NationStates Jolt Archive

The war on Iraq declared by the US, and its coalition was illegal because international law states that a single or group of nations cannot judge another. Only the UN can do this. Secondly, some say thetre was a moral oblication to invade - this is illegal just like invading because of WMDs, as it is judging another country without the UN.

So is there any way the Iraq war was legal, or does the US diserve some liberating, eh_

:rolleyes:

Has this not been put to bed yet?

:rolleyes:

Has this not been put to bed yet?

Afraid not Biff! :rolleyes:

The war on Iraq declared by the US, and its coalition was illegal because international law states that a single or group of nations cannot judge another. Only the UN can do this. Secondly, some say thetre was a moral oblication to invade - this is illegal just like invading because of WMDs, as it is judging another country without the UN.

So is there any way the Iraq war was legal, or does the US diserve some liberating, eh_
Technically illegal yes, but there will be no charges laid. :mad:

:rolleyes:

Has this not been put to bed yet?

Seriously... everyone outside the US knows it was illegal, and hardly anyone inside the US cares. :sniper:

Technically illegal yes, but there will be no charges laid. :mad:

Tony Blair and George Bush actually had war crimes charges put against them, but whichever country the international court is in failed to persue them.

Seriously... everyone outside the US knows it was illegal, and hardly anyone inside the US cares. :sniper:

Everyone outside the US THINKS it was illegal and yes, most here could not care less. Does that make them right? No, in my opinion, it does not.

Tony Blair and George Bush actually had war crimes charges put against them, but whichever country the international court is in failed to persue them.

Yeah....and this is the same court that also fails to bring in how many despots? It is always easier to blame the US for everything.

It seems to me the central issue surrounding the Iraq war is not whether it is legal so much as whether it is justified.

Well, technically, as the US was ostensibly enforcing the UN's own mandate, I'm not sure it is as clear cut a case of legallity. For the US's actions to be "illegal" would imply that the initial UN mandate was also illegal which would open a huge kettle of fish.

Unjustified and wrong, sure, but not, technically, illegal, I think. Imho.

*sits quietly and waits for someone to blast me*

It seems to me the central issue surrounding the Iraq war is not whether it is legal so much as whether it is justified.

NOW you have an argument. However, i think that in a few years you will find that most Iraqi's will see it was. Right now things are still in turmoil, but that will change.

yyyaaarrr, stop kicking dead horses!

Was it legal? there is no law that says we cant wage a war against anyone, france for that matter. so no it was not legal. I say down with france too!!

Did it need to be done? Yes.

And until you've seen what I've seen, I dont give a shit about your opinion. Sadam was a bad person, and his country was suffering because of him, now they have the freedom to complain about us. At least now they have that freedom.

No matter what political reasons were used to get people to agree to it, it still needed to be done

NOW you have an argument. However, i think that in a few years you will find that most Iraqi's will see it was. Right now things are still in turmoil, but that will change.
My name is Biff. This is my opinion. My opinion is fact. All dissenting opinions will be responding to by blind patriotism and considered incorrect. Thank you for listening.

Was it legal? there is no law that says we cant wage a war against anyone, france for that matter. so no it was not legal. I say down with france too!! Read the UN Charter.

Did it need to be done? Yes.

And until you've seen what I've seen, I dont give a shit about your opinion. Sadam was a bad person, and his country was suffering because of him, now they have the freedom to complain about us. At least now they have that freedom.

No matter what political reasons were used to get people to agree to it, it still needed to be done
No one is denying any of that.

My name is Biff. This is my opinion. My opinion is fact. All dissenting opinions will be responding to by blind patriotism and considered incorrect. Thank you for listening.

Well, one day when you are older....you will experience more of the world than Arkansas. THEN you will see that the world is NOT such a great place everywhere. Maybe you will experience some of what I have seen of the world, but I certainly hope not. I have seen the cruelty that man can inflict on other men and trust me, it is not pretty.

Sadam was a bad person, and his country was suffering because of him, now they have the freedom to complain about us. At least now they have that freedom.

Actually, Saddam probably encouraged his people to complain about the US....he just didn't like when you complained about him.

I could come up with a list of countries with "bad people" in charge that make the people suffer. Does the US have plans to 'liberate' all those people too? What makes the Iraqi's so special only they deserve freedom? I think these are legitimate points if you want to argue the Iraq war was justified...

Actually, Saddam probably encouraged his people to complain about the US....he just didn't like when you complained about him.

I could come up with a list of countries with "bad people" in charge that make the people suffer. Does the US have plans to 'liberate' all those people too? What makes the Iraqi's so special only they deserve freedom? I think these are legitimate points if you want to argue the Iraq war was justified...
Actually, I don't doubt that the US will try to get regime change in many of these countries. We've already done so in Liberia and Haiti, even while the vasy majority of our troops were tied down in Iraq. The US isn't and endless fountain of troops, of course, so we can't go getting rid of them all right now, but in recent history its been a pretty good record. Even stretching into the very tail end of the Cold War, we took out Manuel Noriega. Of course, going further into the Cold War gives us a less exemplary record, and the circumstances were different back then.

Actually, I don't doubt that the US will try to get regime change in many of these countries. We've already done so in Liberia and Haiti, even while the vasy majority of our troops were tied down in Iraq. The US isn't and endless fountain of troops, of course, so we can't go getting rid of them all right now, but in recent history its been a pretty good record. Even stretching into the very tail end of the Cold War, we took out Manuel Noriega. Of course, going further into the Cold War gives us a less exemplary record, and the circumstances were different back then.

Hmmmm.....Liberia was the result of a civil war. Haiti as well. We just refused to back the leaders up.

Hmmmm.....Liberia was the result of a civil war. Haiti as well. We just refused to back the leaders up.
US troops were in there at some point during the conflict, and at both times we supported the rebels. It was a lot like Afghanistan, where we cooperated with local forces, too. It was us (along with the French, I think) who ended up forcing Aristide out.

Well, technically, as the US was ostensibly enforcing the UN's own mandate, I'm not sure it is as clear cut a case of legallity. For the US's actions to be "illegal" would imply that the initial UN mandate was also illegal which would open a huge kettle of fish.

Unjustified and wrong, sure, but not, technically, illegal, I think. Imho.

*sits quietly and waits for someone to blast me*
Sitting comfortably?

A US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a Dangerous Precedent For Violence That Will Endanger the American People

http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/IraqStatement/

http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/index.html
Every nation that has ever committed aggression against another claimed to be "defending" itself. The United States helped establish the United Nations precisely in order to impose the rule of law on such claims, to make it unlawful for nations to strike against others unless they were themselves under armed attack. The United States is not under armed attack by Iraq.


Lawless international violence only breeds more killing of innocent people. The massive civilian deaths, the scarred and maimed children, the ruined and starving peoples, whose suffering is inseparable from warfare, can only spawn new generations of embittered peoples, new hate-filled leaders, new enraged individuals, determined to answer violence with violence.

The American people are not made safer by the unilateral use of force, in violation of the "supreme Law of the Land" and the United Nations Charter. We are further endangered. Lawless violence generates recruits for terrorism.

So true and so sad.

Nothing is illegal for the USA because at present we are strong enough to basically do as we please.

Well, one day when you are older....you will experience more of the world than Arkansas. THEN you will see that the world is NOT such a great place everywhere. Maybe you will experience some of what I have seen of the world, but I certainly hope not. I have seen the cruelty that man can inflict on other men and trust me, it is not pretty.
and one day you may gain more "wisdom" and "insight" that allows you to admit you are neither always right nor the champion of the superior opinion

Nothing is illegal for the USA because at present we are strong enough to basically do as we please.
which is right, how?

Actually, I don't doubt that the US will try to get regime change in many of these countries. We've already done so in Liberia and Haiti, even while the vasy majority of our troops were tied down in Iraq. The US isn't and endless fountain of troops, of course, so we can't go getting rid of them all right now, but in recent history its been a pretty good record. Even stretching into the very tail end of the Cold War, we took out Manuel Noriega. Of course, going further into the Cold War gives us a less exemplary record, and the circumstances were different back then.
didnt insurgents in haiti overthrow the president and we spirit him out to save his ass?
yeah and we put saddham hussein, i think, and fidel castro into power. we need to stop supporting insurgents, period

didnt insurgents in haiti overthrow the president and we spirit him out to save his ass?
yeah and we put saddham hussein, i think, and fidel castro into power. we need to stop supporting insurgents, period
Actually, we didn't put Saddam in power and I'm pretty sure Fidel came to power much the way Saddam did (on his own). Those, of course, both fall into the Cold War era in which I said our record was nothing to be proud of.

which is right, how?


I never said it was right, just how it is.

So true and so sad.
Canuck, thats not true and you know it. The US set no precedent by going into Iraq. The members of the UN, and even of the security council, have been going to war without sanction of the UN for almost the whole time of its existance. Did NATO intervening in Kosovo set a dangerous precedent? We bypassed the UN there. Hmm... Also to suggest that just because of the Iraq war "The massive civilian deaths, the scarred and maimed children, the ruined and starving peoples, whose suffering is inseparable from warfare, can only spawn new generations of embittered peoples, new hate-filled leaders, new enraged individuals, determined to answer violence with violence." will occur is false, this would happen under Saddam. At least now they're on the path towards a democratic and prosperous future.

moraly wrong....perhaps

legaly wrong...not according the UN (dige up SC resolution 1441, 660 and 668)

Was it illegal by international law? That is debatable. However, if it was illegal, what are the consequences? Does the UN have an army? Does it even have an effective governing system? The world, by definition, is an anarchic place, and it will remain so as long as international law can be enforced without violating national sovereignty of any nation.

At least now they're on the path towards a democratic and prosperous future.
Who says that they are on the path towards a "democratic and prosperous future?" Have you heard anything about Bremer's Orders, which is nothing more than a hi-jacking of the Iraqi economy?

http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=550&pageID=177&subSiteID=44

Check out Order # 39 about half way down the page:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm

Do you truly believe that Islamic fundamentalists are chomping at the bit to embrace "western style democracy"? That would be a big NO.

This is not comparable to post war Germany or Japan. The Iraqi ideology is totally different. Perhaps you will recall from history, that the UK tried to "westernize" Iraq many years ago and the UK had to back out?

I firmly believe that the US invasion has made this world a lot less safer for westerners in general and Americans/Britons specifically.

There was NO compelling reason to attack Iraq. Period. :mad:

Who says that they are on the path towards a "democratic and prosperous future?" Have you heard anything about Bremer's Orders, which is nothing more than a hi-jacking of the Iraqi economy?

http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=550&pageID=177&subSiteID=44

Check out Order # 39 about half way down the page:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm

Do you truly believe that Islamic fundamentalists are chomping at the bit to embrace "western style democracy"? That would be a big NO.

This is not comparable to post war Germany or Japan. The Iraqi ideology is totally different. Perhaps you will recall from history, that the UK tried to "westernize" Iraq many years ago and the UK had to back out?

I firmly believe that the US invasion has made this world a lot less safer for westerners in general and Americans/Britons specifically.

There was NO compelling reason to attack Iraq. Period. :mad:
The UK got Iraq simply to punish the Ottoman Empire, as stated under the Treaty of Versailles. Sure, they had a few plans on the table, but the British never seriously considered any of them, and neither did any leaders after that.

The United States helped establish the United Nations precisely in order to impose the rule of law on such claims, to make it unlawful for nations to strike against others unless they were themselves under armed attack.

Just out of curiosity, you do realize that Saddam's forces fired at British and American planes patrolling the UN supported no fly zones on an almost daily basis. Doesn't that constitute being under armed attack? From what you have posted, that would seem to make the war legal right there.

Who says that they are on the path towards a "democratic and prosperous future?" Have you heard anything about Bremer's Orders, which is nothing more than a hi-jacking of the Iraqi economy?
Of course, in the post-war reconstruction it would be unreasonable to expect Iraq, so long under horrible leadership by Saddam Hussein and with basically no infrastructure of its own, to control their own economy and destiny right away. To suggest otherwise would be quite foolish.

I dont understand why people have such a big problem with the fact that iraq is no longer suffering under the dictatorship of sadam hussein who has murdered more people in a week than the ammount of people who have died from day 1 of the war till now.

2nd of all I get sick of people demonstrating agianst america because of the war, but at the same time they dont give a %^&* that dictators all over the world are torturing and murdering people.

If you demonstrate, do it agianst terrorism and dictators, not agianst america. Right now America is giving more money and aid to 3rd world countries than the whole world combined.

Dont you see that terrorists are encouraged to do more (suicide) attacks?
Because when they blow themselves up half the world points their finger to america, when they blow themselves up, countries are retreating their troops from iraq. The world gives in to the demands of terrorism.

What the hell is wrong with everyone?

And those people who say "the whole world except the usa is against the war", please speak for yourself, im not american but i fully support it, and not just me.

The UK got Iraq simply to punish the Ottoman Empire, as stated under the Treaty of Versailles. Sure, they had a few plans on the table, but the British never seriously considered any of them, and neither did any leaders after that.
US + Middle East = war upon war :(

History + mistakes = repetition

Too many fronts + not enough troops = disaster

disaster + disaster = annihilation

Iraq war was illegal, yes?

Without doubt. Very illegal. But don't tell the Neo-cons, they'll find a way to justify it.. even though under international law it was without merit. Neo-cons don't seem to understand that American law only has merit within their own borders. It's the "bully" factor.

I'll go one step further, some one rapes your sister, it's wrong, it's horrible, but can you go and shoot him because he raped your sister? As much as one might like to, it's still illegal and even in the USA you will be charged and go to jail for such an act. Morally right? Maybe, illegal? Most certainly!

For a good example of the real life results of putting international law and the feelings of chickenshit hippie protestors ahead of your country's best interests, take a good hard look at what's become of North Korea.

The war on Iraq declared by the US, and its coalition was illegal because international law states that a single or group of nations cannot judge another.


1. USSR invades Afghanistan
2. Britain & France invade and hold the Suez canal
3. The first Arab Israeli war (1948)
4. Falkland Islands War

I guess it only matters when the US invades someone.....
Only the UN can do this.

Yes, I've seen the UN in action, or should I say Inaction......considering they allowed the Liberian civil war to rage unchecked for 3 years!

Personally I don't care much for laws that protect a dictators right to mistreat the people of a nation.

