one was about tony

but the same applies for GW

he got the most votes, electoral college votes

and you guys claim to be such suckers for legal protical

Fine-but we didn't vote for him, smartass. He didn't get the majority of votes, then we didn't vote for him.

I bet if white people were dying canada would have gone

ah yes - the flamebait argument.

Which of course is why when it was a Canadian screaming for help in Rwanda that the US refused to help and specifically told their UN envoy NOT to use the word "genocide" because that would automatically force a response... it was because Canada is racist.

It also explains why Canada was involved in Somalia, and this year in both Afghanistan and Haiti.


Up until now, I just diagreed with you.

With low tactics like that, I will lower that statement to "I don't respect you and chose not to debate you further".

-Z-

Whoaaaa. White people?

Canada = racism?

Wow who would have thought :rolleyes:

Have you ever been to Canada?

we go to invade yugoslavia (who was no threat to us) and the canadians cheer

we do the same for arab country and they call us war mongerers

Doesn't matter. Germany couldn't touch Great Britian.


you would have fueled your planes with??? courage?

you would have fed your population with??? nationalism?

your AAA gunners would have shot at the Germans with??? determination?

That makes sense. In the war against evil despots who terrorize their countrymen and represent a threat to the US... the highest priority should always go for the least threats....

or the greatest threat to humanity as a whole

we go to invade yugoslavia (who was no threat to us) and the canadians cheer

we do the same for arab country and they call us war mongerers

Otay.

Hmmm What about the first Gulf war?

So the argument falls on that.

Fine-but we didn't vote for him, smartass. He didn't get the majority of votes, then we didn't vote for him.

so its all about doing the good thing

to hell with strict laws

we'll let things slide

except when we don't like them

now I get it

so its all about doing the good thing

to hell with strict laws

we'll let things slide

except when we don't like them

now I get it

Oh, like the right wouldn't throw a hissyfit if it was Gore in office instead of Bush under the same conditions. Honesty, from one Delawarian to another, is all that I am asking for.

ah yes - the flamebait argument.

Which of course is why when it was a Canadian screaming for help in Rwanda that the US refused to help and specifically told their UN envoy NOT to use the word "genocide" because that would automatically force a response... it was because Canada is racist.

It also explains why Canada was involved in Somalia, and this year in both Afghanistan and Haiti.


Up until now, I just diagreed with you.

With low tactics like that, I will lower that statement to "I don't respect you and chose not to debate you further".

-Z-

you sent a few aid workers to somolia cowering behind our guns and a few doezen soldiers to haiti

yeah, canada, stepping up in the world

just keep up this stride and you could outpace poland

Oh, like the right wouldn't throw a hissyfit if it was Gore in office instead of Bush under the same conditions. Honesty, from one Delawarian to another, is all that I am asking for.

I would have

but you say that gore should have been put in office because it was the right thing to do, which I conceed, it was

but then in the UN we HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL THE RULES even the ones that are now meaningless, we cant step over those lines even if people die because of it

Otay.

Hmmm What about the first Gulf war?

So the argument falls on that.

we didn't occupy anything in kuait

it was a weekend war

we lot more troops to accedents than enemy fire

I would have

but you say that gore should have been put in office because it was the right thing to do, which I conceed, it was

but then in the UN we HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL THE RULES even the ones that are now meaningless, we cant step over those lines even if people die because of it

No one follows all of the rules in the UN, and quite frankly, I think this justified war argument over UN resolutions is bullshit, we need to look at what our president said (WMD and terrorist connections) and move from there.

you sent a few aid workers to somolia cowering behind our guns and a few doezen soldiers to haiti

yeah, canada, stepping up in the world

just keep up this stride and you could outpace poland

Ahhh wrong again. Canada sent the airborne regiment to Somalia which is probably their best unit.

As to the amount of soldiers. Don't forget their army is only so big......

No one follows all of the rules in the UN, and quite frankly, I think this justified war argument over UN resolutions is bullshit, we need to look at what our president said (WMD and terrorist connections) and move from there.

shouldn't the president be allowed legal legroom

like when we put al capone away for life on tax evasion

it was a drasticaly unfair sentance, but it took a murderer off the streets

and the invasion of iraq was probobly unfair with out lack of evidence, but it took a mass murder off the streets

you sent a few aid workers to somolia cowering behind our guns and a few doezen soldiers to haiti

yeah, canada, stepping up in the world

just keep up this stride and you could outpace poland



Congratulations - Your arrogance is only matched by your ignorance.

shouldn't the president be allowed legal legroom

like when we put al capone away for life on tax evasion

it was a drasticaly unfair sentance, but it took a murderer off the streets

and the invasion of iraq was probobly unfair with out lack of evidence, but it took a mass murder off the streets

Bad precident. You don't start wars lightly, especially when it costs us billions of dollars and thousands of lives (It will. We aren't going anywhere quickly)

Ahhh wrong again. Canada sent the airborne regiment to Somalia which is probably their best unit.