"If you demonstrate, do it agianst terrorism and dictators, not agianst america. Right now America is giving more money and aid to 3rd world countries than the whole world combined. "

I say this too much maybe, but it's a good point. As soon as the USA stops funding the IRA, then they can claim to be 'against' terrorism.

No, it's not an 'old subject'. It's still happening, right? Why is it that when someone who disagrees with the war should 'shut up and drop it and stop imposing your evil liberal views on us' and what's-her-name who was escorted from the hotel for supporting Michael Moore should stop imposing her views on us, but America is allowed to kill people to impose their views?

For a good example of the real life results of putting international law and the feelings of chickenshit hippie protestors ahead of your country's best interests

Which might have an inch of validity, if Iraq had really posed a threat to the USA, which it didn't.

I don't believe in international law I think countrys should do what in their own best interest and forget about everyone else.

Meaning you disagree with the liberation of Iraq?

The war on Iraq declared by the US, and its coalition was illegal because international law states that a single or group of nations cannot judge another. Only the UN can do this. Secondly, some say thetre was a moral oblication to invade - this is illegal just like invading because of WMDs, as it is judging another country without the UN.

So is there any way the Iraq war was legal, or does the US diserve some liberating, eh_
It was illegal. Whether that means it was immoral is a separate issue (I think that means it was unwise, and it was immoral for other reasons).

Personally I don't care much for laws that protect a dictators right to mistreat the people of a nation.
Well then I guess it is time to sign up every able body man and woman......it will take a huge army to defeat Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea?

I don't believe in international law I think countrys should do what in their own best interest and forget about everyone else.

I don't believe in ghosts.. but I know for a fact international law is real..*LOL*

Meaning you disagree with the liberation of Iraq?
Iraq and liberation is an oxymoron.....

Which might have an inch of validity, if Iraq had really posed a threat to the USA, which it didn't.

Which it sure as hell would have in 10 years if someone hadn't done something about it. North Korea wasn't much of a threat in 1994 either, BJ Clinton handled that the textbook liberal way, and now we have another kook nuclear state to worry about.

That Iraq did not and will not join the category is cause for relief for sane people.

And outrage for liberals. :rolleyes:

There was NO compelling reason to attack Iraq. Period. :mad:[/QUOTE]


Were you not here on 9/11???

Well then I guess it is time to sign up every able body man and woman......it will take a huge army to defeat Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea?
Yep, and because this isn't feasable, it means we shouldn't do anything at all, right?

Were you not here on 9/11???
What does Iraq have to do with 911? Nada.

Yep, and because this isn't feasable, it means we shouldn't do anything at all, right?
Your suggestion?

Your suggestion?
Take it one step at a time - Iraq, then move onto Iran, North Korea, or to wherever world events take us.

What does Iraq have to do with 911? Nada.

So narrow minded...Iraq is a stepping stone to resolve a centuries long conflict with Islamic Extremists. If you can install a western style democracy, one that will grow to see the west as an ally, a trading partner, not an enemy, then you reshape the whole region. Most Islamic Extremists are created because these people have nothing else. They live under tyrants and dictators, or religious zealots who tell them how to live and think.

Take it one step at a time - Iraq, then move onto Iran, North Korea, or to wherever world events take us.
Oh I see tiptoe around until you have the real enemy surrounded huh?

The US is not invincible. 911 proved that.

Personally speaking, I think the US has its hands full with Iraq. Afghanistan is slowly sliding backwards. Wake up.

"Which it sure as hell would have in 10 years if someone hadn't done something about it. North Korea wasn't much of a threat in 1994 either, BJ Clinton handled that the textbook liberal way, and now we have another kook nuclear state to worry about."

You know, I think we should kill two-year-olds if they seem a bit violent. Just in case they turn into murderors. You never can be too careful can you?

Oh, giving people funny nicknames like BJ is a really good way of showing us all that you're right.

Finally, the old standard 'America have nuclear bombs, as does the UK, France, and a few other countries. What is to be done about them? We know that America and the UK are fond of blowing people up' argument.

"Iraq and liberation is an oxymoron....."

What I meant was that if you think people should look to their own, then liberating Iraq isn't really a good enough reason to bomb it.

Oh I see tiptoe around until you have the real enemy surrounded huh?

The US is not invincible. 911 proved that.

Personally speaking, I think the US has its hands full with Iraq. Afghanistan is slowly sliding backwards. Wake up.
Yeah, thats why its not feasable to go after other countries that would probably require lots of troops, but still need regime change, right now anyway. The US isn't invincible but that dosen't mean that we're not the strongest nation on earth and we shouldn't use that to better the world.

So narrow minded...Iraq is a stepping stone to resolve a centuries long conflict with Islamic Extremists. If you can install a western style democracy, one that will grow to see the west as an ally, a trading partner, not an enemy, then you reshape the whole region. Most Islamic Extremists are created because these people have nothing else. They live under tyrants and dictators, or religious zealots who tell them how to live and think.
That is one huge....

IF

Well something does need to be done. I had this dream that I was president and I just made them think that god was punishing them till they turned in the leaders such as osama. I dropped billions of dead locusts from high flying planes so that they couldnt see the planes. I detonated bombs in the clouds so it looked like fire in the skies. And I placed these things that beat the ground and shake it and speakers everywhere and I invited a ton of hard rock bands and we just took turns rocking out and it was so loud that no one in that country could sleep and after like a week they all gave up there leaders with no casualties. That worked pretty good in my dream. Tell me what you guys think about that I would SO kick ass as president. We could put coolaid in there water supply just to freak them out.

I know it sounds really off the wall but does any one think that there is something in using the iraqi peoples religion and there lack of technology against them?? Instead of fighting a war and making them madder at us. Did we really have terrorist attacks in the u.s. before we went to war with them the first time?? Oooo I know another thing we could do... If they make another terrorist attack on us place blood all around there altars.

Well, one day when you are older....you will experience more of the world than Arkansas. THEN you will see that the world is NOT such a great place everywhere. Maybe you will experience some of what I have seen of the world, but I certainly hope not. I have seen the cruelty that man can inflict on other men and trust me, it is not pretty.
Is it legal for a poor man to steal food from a store? Laws are not based on how bad off people are. They are solid, unflexible. I am not denying that the people in Iraq had it bad off and I'm not denying that removing Saddam was a good idea, however, I know the war was illegal. I'm not here to say whether we should or should not have invaded Iraq morally. I'm just saying that legally, we shouldn't have.

And as far as the Arkansas comment goes:
1) There are people in Arkansas that are pretty bad off...really bad off...(not as bad as the Middle East, but as bad or worse than most of America).
2) I have the Internet. The Internet connects me to the world.
3) I have lived in many different places throughout the United States.
4) Don't assume anything about me.

The war on Iraq declared by the US, and its coalition was illegal because international law states that a single or group of nations cannot judge another. Only the UN can do this. Secondly, some say thetre was a moral oblication to invade - this is illegal just like invading because of WMDs, as it is judging another country without the UN.

So is there any way the Iraq war was legal, or does the US diserve some liberating, eh_
The United States has something called Sovereignty. Sovereignty, in the defined sense of the world, is Complete independence and self-government. In the real world, this means a nation is free to do what it wants, when in wants, whatever it wants, and nobody else can stop them. Now, they may be stopped by another country, but both nations still have sovereignty. Now, the United Nations has no sovereignty over the US. We dont have to listen to what they say. There are no laws governing us, so it cannot be illlegal. The US is not held down by any "international law", so that holds no power over us, so nothing is illegal.

The United States has something called Sovereignty. Sovereignty, in the defined sense of the world, is Complete independence and self-government. In the real world, this means a nation is free to do what it wants, when in wants, whatever it wants, and nobody else can stop them. Now, they may be stopped by another country, but both nations still have sovereignty. Now, the United Nations has no sovereignty over the US. We dont have to listen to what they say. There are no laws governing us, so it cannot be illlegal. The US is not held down by any "international law", so that holds no power over us, so nothing is illegal.
Read the United Nations charter, which we wrote and signed.

The United States has something called Sovereignty. Sovereignty , in the defined sense of the world, is Complete independence and self-government. In the real world, this means a nation is free to do what it wants, when in wants, whatever it wants, and nobody else can stop them. Now, they may be stopped by another country, but both nations still have sovereignty. Now, the United Nations has no sovereignty over the US. We dont have to listen to what they say. There are no laws governing us, so it cannot be illlegal. The US is not held down by any "international law", so that holds no power over us, so nothing is illegal.
International law wouldn't exist if there was just Sovereignty ruling things. We signed and gave away our right to not be governed by interational law. If we do pull out of UN then you would be right but not till then.

Luckily we can just veto anything stupid someone would propose, like sanctions against America for invading Iraq. :)

Luckily we can just veto anything stupid someone would propose, like sanctions against America for invading Iraq. :)
Not anything. We couldn't veto sanctions. They'd go through some subcommittee then GA. We only have Vetos in Security Council.

We should pull out of the UN go back to isolationism and when the world needs are help do nothing.

did anybody like my idea at the top of this page??

How about you people read UNSC Resolution 1441.

The UN authorized military force against Iraq.

I was there. I know what it's like there.

How about you people read UNSC Resolution 1441.

The UN authorized military force against Iraq.

I was there. I know what it's like there.

Unless I am mistaken, there was no smoking gun and no evident cause for resolution 1441 to apply to. Thus being why the US needed to return to the UN to push for another resolution to justify the growing prospect of war. You may want to read resolution 1441 yourself.

Sure I will.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

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,

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,


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


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);

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;

So lets see. The UN repeatedly warns them for years, warning them that if they don't fully disclose, serious consequences will ensue. And, they mention that the original cease-fire was hingent upon Iraq complying with UNSC 687. So Iraq fails to do so (Hans blix himself said that their disclosure was inaccurate) and we engage them.

We should pull out of the UN go back to isolationism and when the world needs are help do nothing.

Oh sure, 'Uncle' Sam is always handing out the sweets at parties eh? Real Mr Generous.

Read the United Nations charter, which we wrote and signed.

So I did.
But I saw nothing in there that:

1. Outlaws war. Says the UN will promote peace and disarmament.
2. Defines what wars are illegal.

The only thing tht they could do is suspend our vote in the security council. No resolution to do so has been suggested. Therefore, the UN does not think our war is illegal.

If I am wrong, please quote line and verse.

So lets see. The UN repeatedly warns them for years, warning them that if they don't fully disclose, serious consequences will ensue. And, they mention that the original cease-fire was hingent upon Iraq complying with UNSC 687. So Iraq fails to do so (Hans blix himself said that their disclosure was inaccurate) and we engage them.
The US and UK still did not have clearance from the UN Security Council to enact the provisions of those Resolutions.

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

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;

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;

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;

It states quite clearly "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions", it does NOT authorise the use of force. PERIOD!!

The war on Iraq declared by the US, and its coalition was illegal because international law states that a single or group of nations cannot judge another. Only the UN can do this. Secondly, some say thetre was a moral oblication to invade - this is illegal just like invading because of WMDs, as it is judging another country without the UN.

So is there any way the Iraq war was legal, or does the US diserve some liberating, eh_
Where is this said?
What about none member nations of the UN who do not recognize its authority?
I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you just made that tripe up.

Anyone aside from myself care to address the fact that the Iraqi military was firing upon US & UK planes patrolling the no fly zones on a regular basis? Zones that were put in place to stop the sluaghter of the Iraqi's that dared rise up against the government that had persecuted them for decades. Should the UK & US stayed there indefinatly--being shot at all the while--because the UN as a whole was doing nothing but pursuing individual member nations' own self interests?

With all the things currently transpiring in the world that can be addressed you folks are going to flock to the cuause of one of the worst regimes in modern history? What next, build a shrine to the Third Reich for all that they suffered as a result WW II?

Isn't there some freaking save the pidgeons rally or soemthing along those lines going on where you people live? What the hell realm of reality do you people function in? Grow the hell up.

The war on Iraq declared by the US, and its coalition was illegal because international law states that a single or group of nations cannot judge another. Only the UN can do this. Secondly, some say thetre was a moral oblication to invade - this is illegal just like invading because of WMDs, as it is judging another country without the UN.

So is there any way the Iraq war was legal, or does the US diserve some liberating, eh_

Sorry, but the UN does not own us.

Anyone aside from myself care to address the fact that the Iraqi military was firing upon US & UK planes patrolling the no fly zones on a regular basis? Zones that were put in place to stop the sluaghter of the Iraqi's that dared rise up against the government that had persecuted them for decades.

If that was their intent, why did they fail so dramatically in the south? Shi'ites in the south were massacred after listening to Bush I's call to revolution.

Why maintain the no-fly zone after the slaughter has left the barn?

In other news, the US has violated its UN mandate by not keeping (or disclosing) an accounting of how Iraqi oil-for-food money was spent after the invasion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53164-2004Jul15.html

I think we'd be pretty cranky if someone invaded us to get Halliburton's books and fulfill the UN mandate.

So I did.
But I saw nothing in there that:

1. Outlaws war. Says the UN will promote peace and disarmament.
2. Defines what wars are illegal.

The only thing tht they could do is suspend our vote in the security council. No resolution to do so has been suggested. Therefore, the UN does not think our war is illegal.

If I am wrong, please quote line and verse.

Chapter 1 Article 2

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

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

Start with that?

Sorry, but the UN does not own us.

Well, duh. I mean, the US set up the UN, and we set things up so that we would be able to veto anything we didn't like.

Sorry, but the UN does not own us.
The US signed the UN Charter, and while they do not own you, the UN Charter is recognized by the US Constitution....it is there.

Well, duh. I mean, the US set up the UN, and we set things up so that we would be able to veto anything we didn't like.

First of all, don't mock me, please. Second of all, the poster who started this thread implied (or at least, that's how I interpreted it) that we should not go to war with another nation without the UN's permission.

"the UN Charter is recognized by the US Constitution....it is there."

Yeah, it was TJ who insisted upon charter recognition inclusion.

First of all, don't mock me, please. Second of all, the poster who started this thread implied (or at least, that's how I interpreted it) that we should not go to war with another nation without the UN's permission.
That would be accurate....the US should not have gone to war with Iraq, as long as the UN inspectors were doing the job that they were hired for, and the fact that the inspectors were NOT finding ANY WMD, should have been a signal to the US that the inspections SHOULD be completed.

The war on Iraq declared by the US, and its coalition was illegal because international law states that a single or group of nations cannot judge another. Only the UN can do this. Secondly, some say thetre was a moral oblication to invade - this is illegal just like invading because of WMDs, as it is judging another country without the UN.

So is there any way the Iraq war was legal, or does the US diserve some liberating, eh_

Although it's illeagal, the REAL crime is France having UN veto power. ;)

Sorry, but the UN does not own us.

By your argument, then the UN doesn't 'own' Iraq either, so why all of the United State's moaning about how they weren't following UN resolutions?

"You have to obey the UN, but we don't have to!" could also translate into "might makes right" I suppose.

First of all, don't mock me, please.

Avoid the mocking beam in your own eye, then. Did anyone suggest that the UN owned the US?

Second of all, the poster who started this thread implied (or at least, that's how I interpreted it) that we should not go to war with another nation without the UN's permission.

That's not the same thing. Your interpretation looks relatively accurate, and they're wrong - the UN charter does allow for self-defense.

However, the point has been made by many people that "self-defense" in no way applied to the second gulf war.

The fundamental point regarding UN permission is that the US invaded Iraq purportedly because they were violating UN dictates, but without UN permission. You can't ignore the UN to prove people shouldn't ignore the UN.

You can't ignore the UN to prove people shouldn't ignore the UN.

Good point. It's like robbing a bank to show people bank robbing is bad.

Although it's illeagal, the REAL crime is France having UN veto power. ;)
The US has used the VETO far more than any other member of the Security Council.

U.S. has long history of vetoing UN resolutions against apartheid, nuclear and chemical weapons, Israeli human rights violations, and more.

http://eces.org/articles/000049.php

Anyone aside from myself care to address the fact that the Iraqi military was firing upon US & UK planes patrolling the no fly zones on a regular basis? Zones that were put in place to stop the sluaghter of the Iraqi's that dared rise up against the government that had persecuted them for decades. Should the UK & US stayed there indefinatly--being shot at all the while--because the UN as a whole was doing nothing but pursuing individual member nations' own self interests?

With all the things currently transpiring in the world that can be addressed you folks are going to flock to the cuause of one of the worst regimes in modern history? What next, build a shrine to the Third Reich for all that they suffered as a result WW II?

Isn't there some freaking save the pidgeons rally or soemthing along those lines going on where you people live? What the hell realm of reality do you people function in? Grow the hell up.

"The United States, United Kingdom and France proclaimed the no-fly zones (NFZs) in Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War to protect Kurds in the north and Shiite Muslims in the south. France withdrew from the patrols in 1996."

"The United States and Britain argue the patrols are authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 688 adopted April 5, 1991. The text "condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq," but it doesn't specifically mention no-fly zones. However, the overflights were never authorized by the United Nations, and were therefore illegal with respect to international law."

"The NFZs effectively ceased to exist with the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

No one is defending the regime of Saddam, we just expect the US to obey the same international laws we claim to be upholding.

No one is defending the regime of Saddam, we just expect the US to obey the same international laws we claim to be upholding.
AMEN!!

Look. This discussion is rather dull. We all know that the invasion went down the drain. We all know that as we speak, Americans and Iraqis, mostly Iraqis, are dying like flies. We all know we can't do anything about it.

I am not American, I'm Swedish. I have seen the bombings, riots, flags and tanks, not from al-Yashira and not from CNN. And I find the war, and the discussion of the war, rather pointless.

We can divide it to the two different viewpoints.

Alternative 1: The war was legal.

"Weee. We have liberated a country by bombing it senseless. But now these ungrateful bastards want us out. Well, we'll just put a president here and say: ''This is our chosen president. Don't overthrow him.' That should work."

Alternative 2: The war was illegal.

Might makes right, the US is above the law.

yes it may have been illegal and the allied nations should face up to that, but instead of everybody moaning about how bad it was why dont they take a time to look at the good it did. We got removed from power an evil tyrant who killed and tortured his people now if thats not good then i dont know what is. Persoanlly i think its about time there 'human rights' groups sorted out there priorities.

We got removed from power an evil tyrant who killed and tortured his people

We're working on replacing him with another one, at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and noticeable damage to Iraqis.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040830&s=parenti
The sorry state of this river is just one piece of Iraq's failed reconstruction. Throughout the country, vital systems, from water and power to healthcare and education, are in woeful disrepair. The World Bank estimates that bringing Iraq back to its 1991 level of development will cost $55 billion and take at least four years.

In the past seventeen months, US taxpayers have set aside a total of $24 billion to rebuild Iraq. Most of that sum has not been spent, though billions of dollars of poorly accounted for Iraqi oil revenues have been expended, or at least allocated to foreign (mostly American) contractors

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002000259_iraqprisoners09m.html
According to Southall, a guardsman radioed for help after seeing blindfolded and bound prisoners being beaten in enclosed grounds near the Iraqi Interior Ministry.

A team of Oregon soldiers responded, disarmed the Iraqi jailers and gave first aid to the prisoners. They also found dozens more prisoners and what appeared to be torture devices — metal rods, rubber hoses, electrical wires and bottles of chemicals.

But when Lt. Col. Daniel Hendrickson radioed superiors for instructions, the guardsmen were ordered to withdraw.

A fair number of people also remember that, while Saddam was torturing and killing Iraqis, the US government was supporting him.

If you're going to go in and get involved with something, it behooves you to make sure you make the situation better and not worse. It's not like any of this should have been a surprise:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2072609/
If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?

yes it may have been illegal and the allied nations should face up to that, but instead of everybody moaning about how bad it was why dont they take a time to look at the good it did. We got removed from power an evil tyrant who killed and tortured his people now if thats not good then i dont know what is. Persoanlly i think its about time there 'human rights' groups sorted out there priorities.
There were far more pressing "priorities" in Sudan for the past 20 years, far more pressing than Iraq. Why did the US decide that Iraq was more pressing as a "human rights" issue?

You may think of me of a cynical, but I don't care. I all comes down to oil.

Quick thoughts on this topic.

1) If you argue that Saddam was evil, and something had to be done, then yes, I agree with you. Something had to be done in 1991. If the US is so benign in its intentions, why wasn't this sorted out years ago? Saddam being evil was never a reason for the second gulf war, it was just an excuse.

2)The fact there was very little justification for the war is one of reasons that it was waged. The US wanted to send a message to any country associated with terrorism: "Iraq was invaded on the flimsiest evidence. Think what we'll do if we actually find solid proof that you're trying to harm us". It wants terrorists to know that it can beat them at their own game. It ends up looking like a country governed by paranoid freaks, which is of course the idea.

3) Legality. Of course it's not legal. So many people in this thread have cited many reasons why it's not, and I don't feel like restating them.

Quick thoughts on this topic.

1) If you argue that Saddam was evil, and something had to be done, then yes, I agree with you. Something had to be done in 1991. If the US is so benign in its intentions, why wasn't this sorted out years ago? .


WHY?

Because after the UN FINALLY realized that Saddam wasn't going to walk his troops out of Kuwait, it authorized a coalition force to remove him.

So after the Gulf War started, and coalition troops were driving deeper and deeper into Iraq. The order was given to stop advancing.. WHY? Because the UN AND Arab nations involved in the coalition forces would NOT allow Saddam to be removed from power. SO, if the job had been done the way it should have been, then there would have been NO reason to fight this war...NOW!

Thanks again, to the UN and those far-sighted Arab nations involved..


And thanks to the brilliance of the UN and a fore-mentioned Arab nations...I'll just use this quote.

Lawless international violence only breeds more killing of innocent people. The massive civilian deaths, the scarred and maimed children, the ruined and starving peoples, whose suffering is inseparable from warfare, can only spawn new generations of embittered peoples, new hate-filled leaders, new enraged individuals, determined to answer violence with violence.

Just like the first Gulf war inspired the al-qaeda!! So much for "lawless international violence"!! I guess those victims involved aren't concerned whether the military action is UN-sanctioned or NOT!

Just like the first Gulf war inspired the al-qaeda!!

Sorry, I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not. You do realize that GWI was what radicalized Osama bin Laden against the US, right? (Particularly, US troops deploying to Saudia Arabia to protect them from what was apparently a non-existent threat of invasion.)

In a sense you are right. UN is not the Godgiven perfect instrument to bring eternal peace to all of the earth. It is human leaders, many of corrupt countries, negotiating the fate of their countries only to have their proposals vetoed away. Plus a few idealists. But at this point, it is the best we've got. Sad but true.

Plus, blaming Arab Countries for protecting Arab Countries is like blaming England for trading with France.

I don't think the US has the right to 'liberate' people in other countries, or to remove a dictator from power in another country. It's just arrogance to 'help' people who didn't ask for it, and killing those people in the process. And, yes, of course it's all about the oil...

the basic premise of this thread is incorrect because the united states was not judging anyone legaly speaking. we had been technicly at war with iraq so long as they were violating the cease fire agreement of the gulf war. this made the "iraq war" legal from the start.

because iraq violated the cease fire we had the right to wage total war on iraq which we didnt even do. we turned it into an opportunity to free the iraqi people.

the basic premise of this thread is incorrect because the united states was not judging anyone legaly speaking. we had been technicly at war with iraq so long as they were violating the cease fire agreement of the gulf war. this made the "iraq war" legal from the start.

I don't think the US has the right to 'liberate' people in other countries, or to remove a dictator from power in another country. It's just arrogance to 'help' people who didn't ask for it, and killing those people in the process. And, yes, of course it's all about the oil...

so we didnt have the right to liberate the concentration camps in your opinion. also, even by the worst estimates, 99.996% of the iraqi people made it out of the war alive. one more thing, iraq has increased oil production since we came in and that money is going to the iraqi people not america. we didnt 'steal oil'. if the idea was to steal oil wouldnt we , you know, not be more than one hundred billion dollars in the red as a result of the war.....

the basic premise of this thread is incorrect because the united states was not judging anyone legaly speaking. we had been technicly at war with iraq so long as they were violating the cease fire agreement of the gulf war. this made the "iraq war" legal from the start.

The cease fire required them to scrap their WMD programs; they claimed they did. If the UN cease fire had been breached, wasn't it up to the UN security council to make that decision? (Repeat of ignoring the UN to prove you can't ignore the UN.)

Hindsight has illustrated that Iraq had basically complied by the cease fire - which, it has been pointed out, did not make allowances for the no-fly zones. So the US was apparently in breach of that cease fire agreement as well.

And, yes, Iraqi oil imports are slightly above what they were pre-war - but there were sanctions then! Oil exports are being disrupted and are about a half of what they could be if other pipelines were working, and about a third of what Iraq's capability is predicted to be in five years - if all goes well.

if the idea was to steal oil wouldnt we , you know, not be more than one hundred billion dollars in the red as a result of the war.....

You should be more careful with your pronouns; we (the taxpayers) are going to be over two hundred billion dollars in the hole to pay for Iraq.

A large part of that money (along with a couple of billion dollars Iraq's oil revenues) is being handed out in sweetheart deals to campaign contributors to this administration. The US hasn't even followed its UN mandate to keep track of how it was spending Iraq's money!

"The United States, United Kingdom and France proclaimed the no-fly zones (NFZs) in Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War to protect Kurds in the north and Shiite Muslims in the south. France withdrew from the patrols in 1996."

They weren't actually "proclamations." They were a part of the cease-fire agreement, which Iraq signed in order to end hostilities.

There were far more pressing "priorities" in Sudan for the past 20 years, far more pressing than Iraq. Why did the US decide that Iraq was more pressing as a "human rights" issue?

It didn't. It decided that it was more pressing as a threat to us.

The Germans invaded several countries (including my own country). Iraq didn't (recently). Most Americans don't have any memories about a real invasion and what it means for a country to be invaded. That's also why 9/11 was so terrible for them, I think... (Not sure, I'm not an American myself.)
But indeed, even if there had been concentration camps in Iraq, the US would not have had the right to intervene without approval of the united nations. (Just my opinion!!) One country on its own does not have the right to decide what is good and what is wrong in another country.
And I really do not believe that the oil is going to the Iraqi people. Maybe a symbolic part of it... Yes, the oil is not very cheap now, but the war (the war that was over more than a year ago) is not exactly going as planned...

The cease fire required them to scrap their WMD programs; they claimed they did. If the UN cease fire had been breached, wasn't it up to the UN security council to make that decision? (Repeat of ignoring the UN to prove you can't ignore the UN.)

Hindsight has illustrated that Iraq had basically complied by the cease fire - which, it has been pointed out, did not make allowances for the no-fly zones. So the US was apparently in breach of that cease fire agreement as well.

And, yes, Iraqi oil imports are slightly above what they were pre-war - but there were sanctions then! Oil exports are being disrupted and are about a half of what they could be if other pipelines were working, and about a third of what Iraq's capability is predicted to be in five years - if all goes well.

it required that iraq give full and open inspections as well as that they stop firing on american aircraft that protrolled iraqs borders. the cease fire was broken . also, the UN refused to back up its own mandates. when the UN does not do its job then we have to do the job for it.

The Germans invaded several countries (including my own country). Iraq didn't (recently). Most Americans don't have any memories about a real invasion and what it means for a country to be invaded. That's also why 9/11 was so terrible for them, I think... (Not sure, I'm not an American myself.)
But indeed, even if there had been concentration camps in Iraq, the US would not have had the right to intervene without approval of the united nations. (Just my opinion!!) One country on its own does not have the right to decide what is good and what is wrong in another country.
And I really do not believe that the oil is going to the Iraqi people. Maybe a symbolic part of it... Yes, the oil is not very cheap now, but the war (the war that was over more than a year ago) is not exactly going as planned...


so, what happens when the UN refuses to take action on its own mandates and makes itself look weak and inmpotant next to a dictator who is violating a cease fire of a previous war. and didnt the UN used to support human rights? cambodia, ruwanda, somalia, iraq, the sudan...........that is a record that does not leave much room for trust. it is always the same story. resolutions resolutions resolutions and no positive action. The UN is not an organization that is able to execute world foreign policy.

1) If you argue that Saddam was evil, and something had to be done, then yes, I agree with you. Something had to be done in 1991. If the US is so benign in its intentions, why wasn't this sorted out years ago? Saddam being evil was never a reason for the second gulf war, it was just an excuse.