As to the amount of soldiers. Don't forget their army is only so big......

I know they're a small country but for the love of God POLAND is putting more troops overseas than they are

well, actually as you can clearly see while resolution 1441 tells memberstates to remember iraqs soverenty introductory clause 4 and clause 1 clearly authorise war

ALL of the clauses are intertwined and 1 and 4 only become applicable if the said conditions are not met, and if the said conditions were not being met, they were to be reported according to clause 11. Lastly, all conditions would have to be determined by a convening of council as laid out in clause 12.

As far as most members of the council were concerned, the Iraqis WERE in fact complying to the Resolution. Imagine putting yourself in the Iraqi position, and further imagine just how difficult that would be to do. The Iraqi government had to provide almost total access to any place in Iraq that the inspectors deemed necessary. That is one hell of an accommodation for ANY government to make!!

The conditions were being met. The council did NOT authorize an armed invasion of Iraq. PERIOD!!

Bad precident. You don't start wars lightly, especially when it costs us billions of dollars and thousands of lives (It will. We aren't going anywhere quickly)
Considering Europe still hasn't paid America back for the Marshall plan, and considering we still have troops there, if this war takes 20 years that will be comparitively quick.

Bad precident. You don't start wars lightly, especially when it costs us billions of dollars and thousands of lives (It will. We aren't going anywhere quickly)

containment was costing us billions of dollars a year anyway (especialy keeping 70,000 troops in saudia arabia and about 40,000 in kuait doing nothing)

and it wasn't started lightly, hundreds of thousands of people were dying, does it really matter how we filled out the paperwork

I bet if white people were dying canada would have gone
What do you mean by this question?

ALL of the clauses are intertwined and 1 and 4 only become applicable if the said conditions are not met, and if the said conditions were not being met, they were to be reported according to clause 11. Lastly, all conditions would have to be determined by a convening of council as laid out in clause 12.

As far as most members of the council were concerned, the Iraqis WERE in fact complying to the Resolution. Imagine putting yourself in the Iraqi position, and further imagine just how difficult that would be to do. The Iraqi government had to provide almost total access to any place in Iraq that the inspectors deemed necessary. That is one hell of an accommodation for ANY government to make!!

The conditions were being met. The council did NOT authorize an armed invasion of Iraq. PERIOD!!

subclause four said that in no unclear language that if iraq was in breach of these resolutions were could invade

clause one says in no unclear language that they have been and are in material breach of these resolutions

Like duh, there weren't any WMD.

you sent a few aid workers to somolia cowering behind our guns and a few doezen soldiers to haiti

yeah, canada, stepping up in the world

just keep up this stride and you could outpace poland

Now that's personal. I'm Polish and living in Canada.

How about giving some respect to nations which fought with your nation before? Close your yap.

2500 Polish troops are serving in Iraq currently, all volunteers also. The GROM special unit participated in active combat during the war and was commended by both Bush and Rumsfeld. They've also remained staunchly pro-American were others have faulted.

As for Canada, between 1300-2000 troops are serving in Afghanistan. There are 450 troops in Haiti along with members of JTF-2. The Bosnian contigent varied wildly in size; currently something like 1200. Canada does what it can with the few resources our Liberal government has given.

containment was costing us billions of dollars a year anyway (especialy keeping 70,000 troops in saudia arabia and about 40,000 in kuait doing nothing)

and it wasn't started lightly, hundreds of thousands of people were dying, does it really matter how we filled out the paperwork


No, it wasn't, not on the level that it is now. And, no, 1,000's of people were not dying, the latest estimates are around 25-40,000.

What do you mean by this question?

that the reason we didn't get the same international support for this war as we did in yugolslavia (which was basicaly the iraq war, in southern europe) is because the people we're fighting for are not white and are viewed as unimportant by most of the world

The UN is far from perfect, but it's the best international committe we've got at the moment. Everytime someone ignores the UN when it suits them, it makes it harder for the UN to function.

Without the UN, we might as well all just pull inside our own borders and point nukes at every other country - no singular country has the moral authority to make decisions for the rest of the world, even if it has the military might. You simply cannot judge the morality of every country on earth by the yard stick of Democracy and Christianity. You must respect the sovereignty of other nations, even if you think their politcal or religious ideals are "screwed up".