Because the UN mandate was only to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, not for regime change. Besides, when we really started kicking the shit out of the Iraqi army, the rest of the world starting screaming holy hell, and demanded a cessation of hostilities. This has all been reported to death. What, were you like 2 years old then?

indeed, I think that many people simply dont understand how bad the record of the UN has been over the last 30 years. i think many countries only support it to have some power that they wouldnt have otherwise.

it required that iraq give full and open inspections as well as that they stop firing on american aircraft that protrolled iraqs borders. the cease fire was broken . also, the UN refused to back up its own mandates. when the UN does not do its job then we have to do the job for it.

Incorrect; the cease fire made no mention of the no-fly zones. The no-fly zones were arbitrarily set up, and failed to stop the Shia massacres in the south after the first gulf war. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2490361.stm

What the UN wanted to do was to continue inspections - yes, it is true that inspectors were not given 100% cooperation. But they were allowed free access, they had made progress, and I think we can agree it's far far far cheaper - in lives and treasure - than the second gulf war.

What you're saying is that by wanting to continue inspections (which would have showed that Saddam had disarmed), the UN was refusing to enforce its mandate that Saddam disarm?

I believe I've mentioned in this thread that the US failed to live up to its UN mandate by documenting where it spent the "oil for food" money it seized. Should we invade ourselves now, or is there a more sensible way to approach violations?

Edit - added link to discussion of no-fly zone legality.

http://www.timeforkids.com/TFK/magazines/story/0,6277,59544,00.html

if you cant understand that its sad ( its meant for a young audience)

right through november of 2002 the UN was begging saddam for more excess to weapons. he openly admitted that he was deliberatly decieving inspectors right into 2003.

here, watch this video, il let these video news clips of john kerry do the speaking for me on this subject.

www.johnkerryoniraq.com

Unfortunately, I have to agree that the record of the UN is not very good. Indeed rather bad... But if you look at it from a distance, I mean in world history, it's something rather new and extraordinary and that's why we must give it a second chance. The UN is still better than one single country playing the 'policeman' of the world (that's how America is sometimes called in Europe).
Maybe many Iraqi people are glad by what the Americans did for them, but Europeans just don't like the idea that America does these things without approval of the UN. Another example: why doesn't the US want to recognize the international court of justice in Den Haag? You could also say that Europeans are just afraid of the remaining 'super power' America and by the way it shows the world that it really is a super power.

According to the UN resolutions passed on Iraq in the past 13 years, if they barred access to UN Inspectors, then action had to be taken by UN law. BTW, we only signed a cease fire with Iraq in '92, so that means we have been at war with them for the past 12 years. :sniper:

According to the UN resolutions passed on Iraq in the past 13 years, if they barred access to UN Inspectors, then action had to be taken by UN law. BTW, we only signed a cease fire with Iraq in '92, so that means we have been at war with them for the past 12 years. :sniper:
UN inspectors were in Iraq just before the US invaded. The inspectors had to be recalled by the UN because the US stated that they were going to invade, regardless of what the UN decided.

WHO signed the ceasefire?

According to Gurudas, in his book "New World Order" (written no later than 1996) he noted that the voting system in Florida was highly susceptible to fraud. Any simbian of average intelligence should conclude that the presidential election of 2000 was suspiciously carried out. As a country, the US has dictated the election outcomes of many small countries worldwide. Why then is it so hard for neo-conservative, anal-retentive, whitebread George W fans to believe that it couldn't happen here. I am of the opinion that the current regime in power is illegitimate. There fore, I conclude any action taken by it's president is not only illegal but morally unjustified and will be dealt with by a higher divinity.

The Germans invaded several countries (including my own country). Iraq didn't (recently). Most Americans don't have any memories about a real invasion and what it means for a country to be invaded. That's also why 9/11 was so terrible for them, I think... (Not sure, I'm not an American myself.)
But indeed, even if there had been concentration camps in Iraq, the US would not have had the right to intervene without approval of the united nations. (Just my opinion!!) One country on its own does not have the right to decide what is good and what is wrong in another country.
And I really do not believe that the oil is going to the Iraqi people. Maybe a symbolic part of it... Yes, the oil is not very cheap now, but the war (the war that was over more than a year ago) is not exactly going as planned...
The oil is going to pay US contractors?:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040830&s=parenti

Most amazing of all, the OMB report showed that not a single cent of US tax money had been spent on Iraqi healthcare, water treatment or sanitation projects--though $9 million was dithered away on administrative costs of the now defunct Coalition Provisional Authority. Most of the little that has been invested in healthcare, water treatment and sanitation has come from Iraqi oil revenues, managed for most of last year by the Development Fund for Iraq, a US controlled successor to the UN-run Oil for Food program. In all, the CPA spent roughly $19 billion of Iraqi oil money--on what exactly is not quite clear.

A recent audit by the accounting firm KPMG on behalf of the International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB)--a UN project to monitor the use of Iraqi oil money--found that four major CPA-awarded contracts were granted (in violation of CPA rules) without competitive bidding. For seven other contracts, which the CPA insisted were awarded via competitive bidding, there is no evidence to back up this claim.

Six other projects were improperly approved by a skeleton crew of the CPA's Program Review Board. Contract approval required the presence of at least 70 percent of that board's voting members, but decisions were frequently made without a quorum. The only Iraqi with voting power on the PRB attended a mere two of the board's forty-three meetings.

In the face of this damning KPMG audit, a CPA spokesperson told the Financial Times that "extraordinary steps" had been taken to make sure "the funds were expended in the interests of the Iraqi people." But a new report by the CPA's inspector general reinforced KPMG's conclusions, documenting extensive corruption and waste in the handling of Iraqi oil money by US officials and private contractors, twenty-seven of whom face criminal investigations.

Nice huh? :rolleyes:

because iraq violated the cease fire we had the right to wage total war on iraq which we didnt even do. we turned it into an opportunity to free the iraqi people.

Read Post # 93

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

the basic premise of this thread is incorrect because the united states was not judging anyone legaly speaking. we had been technicly at war with iraq so long as they were violating the cease fire agreement of the gulf war. this made the "iraq war" legal from the start.

Read Post # 93

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

so we didnt have the right to liberate the concentration camps in your opinion. also, even by the worst estimates, 99.996% of the iraqi people made it out of the war alive. one more thing, iraq has increased oil production since we came in and that money is going to the iraqi people not america. we didnt 'steal oil'. if the idea was to steal oil wouldnt we , you know, not be more than one hundred billion dollars in the red as a result of the war.....

Read Post # 81

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53164-2004Jul15.html

Electricity: Electricity is now more equitably distributed and more stable, instead of, as during Saddam Hussein's rule, being supplied to Baghdad at the expense of the rest of the country. For the rest of 2003, $294 million is budgeted to improve electrical systems.

Water Systems: Water supply in many areas is now at pre-conflict levels. Over 2000 repairs have been made to 143 water networks, and water quality sampling has restarted. There are plans to add 450 million liters of capacity to Baghdad's system.

Healthcare: Iraqi hospitals are up and running, and healthcare, previously available only for Ba'athist elite, is now available to all Iraqis. Drugs are being supplied to hospitals and clinics, and medical worker salaries are being paid regularly, ensuring employees attend work. Vaccinations are available across the country, and anti-malarial spraying will take place this autumn.
Thats old, though, more has happened since then.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/introduction.html

The perception that the biased article tries to put out that nothing is going on in regards to water / healthcare is wrong.

The perception that the biased article tries to put out that nothing is going on in regards to water / healthcare is wrong.

I'm sorry, you're refuting a "biased" news article with a white house press release??!!!!

The World Health Organization confirms the seriousness of problems in Iraq:
http://www.who.int/features/2003/iraq/briefings/july11/en/

The White House admits that no US money has been spent on construction, health care, santiation, and water projects. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26310-2004Jul3.html

The argument isn't that nothing is being done; the argument is that too little is being done, and at great cost.

If we're not spending anything on it, then its not at a great cost.

If we're not spending anything on it, then its not at a great cost.

Ah... I see human suffering doesn't mean anything to you. Thanks for clearing that up, it explains a lot.

Edit - also, I see that stealing other people's money doesn't bother you, either.

Ah... I see human suffering doesn't mean anything to you. Thanks for clearing that up, it explains a lot.

Edit - also, I see that stealing other people's money doesn't bother you, either.
Stealing other people's money to rebuild their own infrastructure?

Of course human suffering means something. Thats why we're trying to get rid of all the terorrists there.

If we're not spending anything on it, then its not at a great cost.
Well there are financial costs and then there are HUMAN costs, and it appears that the HUMAN costs are great because things are NOT getting done.

Do you just automatically think of money when you hear about costs?

Stealing other people's money to rebuild their own infrastructure?

Of course human suffering means something. Thats why we're trying to get rid of all the terorrists there.
What terrorists?

What terrorists?
The ones who routinely set up bombs and kill innocent Iraqis.

Well there are financial costs and then there are HUMAN costs, and it appears that the HUMAN costs are great because things are NOT getting done.

Do you just automatically think of money when you hear about costs?
In this thread, yes. We were talking about money, about how the US wasn't spending money, etc. So I assumed that we were still talking about it. I'd agree that human costs should be minimized, but compared to Saddam its much better. Healthcare spending is 26 times what it was under Saddam.

In this thread, yes. We were talking about money, about how the US wasn't spending money, etc. So I assumed that we were still talking about it. I'd agree that human costs should be minimized, but compared to Saddam its much better. Healthcare spending is 26 times what it was under Saddam.
If that BS makes you sleep better at night than you have the right to believe what you want, despite what the World Health Oraganization says or what the article from the Nation states, or what the article from the Washington Post states.........

The ones who routinely set up bombs and kill innocent Iraqis.
Those are terrorists? Was this happening BEFORE the US invaded Iraq?

UN inspectors were in Iraq just before the US invaded. The inspectors had to be recalled by the UN because the US stated that they were going to invade, regardless of what the UN decided.

After being denied entry into Iraq for 4 years......

After being denied entry into Iraq for 4 years......However, they were in there doing a great job, until Bush said that the US was going to attack, regardless of the fact that the inspectors were finding nothing.

Those are terrorists? Was this happening BEFORE the US invaded Iraq?
No, people were starving due to poorly designed sanctions and Saddam's brutal regime before the US liberated Iraq.

However, they were in there doing a great job, until Bush said that the US was going to attack, regardless of the fact that the inspectors were finding nothing.


LOL

HELLO!! Just explain to me what these inspectors are going to find in weeks, MAYBE a month of continuous "searching", that couldn't be hidden in 4 years!!! Did each one of them have a shovel?? Oh, that's right, they didn't find those Mig-25s either!!!

LMAO

LOL

HELLO!! Just explain to me what these inspectors are going to find in weeks, MAYBE a month of continuous "searching", that couldn't be hidden in 4 years!!! Did each one of them have a shovel?? Oh, that's right, they didn't find those Mig-25s either!!!

LMAO
I will give you one big clue:

Your name is Saddam Hussein and Bush says that they are coming in to get you, and you have this huge arsenal of WMD, and yet you don't use them against the invading forces. Why not?

1. You forgot where you did them?

2. You are such a nice guy, you just couldn't bring yourself to use those weapons on your old buddies (yeah the ones that gave those weapons to you in the first place)?

3. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY WMD to use, or else you would go out in a blaze of glory if you did?

Now to counter the other suggestion about the inspectors. The inspectors, had been in Iraq since Nov. 2002, had hundreds of inspectors and were doing a great job, the only time restraints placed on them were by the US.

Bush was pissed off because he was losing his wedge to get Saddam.

The ones who routinely set up bombs and kill innocent Iraqis.

What, the U.S.?

The Second Gulf War was illegal by international law. George W. Bush and Tony Blair should both be charged with war crimes, and it should be carried out. But since this won't happen, it shows the failing of the U.N. Morally justified... maybe. Illegal by international law... yes.

What, the U.S.?
No, not the US, quite a weak trolling job on your part.

You are such a nice guy, you just couldn't bring yourself to use those weapons on your old buddies (yeah the ones that gave those weapons to you in the first place)?
The vast majority of WMD and conventional weapons were given to Iraq by the USSR, France, China, and East Germany. The USA's and UK's contributions added up to somewhere around 2%.

Anyway, if you want to talk about hypotheticals, If you're Saddam Hussein, why would you produce a report on WMD that totals over ten thousand pages and still leaves out information on WMD, only to say that you'll fill the holes after the deadline?

The vast majority of WMD and conventional weapons were given to Iraq by the USSR, France, China, and East Germany. The USA's and UK's contributions added up to somewhere around 2%.

Anyway, if you want to talk about hypotheticals, If you're Saddam Hussein, why would you produce a report on WMD that totals over ten thousand pages and still leaves out information on WMD, only to say that you'll fill the holes after the deadline?
You avoided the very obvious answer which is:

3. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY WMD to use, or else you would go out in a blaze of glory if you did?

Face facts....this is the final showdown, your air force has been grounded for years, your anti-aircraft capabilities are almost non-existent, your army has been decimated, and the US has just started dropping their own WMD on your country, and all you can do is talk tough because your WMD no longer exist. You are already defeated and you know that if you did have those WMD, you would use every last one of them!!

BTW, where did you get the 2% supply figure?

If you didn't have any WMD, then you would have been able to document what you did with the thousands (I think it was VX that they weren't saying where it was) of things of WMD which weren't included in Iraq's report. They did that with all their other WMD that they didn't have.

Transfers of Weapons to Iraq :

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf

Private companies also supplied some to Iraq but the administration blocked further shipments (in '85 I think)


and the US has just started dropping their own WMD on your country
Care to back it up how the US dropped Biological, Chemical, or Nuclear (the common definition of WMDs) bombs on Iraq, or are you just trying to be a cute little troll?

If you didn't have any WMD, then you would have been able to document what you did with the thousands (I think it was VX that they weren't saying where it was) of things of WMD which weren't included in Iraq's report. They did that with all their other WMD that they didn't have.
You allow the inspectors to carry on with the job. Blix gave glowing reviews that the Iraqis were providing access to all and every possible site. There were hundreds of inspectors and they had covered a lot of ground. Many of the US allies, Canada included were quite prepared to let the inspections continue.