The fact that the US went into Iraq to (allegedly, after finding no WMD) remove a dictator is not the point. The point is now that every country in the world can cite America's example of preemtive strikes to invade basically whoever they want. Can all of the pro-war and pro-Bush advocates at least see how bad an example this has set? Bush has done more to destabilise world peace than 50 Saddams or Usamas - he set an example of invading a sovereign nation over a flimsy pretext (WMD), which, when found lacking, was simply swept under the rug and made believe that it was never the primary reason. So the next time some tinpot dictator invades some small African nation he can justify his actions with a simple "Oh, the old ruler was a bad guy - he killed people! And I heard he had some WMD somewhere, too".

:(

I keep wondering, which war can ever be justified? Please enlighten me, someone...

No, it wasn't, not on the level that it is now. And, no, 1,000's of people were not dying, the latest estimates are around 25-40,000.

if 50,000 people die in this war, exchanged for a free democracy and the lives of all those saddam would have killed then that my friend is a bargin

Okay what the hell.. when did Canada become racist???? That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard!!! We didn't go to this war because the UN did not sanction it and we did not believe it to be in our best interests. Canada is a peace keeping country, and I understand that some people view this war as a peace keeping mission, but I for one don't. Peace cannot be achieved through occupation. If this war was executed properly, then maybe Canada would have joined. Why would our government send us to war when 80% of us didn't want them too? It makes no sense. How about you come to Toronto, look at the people who live there, and THEN call it racist. You crazy, crazy bastards.

I keep wondering, which war can ever be justified? Please enlighten me, someone...

acording to the Catholic church if they are the most proficient way to save other human life then they are justified

that works pretty well

if 50,000 people die in this war, exchanged for a free democracy and the lives of all those saddam would have killed then that my friend is a bargin

So nothing could convince you otherwise. Okay, fine, I disagree.

Okay what the hell.. when did Canada become racist???? That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard!!! We didn't go to this war because the UN did not sanction it and we did not believe it to be in our best interests. Canada is a peace keeping country, and I understand that some people view this war as a peace keeping mission, but I for one don't. Peace cannot be achieved through occupation. If this war was executed properly, then maybe Canada would have joined. Why would our government send us to war when 80% of us didn't want them too? It makes no sense. How about you come to Toronto, look at the people who live there, and THEN call it racist. You crazy, crazy bastards.

peace can't achived through occupation? then tell me what the hell are canadians doing in yugoslavia?

acording to the Catholic church if they are the most proficient way to save other human life then they are justified

that works pretty well

huh???? how????

subclause four said that in no unclear language that if iraq was in breach of these resolutions were could invade

clause one says in no unclear language that they have been and are in material breach of these resolutions
I am begining to believe that you cannot separate fact from fiction. There are 14 clauses in total in Resolution 1441, and nothing happens until clause 12 is satisfied.

I also do not like your inferrence that Canada did not go to Iraq because of the colour of the people. Canada is more culturally diverse than the US, and looks for peaceful resolutions wherever possible. As long as the UN inspectors were doing their job, Canada was not going to war in Iraq.

As far as the dig on nations of colour is concerned, Canada was a full participant in the Korean War, and involved in Somalia as well. Don't forget, Canada was against the apartheid movement in South Africa....care to comment what the US position was through the UN? So don't give me that race crap.

Your arguments are weak, and your facts are lacking. Slurring around at the bottom of the barrel to try and fling racial barbs is unethical. Enjoy debating with yourself.

"peace can't achived through occupation? then tell me what the hell are canadians doing in yugoslavia? "


Ummm.. we certainly aren't occupying Yugoslavia... do you even know what that means? Not occupying as in being there, but occupying in a military sense. What Canadians are doing there is peace keeping, which means not taking sides, just literally, keeping peace, as it should be.

Get it in your thick heads - killing is wrong - no matter what the numbers or statistics say. If you in any way try to defend what's going on you are as guilty as an f***ing terrorist. We have the WMD and we have used them (in defence haha!)

So, there are no large stockpiles of WMDs... I frankly don't care. That was not the sole reason I supported the invasion on Iraq.
Countless SAMs were launched at American planes patroling the UN enforced no-fly zones. Any kind of hostile action like that is a declaration of war. As far as I'm concerned the US government should have replied in kind a long time ago.
The connections between Saddam and international terrorists are plentiful. He harbored Taliban leaders that were wounded in Afghanistan. He paid rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He harbored a collaborator in the Oklahoma City Trade Center bombing.
All of these are detrimental to the US and the world in general. The WMDs were just icing on the cake.

And I'm still pissed off that 4 Canadians were killed in that "friendly fire" incident in Afghanistan... and they pretty much got off scott free. Frigging idiots, they shoot at anything that moves.