Care to back it up how the US dropped Biological, Chemical, or Nuclear (the common definition of WMDs) bombs on Iraq, or are you just trying to be a cute little troll?

http://www.rediff.com/us/2003/apr/03iraq6.htm

The use of two Daisy Cutters is an indication that the US has stepped up attacks on the Iraqis.

The massive bombs helped destroy the Baghdad division of the Republican Guards, opening a route from the Tigris River crossing at Al-Kut, 150km from the capital.

Daisy Cutters, used in Vietnam and Afghanistan, are crude compared to cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs.

But they are considered highly effective. The size of a small family car, they have to be dropped from a specially adapted C-130 Hercules transport plane.

They contain 6,804kg of fuel-air explosives, a variation of the deadly napalm [meant to destroy targets with high temperature flame], which the US deployed with destructive effect in Vietnam.

The plane carrying the device has to fly above 6,000feet to escape being destroyed by the blast.

The bomb detonates three feet above the ground, spraying tiny droplets of fuel-based explosive into the air where they create a massive 'air burst', a huge explosion, marked by a mushroom cloud.

The blast is so powerful that it kills everything within a 600-metre radius. Anything close to the blast is incinerated, while people farther away die when the air is sucked from their lungs.

The nickname for this bomb? MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs)

This was interesting too:

http://www.patandkat.com/sleep/2003/08/10/wmd_found_in_iraq.html

This too:

http://www.petebevin.com/archives/2003/03/12/mother_of_all_bombs.html

Napalm is an explosive. Not a WMD, unless you're changing the definition of the word.

You allow the inspectors to carry on with the job. Blix gave glowing reviews that the Iraqis were providing access to all and every possible site. There were hundreds of inspectors and they had covered a lot of ground. Many of the US allies, Canada included were quite prepared to let the inspections continue.
No, the burden of proof wasn't on the inspectors to play hide-and-seek with Saddam to try and find the WMD that he neglected to put in his report. Saddam had one thing to do, to comply completely with the UN resolutions, and he failed doing so.

Napalm is an explosive.
No, it's an incendiary.

moab has been around for a while and no matter what that doesn't justify them bombin the sh!t outta iraq bombs are bombs no matter what, but personally what i think is the dumbest of all is that there is rules to war... people have a intent to kill you and your exactly the same....hold on let me take out the books your not playing fair, fair my @$$ if i have a gun a you a sword, mark my words your a dead man, (one rule, cant be shot parachuting, until you've hit the ground) funny U.S.A is probably the only people to use parachuting to enter a war field.....it looks cool so please dont ruin it, as for the war on iraq load of sh!t and i dont care if you love bush enough to hump his leg what he did was wrong and uncalled for, if he was after osama no its not a lie THEY KNOW WHERE HE IS, and even if they didn't even u have enough brains to tell he's not in iraq. and you know what bombing iraq to provoke him isint to smart either cuz i'm pretty sure you've already forgoten what he's done, want another? seriusly they own the weapons not saddam, saddam doesn't have crap, and that brings me to my other point if this was for libereation.....have of the "liberated" iraq has been bombed, people jailed and beaten, and the rest shot.....congrajulations america, all of you are to afraid to stand up for whats right, cuz ur discoraged, what can one man do, hell check history its all about what one man can do i'm exactly religius but the fact that i even know jesus' name is sumthing weather he's divine or not everyone knows him. and for the voters.....finally if u rly wanna do sumthin and hate ur government DONT VOTE AT ALL they cant ellect a crap president if no one likes it, its the truth, and then the people r given power, cuz if they just put there own president thats not democracy...is it?

thank you for your time PLEASE reply as truthfully as you want weather you love me or absolutely hate me, the truth always helps ^>^ ciao :cool:

thank you for your time PLEASE reply as truthfully as you want weather you love me or absolutely hate me, the truth always helps ^>^ ciao :cool:
I will reply truthfully, like you asked. Your grammar/spelling, an ass, and a whole lot of sucking...

got caught in the moment heh....ya i was rereading my post.... lil late but ya i'm NOT exaclty religius.... (mainly becuz they were never created to b followed they're just guide lines to life) but ya....just clearing thigns out.

No, it's an incendiary.
Close enough, you get the point, its a conventional weapon which causes things to burn. It dosen't release a disease.

No, it's an incendiary.
Give the man a prize. Yes napalm is an incendiary.

I'm no war hawk, but I must say I find the people talking about "illegal wars" (and there are so many here!) supremely stupid. Does the U.S. have a law saying we can't invade Iraq? No.

But but but the UN said we can't!!!11 Yes they did and I'm very happy for them, but the UN lacks a little thing called sovereignty. Can France impose laws on Germany? Of course not. The only institution that can tell the U.S. what it can "legally" do is Congress (and the Supreme Court in a weird way), and they said we can invade Iraq. The UN cannot make law, and that's all there is to it.

Close enough, you get the point, its a conventional weapon which causes things to burn. It dosen't release a disease.
Well it doesn't need to cause disease. It just sucks the life out of people, burns them, or blows them to pieces.

Well it doesn't need to cause disease. It just sucks the life out of people, burns them, or blows them to pieces.
So does a whole bunch of C4. Napalm is a devastating thing. Most bombs are. This, again, does not make them WMDS! Its a weapon, and when enough of it is used, it causes mass destruction. Unfortunately, thats not the common definition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

I'm no war hawk, but I must say I find the people talking about "illegal wars" (and there are so many here!) supremely stupid. Does the U.S. have a law saying we can't invade Iraq? No.
Yes you do and it is called the US Constitution.

But but but the UN said we can't!!!11 Yes they did and I'm very happy for them, but the UN lacks a little thing called sovereignty. Can France impose laws on Germany? Of course not. The only institution that can tell the U.S. what it can "legally" do is Congress (and the Supreme Court in a weird way), and they said we can invade Iraq. The UN cannot make law, and that's all there is to it.
There is such a thing as International Law, and yes the US is subject to the provisions of the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

So does a whole bunch of C4. Napalm is a devastating thing. Most bombs are. This, again, does not make them WMDS! Its a weapon, and when enough of it is used, it causes mass destruction. Unfortunately, thats not the common definition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
You say potato and I say potatoe. No matter how you slice it, the results are similar to a WMD. Did you read about the effects? Did you see the picture of the mushroom shaped cloud it produces?

The plane carrying the device has to fly above 6,000feet to escape being destroyed by the blast.

The MOAB's massive explosive punch, sources say, is similar to a small nuclear weapon.
It is intended to obliterate a command center hidden in tunnels and bunkers or a concentration of Iraqi tanks.

Whatever the target, it must be far from cities where civilians might be hurt. But one important aspect of using this type of weapon, sources say, will be psychological impact on enemy troops. It is intended to terrorize Iraqi troops, drastically reducing their desire to continue the fight

Yes you do and it is called the US Constitution.

There is such a thing as International Law, and yes the US is subject to the provisions of the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.
The Constitution does not prohibit war in any way. It requires that Congress declare it. I am not certain if they have technically declared war, but they did authorize it.

International law is the creation of treaties and exists by consent only. The U.S. has obviously decided to discontinue this particular agreement, which it is fully entitled to do. Again, because the UN does not have sovereignty, it cannot decide whether the U.S. may go to war, or do anything else for that matter. The Geneva Conventions do not prohibit the U.S. from going to war.

You are merely doing what I spoke of before. You point to some treaty or UN resolution and announce that it is magically U.S. law, even though the UN has no authority over the U.S.

The vast majority of WMD and conventional weapons were given to Iraq by the USSR, France, China, and East Germany. The USA's and UK's contributions added up to somewhere around 2%.

Anyway, if you want to talk about hypotheticals, If you're Saddam Hussein, why would you produce a report on WMD that totals over ten thousand pages and still leaves out information on WMD, only to say that you'll fill the holes after the deadline?
Whilst doing a bit of research, I came up with this tidbit of information and I thought you might be interested? Mind you, the text on this web site is extremely long but well worth the read. It is from Sept. 20th 2002, from the Congressional Record:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

A letter from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, which I
shall submit for the Record, shows very clearly that the United States
is, in fact, preparing to reap what it has sewn. A letter written in
1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to former Senator Donald W.
Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two
dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples
that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly
diseases.

And in seeking the truth:

The American people do not need obfuscation and denial. The American
people need the truth. The American people need to know whether the
United States is in large part responsible for the very Iraqi weapons
of mass destruction which the administration now seeks to destroy.
We may very well have created the monster that we seek to eliminate.

Mind boggling to say the least......

Back to my reading.

The Constitution does not prohibit war in any way. It requires that Congress declare it. I am not certain if they have technically declared war, but they did authorize it.

War was not technically declared, and the authorization was pretty fuzzy.

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

In retrospect, it's pretty clear that this is inaccurate. It's also pretty clear that Congress abdicated its war-making powers, which is unfortunate. However...

International law is the creation of treaties and exists by consent only. The U.S. has obviously decided to discontinue this particular agreement, which it is fully entitled to do.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

When the US signs treaties, it legally commits itself to them. However, since the US has veto power in the UN, there's really nothing the UN can do if the US decides to ignore its obligations. But that's not the question at issue in this thread.

I'm no war hawk, but I must say I find the people talking about "illegal wars" (and there are so many here!) supremely stupid. Does the U.S. have a law saying we can't invade Iraq? No.

But but but the UN said we can't!!!11 Yes they did and I'm very happy for them, but the UN lacks a little thing called sovereignty. Can France impose laws on Germany? Of course not. The only institution that can tell the U.S. what it can "legally" do is Congress (and the Supreme Court in a weird way), and they said we can invade Iraq. The UN cannot make law, and that's all there is to it.


I hate to rain on your parade, but the UN can make law. As the poster above me stated through the Constitution, international treaties become national law. Thus America was violating a law that it fully accepted when waging war on Iraq. The UN Charter that the US signed to become part of the UN binds us to the laws created there as well as our Consitituition. I'm not saying that I dissaprove of the war, in fact I support it all the way. I'm just saying that we as Americans should be happy that we dodged a bullet with the UN laws in this case.

Like it or lump it, agree or disagree, whatever, but the title of this thread was pointed and specific.
Already a few folks here intend to hijack the thread into some other kind of argument.
Understandably a few here in longer debates must carry out the intelligent discourse to provide substance to specify or negate a fact involved.
However, newcomers attempting to hijack the thread by starting their first quote with a non sequitir basically aren't sticking to the very specific point.
It was/is illegal.

You say potato and I say potatoe. No matter how you slice it, the results are similar to a WMD. Did you read about the effects? Did you see the picture of the mushroom shaped cloud it produces?

The plane carrying the device has to fly above 6,000feet to escape being destroyed by the blast.

The MOAB's massive explosive punch, sources say, is similar to a small nuclear weapon.
It is intended to obliterate a command center hidden in tunnels and bunkers or a concentration of Iraqi tanks.

Whatever the target, it must be far from cities where civilians might be hurt. But one important aspect of using this type of weapon, sources say, will be psychological impact on enemy troops. It is intended to terrorize Iraqi troops, drastically reducing their desire to continue the fight
What's wrong with sending fear through the Iraqi troops? So we used Daisy Cutters on a Republican Guard division. Did we flatten Baghdad with MOABS? No. It dosen't matter how explosive or how big these bombs are. They're not poisoning the land for 60 years with radation, like a nuclear bomb would. They're not releasing some sort of gas or chemical into the air like a chemical weapon would. And they're not releasing a virus into the air or bacteria into the water supply like a biological weapon would. As the thing you posted and I quote above says, "It is intended to obliterate a command center hidden in tunnels and bunkers or a concentration of Iraqi tanks." Underground bunkers are extremely hard to storm without loss of life or even take by normal-sized conventional bombs. Thats why we had to make the really big conventional bombs. A mushroom cloud does not a WMD make.

Whilst doing a bit of research, I came up with this tidbit of information and I thought you might be interested?
Ah the samples, I was hoping you would bring up those. We routinely did and do provide disease samples to friendly governments around the world to make vaccines. These samples are in small amounts and are weak (as you don't create a vaccine with a full-strength virus) so that it is nearly impossible to develop a full-strength biological weapon program in a short period of time. I know Mr. Byrd was pissed that the new Iraqi capital wasn't going to be in West Virginia, so he coudn't continue to fleece America with his massive pork projects, however, that dosen't make him correct in the assumption that the small samples that the US gave to Saddam (Which were neither intended to create WMD and were likely too small to create such a program, anyway) was what led up to the biological weapons program.

Sure I will.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

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,

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,


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


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);

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;

Problem is Us was wrong Saddam was folowing the agreement. Serious consequences don't neccesarily mean war.

Problem is Us was wrong Saddam was folowing the agreement. Serious consequences don't neccesarily mean war.
What do they mean to you? More sanctions?

Because the UN mandate was only to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, not for regime change. Besides, when we really started kicking the shit out of the Iraqi army, the rest of the world starting screaming holy hell, and demanded a cessation of hostilities. This has all been reported to death. What, were you like 2 years old then?

Small point. I wasn't asking why Saddam wasn't deposed in 1991. I was explaining why the "Saddam is evil" argument for the war is hypocritical. How many years has he been in power? Why now, suddenly, do we have to topple him? I only mentioned the first gulf war because it's the only other war between Iraq and the US and its allies that I can remember. Please enlighten me if this is wrong.

What do they mean to you? More sanctions?

What about the saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
If Sancyions work and thus he had no WMDs then shouldn't we keep them in place?

What about the saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
If Sancyions work and thus he had no WMDs then shouldn't we keep them in place?
Sanctions didn't work, though. At least tens of thousands of people - mostly the elderly and young children - starved under the misguided sanctions.

Sanctions didn't work, though. At least tens of thousands of people - mostly the elderly and young children - starved under the misguided sanctions.

How many people died in the war and its aftermath?

How many people died in the war and its aftermath?
But at least they weren't elderly and young children :)

The war on Iraq declared by the US, and its coalition was illegal because international law states that a single or group of nations cannot judge another. Only the UN can do this.

I am no supporter of the Iraq war but I must question your logic.

Is not the UN a group of nations?
What gives the right of a group of nations (the UN) to judge others while another group of nations cannot judge others (the US Coalition)?
Do nations have any right to sit in judgement?

How many people died in the war and its aftermath?
Even coming from a site which likes to inflate numbers like Iraq Body Count, at maximum 13,483 civilians have died. Some estimates of the deaths of civilians due to sanctions are upwards of 1.4 million, although this number was put out by the Iraqi Health Ministry in 1999, and obviously had a bias towards higher numbers, to make sanctions seem worse. Even half of that, though, is still multiple times the deaths of people from the Iraq War, even if you count military deaths.

I will give you one big clue:

Your name is Saddam Hussein and Bush says that they are coming in to get you, and you have this huge arsenal of WMD, and yet you don't use them against the invading forces. Why not?

1. You forgot where you did them?

2. You are such a nice guy, you just couldn't bring yourself to use those weapons on your old buddies (yeah the ones that gave those weapons to you in the first place)?

3. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY WMD to use, or else you would go out in a blaze of glory if you did?

Now to counter the other suggestion about the inspectors. The inspectors, had been in Iraq since Nov. 2002, had hundreds of inspectors and were doing a great job, the only time restraints placed on them were by the US.

Bush was pissed off because he was losing his wedge to get Saddam.


Surely you understand the difference between a weapon that is hidden(say a Mig-25 buried under the sand) and a weapon that is capable of being used(say a Mig-25 sitting in a hangar).......too logical........LOL

Also, those inspectors didn't find those "ordinary" mortar shells that were buried, which were found by Danish troops. Makes me curious as to just where these inspectors actually searched. And do you honestly think anyone has the chance to just go off on a "hunt and find" mission, while everyday there's suicide bombings, car bombings, booby traps set on the side of the road, etc, etc??

You avoided the very obvious answer which is:

3. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY WMD to use, or else you would go out in a blaze of glory if you did?

Here's a better question, since you have all the answers...

In the 1st Gulf War, Iraq fired missiles on Israel, why didn't Iraq use WMDs on Israel??

Whilst doing a bit of research, I came up with this tidbit of information and I thought you might be interested? Mind you, the text on this web site is extremely long but well worth the read. It is from Sept. 20th 2002, from the Congressional Record:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

A letter from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, which I
shall submit for the Record, shows very clearly that the United States
is, in fact, preparing to reap what it has sewn. A letter written in
1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to former Senator Donald W.
Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two
dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples
that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly
diseases.

And in seeking the truth:

The American people do not need obfuscation and denial. The American
people need the truth. The American people need to know whether the
United States is in large part responsible for the very Iraqi weapons
of mass destruction which the administration now seeks to destroy.
We may very well have created the monster that we seek to eliminate.

Mind boggling to say the least......

Back to my reading.

Here's some truth for you, since you're so unbiased....

Iraqi Scientist Reports on German, Other Help for Iraq Chemical Weapons Program
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html
A quote from the aforementioned site:
The western companies that dealt with the defunct regime -- for instance Australian and Dutch firms -- exported a lot of materials related to this field of production. For instance, the Dutch firm KBS sold Iraq large quantities of Thiodilyco (name as transliterated), a material that is essential in the production of mustard gas, at a cost of 1.5 million Marks. Multinational Italian firms also supplied Iraq with 60 tons of Oxycklorure (name as transliterated), a phosphoric material that is also used in chemical industries that can be put to dual-use. As for the French companies, they exported to Iraq large quantities of a gas (not further identified) that can be used in warfare.
The American people need the truth.
Correct, ALL the truth not some half sentence, out of context, bush-hating bullshit....
Read on....
And.........
Another Iraqi, Rihab Taha, attended the University of East Anglia. Known as "Dr Germ", she went on to set up Saddam's botulinum programme and oversaw anthrax tests on Iranian prisoners of war.
Iraqi scientists have often targeted Britain. Unipath, a laboratory supplier then in Basingstoke, Hampshire, unwittingly sold tons of a germ-growing substance to Iraq before the Gulf war. The product helped Iraq develop anthrax.
Iraq made 2,265 (US) gallons of anthrax, much of it produced from samples bought from laboratories in America.

And guess where they learned to make the anthrax samples into a culture to be used as a weapon....
The West's role in providing Iraq with anthrax know-how began at a key workshop in Winchester in 1988. Among 80 scientists from around the world were Dr Nasser el-Hindawi and his assistant, Dr Thamer Abdel Rahman, microbiologists working for Iraq 's secret biological weapons programme. The programme's aim was to develop weapons to spread anthrax , gas gangrene, botulism toxin, brucellosis, rabbit foot and tetanus.
Hindawi, who is still active in Iraq , was the academic supervisor of another British trained Iraqi, Dr Rihab el-Taha, widely known as Dr Death. Taha, trained at the University of East Anglia, was in charge of the Al Hakam biological weapons factory blown up in 1996 by UN inspectors.
As a professor at Baghdad University, Hindawi was commissioned by Iraq 's ruling Baath Party to help develop biological weapons in the shortest possible time. By the time he arrived in Winchester, he had a shopping list of what was needed.
UN officials describe the workshop as a 'Who's Who of anthrax research'. They say the three-day meeting was devoted entirely to anthrax with 'a full exchange of ideas and materials'. Among the British participants was Harry Smith, now emeritus professor of microbiology at Birmingham University. A world authority on anthrax , he says: 'To be perfectly frank, I didn't know {the Iraqis} were there.'

I never knew East Anglia was in the US! Strange that the Iraqis had to learn how to make this into a weapon, since it wasn't a weapon that was supplied to them!!

The American people need the truth.
Some more truth for you....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/966602/posts
The launchers were French built, tires made in Russia, spare parts made in Germany and new parts lying inside manufactured by Siemens* Corp of Norway** or somewhere like that.
**Siemens AS, the largest unit in the Norwegian group of companies, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the German concern, Siemens AG,

*Siemens AG
Wittelsbacherplatz 2
D-80333 Munich
Federal Republic of Germany

I did not read all 13 pages but the war in Iraq was legal because after the Golf War the Saddon(SP?) made sined a thing (have no idea what would you call it) saying that the UN has the right to look at its Bio. and Nukes buildings and he did not go by what it saids so it was a legal action taked by the US.

I did not read all 13 pages but the war in Iraq was legal because after the Golf War the Saddon(SP?) made sined a thing (have no idea what would you call it) saying that the UN has the right to look at its Bio. and Nukes buildings and he did not go by what it saids so it was a legal action taked by the US.
And we are going to believe you......right? NOT :rolleyes:

Do a little research and then you will be better informed?

I did not read all 13 pages but the war in Iraq was legal because after the Golf War the Saddon(SP?) made sined a thing (have no idea what would you call it) saying that the UN has the right to look at its Bio. and Nukes buildings and he did not go by what it saids so it was a legal action taked by the US.
Grammar = teh suxorz.
UN Charter = non-fiction.

Here's some truth for you, since you're so unbiased....

Iraqi Scientist Reports on German, Other Help for Iraq Chemical Weapons Program
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html
A quote from the aforementioned site:

The American people need the truth.
Correct, ALL the truth not some half sentence, out of context, bush-hating bullshit....
Read on....
And.........
Another Iraqi, Rihab Taha, attended the University of East Anglia. Known as "Dr Germ", she went on to set up Saddam's botulinum programme and oversaw anthrax tests on Iranian prisoners of war.
Iraqi scientists have often targeted Britain. Unipath, a laboratory supplier then in Basingstoke, Hampshire, unwittingly sold tons of a germ-growing substance to Iraq before the Gulf war. The product helped Iraq develop anthrax.
Iraq made 2,265 (US) gallons of anthrax, much of it produced from samples bought from laboratories in America.

And guess where they learned to make the anthrax samples into a culture to be used as a weapon....


I never knew East Anglia was in the US! Strange that the Iraqis had to learn how to make this into a weapon, since it wasn't a weapon that was supplied to them!!

The American people need the truth.
Some more truth for you....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/966602/posts
The launchers were French built, tires made in Russia, spare parts made in Germany and new parts lying inside manufactured by Siemens* Corp of Norway** or somewhere like that.
**Siemens AS, the largest unit in the Norwegian group of companies, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the German concern, Siemens AG,

*Siemens AG
Wittelsbacherplatz 2
D-80333 Munich
Federal Republic of Germany
Ummmm I wasn't just trying to blame the US, I was just pointing out the complicity of the US government in regards to suppling Iraq with biological weapons, and yes, Americans should know this stuff.

Did you happen to read the list of samples that were provided by the US? It is mind boggling to say the least. They are listed about 2/3 of the way down the page.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

BTW, I don't hate Bush. I just don't like him very much to say the least.

Want some truth about Iraq?

A) Yes. Click here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2001/depleted_uranium/default.stm)

B) No. The UN = teh suxorz, leave me alone.

Pick your poison.

Here's a better question, since you have all the answers...

In the 1st Gulf War, Iraq fired missiles on Israel, why didn't Iraq use WMDs on Israel??
Because Saddam was warned by President Bush the first NOT to use any WMD or else the repercussions would be serious. Saddam even advised his own troops NOT to use WMD against American and Coalition forces, for fear of reprisals. It appears that the only large scale weapons that Saddam was willing to use, was some fairly ineffective SCUD missles.

Want some real truth about Iraq? Want to know why Saddam was a threat.

http://massgraves.info/

Want some real truth about Iraq? Want to know why Saddam was a threat.

http://massgraves.info/
You want to replay this over and over?

Who provided the weapons?

Were most of them Kurds who had supported Iran during the Iran/Iraq War?

Did the US register any official condemnation in this matter?

There is also a story that suggests that the Iranians actually gassed the Kurds:

In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemical weapons in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds."

http://britons4peace.org.uk/articles/raju.html

Hey, if you want to be an apologist for Saddam Hussien and Dictatorship, that is your problem. How many mass graves have been filled since he was ousted?

Hey, if you want to be an apologist for Saddam Hussien and Dictatorship, that is your problem. How many mass graves have been filled since he was ousted?
I am not an apologist. Saddam was a tyrant, although a puppet tyrant. I just want you to recognize your own governments part in making Saddam who he was.

The US used him to do their bidding against Iran because of the Iranian hostage incident, and the US gave him the means to engage a lengthy battle against Iran. However, it should be noted that when it appeared that Iraq may actually topple the Iranian government, the US started to supply weapons to Iran. Nice double cross huh?

Double cross # 2 came over the Iraq invasion of Kuwait?:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

Very interesting reading to say the least. Sure Saddam, go ahead and invade Kuwait, we don't mind..........oh wait we do mind, and the Gulf War was on, and while the Iraqi troops were retreating guess what happened? Ever heard of the Highway of Death? You want to display pictures of Saddam's mass graves, how about US mass graves in Iraq?:

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt04.html

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/HighwayofDeath.html

America the innocent? The old adage about stones and glass houses comes to mind.

BTW? When was the last time that Saddam was in the mass murder business? He has been very quiet over the past 10/12 years and you know it.

How many mass graves since Saddam was ousted? I heard that coalition forces recorded over 10,000 kills and tens of thousands injured:

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page1.htm

Because Saddam was warned by President Bush the first NOT to use any WMD or else the repercussions would be serious. Saddam even advised his own troops NOT to use WMD against American and Coalition forces, for fear of reprisals. It appears that the only large scale weapons that Saddam was willing to use, was some fairly ineffective SCUD missles.


Then you've just answered your own question!

Who provided the weapons?


Iraq bought the majority of it's weapons from the USSR. Migs, T-72s, AK-47s
Some from France: Mirages

The US used him to do their bidding against Iran because of the Iranian hostage incident, and the US gave him the means to engage a lengthy battle against Iran. However, it should be noted that when it appeared that Iraq may actually topple the Iranian government, the US started to supply weapons to Iran. Nice double cross huh?

LOL

Check out this map:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/iraniraq.htm

Armed both sides:
Britain
France
USSR
China
N.Korea
DDR(East Germany)
Italy
Brazil
Czechoslovakia

Same old story, cruxify the US for past crimes while the rest of the world did the same DAMN thing!

Then you've just answered your own question!
What are you talking about? My post was an answer to a question.

Iraq bought the majority of it's weapons from the USSR. Migs, T-72s, AK-47s
Some from France: Mirages



LOL

Check out this map:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/iraniraq.htm

Armed both sides:
Britain
France
USSR
China
N.Korea
DDR(East Germany)
Italy
Brazil
Czechoslovakia

Same old story, cruxify the US for past crimes while the rest of the world did the same DAMN thing!
On the above list, you forgot to add the USA, who armed both sides. Saddam was the US puppet and you can't deny that fact. The US wanted revenge against Iran and got it. The other countries on the list just wanted to profit from the sale of arms.

This is a ridiculous thread (regarding the war being illegal).

Resolution 1441 voted on UNANIMOUSLY by the security council made the war "legal". Period.
:rolleyes:

This is a ridiculous thread (regarding the war being illegal).

Resolution 1441 voted on UNANIMOUSLY by the security council made the war "legal". Period.
:rolleyes:
If you read the rest of the thread, you will see that your comment regarding Resolution 1441 is not factual.

Iraq, ahhh. The land of my fathers. And now a heated battlezone in the military and political worlds. Quite simply, it doesn't matter whether it was illegal or not, what matters is that people are dying every day for what may be a completely futile effort, led by people who have no other interest than what goes into their pockets.

"But Saddam had WMD!"

Sure he did, when we armed him in the 70's and 80's. He was our friend then, wasn't he? Keeping that pesky Ayatollah on his toes! Who cared if he gassed a few Kurds?

"Saddam was an evil and brutal dictator!"

And yet we did nothing until he became a bit of an inconvenience. Face it, Saddam was our puppet government in the Mid East. The U.S has done this many times; supporting dictators and not giving two shits about the people who suffered. In Chile, Allende was elected in FAIR elections - he was overthrown in a CIA engineered coup and replaced him with the charming General Pinochet.

"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." - Henry Kissinger (secretary of state at the time)

So much for democracy and an anti-dictatorship stance, eh?

The United States government has always supported its best interests, dictators and human rights abusers if need be. That's how its been since WWII.

"Saddam tortured and murdered his own people!"

Tell me something I don't know. Waging a war in the name of the people who died under this man, justifying further murder in their names sickens me. Many members of my family have suffered under the hands of his regime, and trust me, they ain't too pleased about the way this situation has been handled.

"But we've liberated the Iraqis!"

Liberated them from what? We've taken one dictator away (one that we supported) and have handed them a country in ruins. We've killed thousands of civilians and have taken part in "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment." We've liberated them from their lives. We've put in another puppet government and they're now having TV stations and newspapers oh-so-democratically banned. They're already being mistreated and tortured by this new government. It's only a matter of time, there will be another Saddam.