We entertained the Taliban in Texas - we have WMD

And I like how most media outlets bury the story that Iraq did try to buy uranium from Africa underneath non-news about Abu-gharib and other such nonsense.

So let's go kill their children - cos that's the only way to deal with it

Oh of course, killing children solves every problem... idiots I say, pure idiots..

read my previous threads for god's sake

Oh of course, killing children solves every problem... idiots I say, pure idiots..
Kill them early and they wont grow up and be terrorists. /joke

Kill them early and they wont grow up and be terrorists. /joke
Well...it does make for a good insurance policy, doesn't it? I mean...if we turn into Iraq into kind of what the cotton fields of pre-Civil war America was, except Arabs instead of Blacks and McDonalds instead of cotton fields, then the world will be safe again, right?

yeah but they won't grow up to be republicans either /joke

Well...it does make for a good insurance policy, doesn't it? I mean...if we turn into Iraq into kind of what the cotton fields of pre-Civil war America was, except Arabs instead of Blacks and McDonalds instead of cotton fields, then the world will be safe again, right?
Yeah, because the South was such a shining beacon of prosperity and goodness.

Um, I think he was being sarcastic...

So was I. That's how humor works.

No nation in the World has the right to invade a sovereign nation that has never threatened their own nation, or even threatened to threaten their nation. The deaths of civilians make George Bush as much of a war criminal as Saddam Hussein. The only difference is Bush "only killed Iraquis", while Hussein "killed his own people".

My GOD, this administration sometimes makes me SICK!

No nation in the World has the right to invade a sovereign nation that has never threatened their own nation, or even threatened to threaten their nation. The deaths of civilians make George Bush as much of a war criminal as Saddam Hussein. The only difference is Bush "only killed Iraquis", while Hussein "killed his own people".

My GOD, this administration sometimes makes me SICK!
George Bush didn't kill anybody. But beyond the semantics, the fact remains people die in wars. Might as well convict Churchill and Roosevelt for war crimes as long as you want to be a fool.

George Bush didn't kill anybody. But beyond the semantics, the fact remains people die in wars. Might as well convict Churchill and Roosevelt for war crimes as long as you want to be a fool.
Robert McNamara of Vietnam fame said in the documentary "The Fog of War" that when he was having a conversation with General Curtis LeMay, Le May noted that had the Allies lost WWII, the two of them would have been on trial for war crimes, along with the entire senior staff, the President, Churchill, and all the rest for actions including the fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo. The winners determine who the criminals are, but that doesn't make the winners' actions any more moral.

The winners determine who the criminals are, but that doesn't make the winners' actions any more moral.
I wouldn't say that.
In WW2 the winners happened to be the Allies; the defenders. They (we) were fighting an alliance of three fascist governments who were invading neighboring lands without provocation. Are you going to call the Allies, the winners, less moral?
In Vietnam, the UN lost to North Vietnam. They invaded and took over their southern neighbor. In the aftermath, that communist government killed non-combatants in Vietnam and Cambodia. Over one million died. Are you going to call the South Vietnamese, the losers, criminals?

What I am going to say is that in war atrocities are committed by all parties--no exceptions. There never has been a clean war. The difference is that the winners get to write the history, and get to demonize the losers while exalting themselves. But no one ever absolutely occupies the moral high ground after a conflict. Was Hitler more evil than the Allies? No question. Were the Allies moral and ethical in the way they conducted the war? Not always.

Actually, do you're research on some of the leader of South Vietnam :p

Looking at the pole...
Even if there are WMDs and terrorist connections 38.71% still say the war isn't just?
We're purely in a hypothetical mode since large amounts of WMDs are unlikely to be found, but why wouldn't the war be just if both WMDs and terrorists are found? If there are terrorist connections, Iraq is complicit with an attack on US soil. If WMDs are found, Iraq is proven to be a threat to the US. What more would be needed to make the war justified in the eyes of this
38.71%?

I wouldn't say that.
In WW2 the winners happened to be the Allies; the defenders. They (we) were fighting an alliance of three fascist governments who were invading neighboring lands without provocation. Are you going to call the Allies, the winners, less moral?
In Vietnam, the UN lost to North Vietnam. They invaded and took over their southern neighbor. In the aftermath, that communist government killed non-combatants in Vietnam and Cambodia. Over one million died. Are you going to call the South Vietnamese, the losers, criminals?

Would you call the blanket bombing of cities (I'm stressing here that cities are clearly civilian targets here) in Japan and Germany, a moral ethical thing to do (assuming that we both agree that the intentional killing of an innocent is wrong). Lets not even bother with going into atomic weapons here...

and in response to your last question, having read a considerable amount on the Vietnam conflict, I would say, without any reservations, YES.