"But Iraq had links to Al-Qaeda! And they were involved in 9/11!"

Give some proof, then maybe you'll have the beginnings of a point.

Guess why terrorists come about. It's not because they hate the rapidly disappearing "freedom" of the western world, it's not because we're all goodness and light.

It's because we've treated them (or they percieve to have been treated) like complete shit.

That's the root cause of terrorism. Bitterness, grief and all that's left is a desire to GET EVEN, in whatever way. They'll begin to see everybody associated with those nations as responsible.

We have brought this upon ourselves.

The War was legal becuase saddam hussien violated 15 UN Resolutions, and was in material breech of 1441.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

We've killed tens of thousands of civilians and have taken part in "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment."
Even sites like IraqBodyCount don't put numbers that high, but I guess the facts don't matter for dramatic effect, eh?

At this moment...

Minimum - 11605
Maximum - 13579

...civilian casualties

does that count?

(source: http://www.iraqbodycount.net)

Yep. Not even 20,000, the lowest tens of thousands could be.

I stand corrected then. Still, does that make it any less fucked up?

Apologies for the error though, I'll fix it.

No, your right in that civilian deaths are tragic.

It is hard to write in a detatched way about an issue like this. I suppose the reason why people keep on falling for (what is in my opinion) bullshit, is thathe governments know they can exploit and use the emotional side of the issue. (*yawns*)

I'm not gonna bother reading everyone's reply. But I'm sure there's a fair amount of ignorance flying around. Read the U.N. resolutions that were set forth towards Iraq, which Saddam chose to disobey. And see what the potential repercussions of disobedience listed in those resolutions were. Most people are guilty of being idiots. :p

Let's leave it at this: I've been to Iraq. I've seen what it's like. I crossed the border during the initial invasion, and I've spent over a year of my life there. I've been to mostly every major city in the country. I've spoken to Shi'ites, Sunni's, Kurds, Christians, Turks, Bedouins, even Jews. I've seen Saddam's torture chambers. I've seen the victims of Saddam's abuse. I've seen the production facilities for conventional weapons that he was not allowed to have under the terms of gulf war I. I know soldiers who were injured when an artillery shell containing NERVE GAS!!!! blew up while they were awaiting defusal. So don't tell me that Iraq never had WMDs. They're around there somewhere. Shit, I was stationed in the ministry of defense building, where there were thousands and thousands of documents scattered all over the place. Guess what. A year later, when we left, they were still there on the floor. Rained on (well, only a couple times), blown around, stepped on, pissed on. I even took a shit on one (I checked first, it was a manual of instruction in bayonet use.) Any one of those could explain in detail where the WMD's are. But we may never know cause we don't have enough arabic speaking individuals, and the documents may well have been destroyed.

So were we wrong to go there? No. We put an end to a cruel dictator, a tyrant who regularly tortured, raped and killed his own people. And before you go and say that we supported him: Once we knew the breadth of his atrocities, we didn't support him anymore.

The majority of the people there are happy that they were liberated. Liberated. That's the word they use. Not occupied. Not invaded. Liberated. Granted, they want us to leave. Of course. That's like getting a car for your 16th birthday, and when your parents take you around the block to show you how it works...you're just like "Ok get the hell out so I can go party", but you know you have to have them there to make sure everythings ok at first.


So, CanuckHead with your statements such as

"If you read the rest of the thread, you will see that your comment regarding Resolution 1441 is not factual"

You are just refusing to accept it for yourself. You're obviously not american. You're most likely not an american lawyer, nor are you one for the World Court. So what gives what you say anymore validity? I can tell you that the sky is blue a million times, but if you continue to say "No, its red, and everyone else says it is" does that really make it?

Regardless, this thread is pointless. If you want to discuss the fine points of the war, you can email me, daniel.g.rosenthal@us.army.mil , or, probably better at swatjester@tacsim.com .

Kindly list and explain the violations of the resolutions please...

Yep. Not even 20,000, the lowest tens of thousands could be.

Not to mention that that is the number of CASUALTIES. A Casualty is either wounded or killed. So 10,000 casualties includes those who recieve a cut on the arm from shrapnel, or a bullet to the face. It also includes those killed by the insurgents in carbombs, IED's, etc. Those weren't caused by us. It also includes iraqi on iraqi crime.

IraqBodyCount is a measure of reported civilian DEATHS. Not just casualties. Just so you know.

The War was legal becuase saddam hussien violated 15 UN Resolutions, and was in material breech of 1441.
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Personally I have heard several assessments of the legal position towards this. And all legal experts I heard considered it as not in accordance with resolution 1441. First of all the resolution does not include a phrase in which it says "all means" are allowed to implement it (which include the use of force).
In the negotiations about the resolution the US wanted such a formulation but it had to drop that demand. The compromise formulation was:
"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;"
However since only the formulation of "all means" is considered as the only one authorising the use of force this formulation can´t be interpreted that way. Furthernmore the resolution states that it "Decides to remain seized of the matter."
Additionally Britain stated before the passing of the resolution 1441 that it contains "no hidden trigger for war." After this statement the Arab Republic of Syria declared that after this assurance it is going to approve it. And so it was approved unamiously in November 2002.
It is realy arbitrarily to interpret the resolution in a way that was never accepted by the council and whichwas against assurances that were given by Britain and (also) by the US itself.
Resolution 1441 can therefore not seen as a legal basis for the military action.

And before you go and say that we supported him: Once we knew the breadth of his atrocities, we didn't support him anymore.

Oh please. We knew all about it, we knew all about Hallabja and the Iran-Iraq war atrocities. It's just we didn't care back then. This isn't a personal attack on you, it's just simple. All governments act in their best interests, not on the interests of foreign nationals.

What about the Shi'a uprising during 1991's Gulf War when the U.S and allies promised to aid any rebellion? Oh yes, they were left alone and massacred. When I visited Kerbala (where my family live) a few years back, i saw where the buildings had been shelled and destroyed as a result.

Yeah I've been to iraq too, and yeah I agree Saddam was a bastard - But it could have been all different. And we could have done it better. The blood has been spilt. Let's just see where we go from here.

The war on Iraq declared by the US, and its coalition was illegal because international law states that a single or group of nations cannot judge another. Only the UN can do this. Secondly, some say thetre was a moral oblication to invade - this is illegal just like invading because of WMDs, as it is judging another country without the UN.

So is there any way the Iraq war was legal, or does the US diserve some liberating, eh_

*yawn!*

Oh please. We knew all about it, we knew all about Hallabja and the Iran-Iraq war atrocities. It's just we didn't care back then. This isn't a personal attack on you, it's just simple. All governments act in their best interests, not on the interests of foreign nationals.
What about the Shi'a uprising during 1991's Gulf War when the U.S and allies promised to aid any rebellion? Oh yes, they were left alone and massacred. When I visited Kerbala (where my family live) a few years back, i saw where the buildings had been shelled and destroyed as a result.
Yeah I've been to iraq too, and yeah I agree Saddam was a bastard - But it could have been all different. And we could have done it better. The blood has been spilt. Let's just see where we go from here.
.
You are Iraqi?
Well, after all it is the development in Iraq and the Iraqi which decide how the intervention should be judged.
International law is for me not the criteria. After all it is historically a state law, which protects only the sovereignity of states (and their dictatorial governments) and not the right of the people. It should be changed. Therefore I think that some interventions who may not be in accordance with international law are still justified. They should and ought to be condoned because they prevented genocide from happening. The intervention in Kosovo (against Jugoslavia) is therefore in my view justified. Regarding the intervention in Iraq it can be argued that it is justifiable with the cruel nature of the regime and the genocides of the past, though there was no current and imminent one happening (like in Jugoslavia).

My father is an Iraqi, I was born in the U.K (so I'm not an Iraqi, strictly speaking) but have visited a fair few times - as well as Iran (where my mother came from). Recently, the increasingly rarer times I could meet my family had to be in Jordan due to the situation.

It is true *something* had to be done, but a full-blown military intervention? There were many chances before to remove him, but we were either supporting him or not bothered. So it's a confused feeling many Iraqis have - they are glad he's gone, but they resent the patronisation and the attitude of "be fucking grateful" thats landed upon them. The ones I know are furious at this attitude of their former dictator's former beneficiary's.

My father is an Iraqi, I was born in the U.K (so I'm not an Iraqi, strictly speaking) but have visited a fair few times - as well as Iran (where my mother came from). Recently, the increasingly rarer times I could meet my family had to be in Jordan due to the situation.

So you British? Well, at least according to the ius soli principal which applies in Britain, the US, France and other countries.
What do you think about the prospects for the future of Iraq. An how far is the iranian influence on the shiite clergy?
And how due you see the relationship between the sunni and shiite community?
What is going to happen with the Kurdish region?
What is going to happen with the christian minority? After all this was certainly the main reason the pope spoke out so strongly about the Iraq issue due to his concern about the christian minority in Iraq and in other predominantley muslim countries.

The War was legal becuase saddam hussien violated 15 UN Resolutions, and was in material breech of 1441.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
The invasion was illegal under the UN Charter, the US Constitution, and even according to this vaunted American:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1089042,00.html

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

So you British? Well, at least according to the ius soli principal which applies in Britain, the US, France and other countries.
On my passport it says "British Citizen", yup. I just have family ties to Iraq.

What do you think about the prospects for the future of Iraq. An how far is the iranian influence on the shiite clergy?
I think that it all depends on the upcoming elections, should they be fair. What the government there needs now is legitimacy, which I understand is lacking. It would be likely IMHO that a Shi'ite religious leader would take control in a democratic system, people tend to have more trust in them, they are percieved as not lying as much as career politicians - this would be problematic for the U.S and I would envisage them attempting to stop it or at least render them powerless, they don't want another Iran. To be honest, I do not know the extent of the influence, although I am sure it is present to a significant degree.

And how due you see the relationship between the sunni and shiite community?
On a personal level, I saw no problems between the two groups, however I was in a Shi'a majority area (Kerbala). Possibly politicians or certain groups could antagonise the relationship, and some have talked about the possibility of civil war - it's uncertain at best. Also, the Muslim Ulema Council (Sunni) have come together with influencial Shi'as in opposition to occupation.
What is going to happen with the Kurdish region?
I don't know, probably going to be a while before that's sorted. it depends on the attitude of Turkey, they aren't so keen on Kurdish independance.
What is going to happen with the christian minority? After all this was certainly the main reason the pope spoke out so strongly about the Iraq issue due to his concern about the christian minority in Iraq and in other predominantley muslim countries.
Christians have lived alongside the Muslim communities with no problems so far, the church bombings were the first I ever heard of any violence directed against them. It seems to me some outside or minority group is responsible and wants to stir up tension.

I think that it all depends on the upcoming elections, should they be fair. What the government there needs now is legitimacy, which I understand is lacking. It would be likely IMHO that a Shi'ite religious leader would take control in a democratic system, people tend to have more trust in them, they are percieved as not lying as much as career politicians - this would be problematic for the U.S and I would envisage them attempting to stop it or at least render them powerless, they don't want another Iran. To be honest, I do not know the extent of the influence, although I am sure it is present to a significant degree...
And after all how would the sunni community which tradtitionally is holding the power positions in Iraq thinks about that. After members of this group dominated the country even at the time the Osman Empire (later Turkey) ruled over the region (till 1918). But you of course know that much better than I.
So couldn´t lead that to problems within Iraq itself?
I - as a person without personal contacts to the region - have of course rely on the "experts." One more experienced "expert" said that either a sunni general (former Baathists) or a shiite cleric (or a person approved by them) is going to rule finally.
The first would require some kind of arrangement (like that in Faludja), the latter an arrangement with Iran. That of course seems unlikely.
And neither group is likely to accept any of the solutions.
Is a comprise possible given the situation?


On a personal level, I saw no problems between the two groups, however I was in a Shi'a majority area (Kerbala). Possibly politicians or certain groups could antagonise the relationship, and some have talked about the possibility of civil war - it's uncertain at best. Also, the Muslim Ulema Council (Sunni) have come together with influencial Shi'as in opposition to occupation.
I´m not aware of all details. But this crazy al-Sadr was actually rhetorically suggesting a common islamic rebellion. I don´t know how far he really has contacts with sunni extremists, though.

I don't know, probably going to be a while before that's sorted. it depends on the attitude of Turkey, they aren't so keen on Kurdish independance..
I don´t think that is going to happen. Neither Turkey or Iran would allow that since that would encourage their own kurdish minorities to demand the same.

Christians have lived alongside the Muslim communities with no problems so far, the church bombings were the first I ever heard of any violence directed against them. It seems to me some outside or minority group is responsible and wants to stir up tension.
But the number of christians is in decline. From 1 million in 1990 to 0,5 million today. It of course depends on the future developments. But any islamic government would make their position of course more difficult than under Saddam.

The invasion was illegal under the UN Charter, the US Constitution, and even according to this vaunted American:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1089042,00.html

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
The Kosovo war had no UN mandate either. So it was in that sense illegal as way. However the question is whether it should be condemned or condoned.
After all: they may be an emergy just like the prospect of a genocide (like in the Kosovo case) or the threat of WMD or support of terrorism which would justify it.

On the above list, you forgot to add the USA, who armed both sides. Saddam was the US puppet and you can't deny that fact. The US wanted revenge against Iran and got it. The other countries on the list just wanted to profit from the sale of arms.


Prove that Saddam was the US's puppet...

For a US puppet why was he buying the majority of his weapons from the USSR??!

The US provided military intelligence to Saddam's military.....I've found NO weapons sold to Iraq, but they did sell weapons to Iran.

Kindly list and explain the violations of the resolutions please...

UN Resolution 687
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp

The US provided military intelligence to Saddam's military.....I've found NO weapons sold to Iraq, but they did sell weapons to Iran.
There were no direct sales by the US as far as I know. But the US sold weapons to Saudi-Arabia and others and they sold them to Iraq. That was done with the (silent) consent and knowledge of the US government.
Nobody denies that. Anyway: I don´t criticize that. It was after all a way to bash Iran. Like the support of the Musheddin in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

"Christians have lived alongside the Muslim communities with no problems so far, the church bombings were the first I ever heard of any violence directed against them. It seems to me some outside or minority group is responsible and wants to stir up tension. "

Yes, but the Jewish population in Iraq, once the center of Jewry in the middle east, has shrunken to less than 200 Jews in baghdad. Why? I wasn't even allowed to say that I was jewish. One of our ICDC (Iraq national guard) soldiers overheard me talking about being jewish with another jewish soldier, and told me that if I didn't keep it secret, there would likely be attempts on my life by the ICDCs.

We did a patrol once, turned up a cache of RPG rounds buried in some sand. While awaiting EOD to come blow them in place (deemed too dangerous to move them), they made us wait about 4 hours. In that time, while talking with some of the locals, I said to them in pidgin Arabic "Yehudi zien, yes?" (meaning "Jewish good, yes?") They said "No no meestah, Yehudi no good." and spit on the ground, and slapped the bottom of their shoes. That's a huge insult over there, worse than saying Kuss Emek (anyone knowin arabic knows that meaning). When I pressed them on the subject, they spit at me and called me yehudi. It ended up in a fight, with 3 of them being detained.

Prove that Saddam was the US's puppet...

For a US puppet why was he buying the majority of his weapons from the USSR??!

The US provided military intelligence to Saddam's military.....I've found NO weapons sold to Iraq, but they did sell weapons to Iran.
Try a Google search for:

US MILITARY SALES TO IRAQ

http://www.google.ca/search?q=US+MILITARY+SALES+TO+IRAQ&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N

There is a wealth of info there. Go at least 5 pages deep on the search. Have fun.

UN Resolution 687
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp
In Resolution1441, pay particular attention to the wording of clauses 2, 4, 11, and 12

If you read it, you will understand that the US could do nothing without reconvening the Security Council.

It is also interesting to note that the US and UK were in violation of the same Resolution 1441 under Clause 10.

The Security Council did NOT authorize the invasion of Iraq.

8. DECIDES FURTHER that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or of any member state taking action to uphold any council resolution;

They shot at airdraft several times after 1441 was passed who were patrolling the no-fly zones. This put them in materiel breech of 1441, and put them at the mercy of the signatories.

The Kosovo war had no UN mandate either. So it was in that sense illegal as way. However the question is whether it should be condemned or condoned.
After all: they may be an emergy just like the prospect of a genocide (like in the Kosovo case) or the threat of WMD or support of terrorism which would justify it.
The biggest problems surrounding the Iraqi situation is the fact that the UN inspectors (hundred's of them) were in Iraq, doing a credible job, Saddam hadn't been in the mass execution business since the end of the Gulf War, and Bush/Blair decided they were going to invade regardless.

Since the US and UK stated that they had intelligence regarding WMD, then under Clause 10 of Resolution 1441, they were supposed to share that information with the UN inspectors. They decided to attack instead.

Their decision to attack, created a rift amongst traditional allies which is unfortunate.

8. DECIDES FURTHER that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or of any member state taking action to uphold any council resolution;

They shot at airdraft several times after 1441 was passed who were patrolling the no-fly zones. This put them in materiel breech of 1441, and put them at the mercy of the signatories.
According to the Security Council, no you are wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,915721,00.html

FOB, trying reading this and it will state clearly what was happening at Security Council level BEFORE the final US/UK decision to go without consent of the Council, in clear violation of that same Resolution 1441, under Clause 12.

Their decision to attack, created a rift amongst traditional allies which is unfortunate.
In addition to France/Germany/Russia's decision not just to not support the attack but to try to block it in any way possible.

In addition to France/Germany/Russia's decision not just to not support the attack but to try to block it in any way possible.

Canada. Our government said it was illegal.

In addition to France/Germany/Russia's decision not just to not support the attack but to try to block it in any way possible.
That is correct. I agree with those countries decisions, as long as the UN inspections were ongoing.

Read the UN Charter.....it talks about peaceful solutions above all else.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

The biggest problems surrounding the Iraqi situation is the fact that the UN inspectors (hundred's of them) were in Iraq, doing a credible job, Saddam hadn't been in the mass execution business since the end of the Gulf War, and Bush/Blair decided they were going to invade regardless.


The hell they weren't. Saddam and his family had been mass executing people up until the days of the war. Are you telling me the bodies found in and around abu ghraib, and the other torture facilities were 10+ years old?

Maybe when you've talked to iraqi's who've had their families massacred by saddam for no real reason, in the past 5 years, you'll be able to tell them that he's not in the mass execution business.

The hell they weren't. Saddam and his family had been mass executing people up until the days of the war. Are you telling me the bodies found in and around abu ghraib, and the other torture facilities were 10+ years old?

Maybe when you've talked to iraqi's who've had their families massacred by saddam for no real reason, in the past 5 years, you'll be able to tell them that he's not in the mass execution business.
Perhaps for a little counter perspective, you might try reading Posts #198, 205, 212, 215, and 218.

Saddam was a brutal dictator no question, but it did not stop the US from REMOVING Iraq from the terrorist list in 1982.

It did not stop the US from re-establishing diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1983.

It did not stop the US from supplying Iraq with WMD to destroy the common enemy in Iran, and insurgents in Kurdistan.

It did not stop the US from turning a blind eye to the use of these WMD.

It did not stop the US from supplying weapons to Iran to counter attack against Iraq.

It did not stop the US from telling Saddam that the US had "no issue" in regards to Kuwait, that is until Iraq invaded Kuwait.

It did not stop the US from using "Shock and Awe", to remind the world that Iraq was not the only country ever to use WMD.

It did not stop the US from using Abu Ghraib in similar fashion as Saddam.

Not everyone in the world is blind.

Personally speaking, I believe that the US has made a huge mistake in inserting themselves into this part of the world. Believe me, I hope I am wrong, but only time will tell.

Perhaps for a little counter perspective, you might try reading Posts #198, 205, 212, 215, and 218.

Saddam was a brutal dictator no question, but it did not stop the US from REMOVING Iraq from the terrorist list in 1982.

It did not stop the US from re-establishing diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1983.

It did not stop the US from supplying Iraq with WMD to destroy the common enemy in Iran, and insurgents in Kurdistan.

It did not stop the US from turning a blind eye to the use of these WMD.

It did not stop the US from supplying weapons to Iran to counter attack against Iraq.

It did not stop the US from telling Saddam that the US had "no issue" in regards to Kuwait, that is until Iraq invaded Kuwait.

It did not stop the US from using "Shock and Awe", to remind the world that Iraq was not the only country ever to use WMD.

It did not stop the US from using Abu Ghraib in similar fashion as Saddam.

Not everyone in the world is blind.

Personally speaking, I believe that the US has made a huge mistake in inserting themselves into this part of the world. Believe me, I hope I am wrong, but only time will tell.


Shock and Awe was nothing more than a precision boming campaign that lasted for 24 hours. It's been performed by many countries before.

And lets not compare american use of abu ghraib to saddams.

American's worst crimes there? making a bunch of iraqi's get naked and uncomfortable. Nothing that qualifies as torture.

Saddam's worst crimes there? Raping girls and boys of 10 years old and less. Murder. Torture (and by torture I'm talking rending of the flesh, the rack, systematic body shootings, electrocution, beatings, burnings, beheadings, etc.), rape, starvation, ethnic cleansing.

Shock and Awe was nothing more than a precision boming campaign that lasted for 24 hours. It's been performed by many countries before.

And lets not compare american use of abu ghraib to saddams.

American's worst crimes there? making a bunch of iraqi's get naked and uncomfortable. Nothing that qualifies as torture.

Saddam's worst crimes there? Raping girls and boys of 10 years old and less. Murder. Torture (and by torture I'm talking rending of the flesh, the rack, systematic body shootings, electrocution, beatings, burnings, beheadings, etc.), rape, starvation, ethnic cleansing.
From what I understand, there was real torture, using attack dogs, sexually deviant behaviour, physical abuse, and yes even death?

From what I understand, the Senators who were allowed to see the more explicit pictures decided against releasing them to the press because they were more horrific than the ones that have already been released?

The news seems very quiet on this subject lately?

It did not stop the US from using "Shock and Awe", to remind the world that Iraq was not the only country ever to use WMD.
I'm not sure how we reminded them of past uses of WMD, its not like we used WMD or anything, unless you want to start up the "Big conventional weapons = WMD" BS again. Fit the definition to make your point.

Shock and Awe was nothing more than a precision boming campaign that lasted for 24 hours. It's been performed by many countries before.

And lets not compare american use of abu ghraib to saddams.

American's worst crimes there? making a bunch of iraqi's get naked and uncomfortable. Nothing that qualifies as torture.

Saddam's worst crimes there? Raping girls and boys of 10 years old and less. Murder. Torture (and by torture I'm talking rending of the flesh, the rack, systematic body shootings, electrocution, beatings, burnings, beheadings, etc.), rape, starvation, ethnic cleansing.
We have laws against cruel and unusual punishment as well as torture.
So therefore those were wrong.
Unless, you have no problem with givt doing that to you.

Ahem. US laws only apply in the united states.

guys let me settle this one. Saddam Hussein was a insane terriost, i belive that terriosts are always either killed or arrested (in Saddams case he was arrested and is charged with countless war crimes) second he was almost as bad as Josepf Stalin (and for those who dont read history, it was estimated that Stalin killed more the 40 million people, think about!!) third, didnt you guys watch the news when they liberated baghdad?! those people were dancing in the streets cause there former dictator was deposed and they were free for the first time in there lifes!!) so think about this for awhile and then decide!

The biggest problems surrounding the Iraqi situation is the fact that the UN inspectors (hundred's of them) were in Iraq, doing a credible job, Saddam hadn't been in the mass execution business since the end of the Gulf War, and Bush/Blair decided they were going to invade regardless.
Since the US and UK stated that they had intelligence regarding WMD, then under Clause 10 of Resolution 1441, they were supposed to share that information with the UN inspectors. They decided to attack instead.
Their decision to attack, created a rift amongst traditional allies which is unfortunate. Especially your last sentence is true. However the question is who is to blame for it. And Chirac and Schröder aside Bush and Blair deserve a lot of blame as well.
After all the US can argue that it gave a presentation of their intelligence to the Security Council (Powell presentation). And Saddam was after all a cruel dictator.
It is a difficult decision. I for my part understand that there were a lot of reasons for going to war with Iraq. I understand the geostrategic decision of Bush and Blair in favour of doing that and it opens opportunities (aside of risks) to change the region for the better.

Especially your last sentence is true. However the question is who is to blame for it. And Chirac and Schröder aside Bush and Blair deserve a lot of blame as well.
After all the US can argue that it gave a presentation of their intelligence to the Security Council (Powell presentation). And Saddam was after all a cruel dictator.
It is a difficult decision. I for my part understand that there were a lot of reasons for going to war with Iraq. I understand the geostrategic decision of Bush and Blair in favour of doing that and it opens opportunities (aside of risks) to change the region for the better.


Chirac and Schroder did the right thing - their population didn't want to join the war, and the intelligence that Powell presented wasn't convincing (and has since been shown to be mostly lies).
on one will disagree that Saddam was a dictator, but there are far too many dictators in the world who operate with full US support for that to be a valid reason for war.

geostrategic reasons for a war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians aren't good reasons anymore, and haven't been for 100 years or so.

if you think the region will be changed for the better by this war and occupation, you need to stop reading american news and broaden your perspective.
Dubya has created another monster.

so glad to be canadian, just hope bush doesn't realise that we've got huge oil reserves ourselves in the tar sands, and quite a lot of the world's fresh water.

oh well, we repelled an american invasion before, and burned down your whitehouse, we could do it again.

Chirac and Schroder did the right thing - their population didn't want to join the war, and the intelligence that Powell presented wasn't convincing (and has since been shown to be mostly lies).
on one will disagree that Saddam was a dictator, but there are far too many dictators in the world who operate with full US support for that to be a valid reason for war.

geostrategic reasons for a war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians aren't good reasons anymore, and haven't been for 100 years or so.

if you think the region will be changed for the better by this war and occupation, you need to stop reading american news and broaden your perspective.
Dubya has created another monster.

so glad to be canadian, just hope bush doesn't realise that we've got huge oil reserves ourselves in the tar sands, and quite a lot of the world's fresh water.

oh well, we repelled an american invasion before, and burned down your whitehouse, we could do it again.
That were the British as far as I remember, not the Canadians. Oh, well you still have the Queen as head of state, though. But today you don´t always follow the British.
First of all I´m not American. And I like to listen to different opinions. And that means not just to the anti-war camp. You should inform yourself better about the case for war. After all: how many people were killed by Saddam?
The dictatorship has ended due to the war and people are liberated from an opressive regime. And Iraq was one of the most evil dictatorships after all.

Only Congress can declare war. In that respect, every 'war' after WWII (Korea, Vetnam, Iraq, so on) was an illegal war, as Congress did not issue a declaration of war for any of them.

Chirac and Schroder did the right thing - their population didn't want to join the war,
What does that have to do anything? If that is their reason for not going to war, that their people didn't want to, that just shows that they're spineless populists.

oh well, we repelled an american invasion before, and burned down your whitehouse, we could do it again.
Don't be so naive, America could take over all of the important parts of Canada in like a month.

Perhaps for a little counter perspective, you might try reading Posts #198, 205, 212, 215, and 218.

Saddam was a brutal dictator no question, but it did not stop the US from REMOVING Iraq from the terrorist list in 1982.

It didn't stop the Soviets from sending jets, tanks, or rifles either.

It did not stop the US from re-establishing diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1983.

And Saddam was currently at war with Iran. Remember the hostages??(or were you born yet?)

It did not stop the US from supplying Iraq with WMD to destroy the common enemy in Iran, and insurgents in Kurdistan.



This is an outright lie! The US did not supply Iraq with WMDs. Baghdad University was sent samples by numerous countries. Maybe you should re-read my posts!

The western companies that dealt with the defunct regime -- for instance Australian and Dutch firms -- exported a lot of materials related to this field of production. For instance, the Dutch firm KBS sold Iraq large quantities of Thiodilyco (name as transliterated), a material that is essential in the production of mustard gas, at a cost of 1.5 million Marks. Multinational Italian firms also supplied Iraq with 60 tons of Oxycklorure (name as transliterated), a phosphoric material that is also used in chemical industries that can be put to dual-use. As for the French companies, they exported to Iraq large quantities of a gas (not further identified) that can be used in warfare.

It did not stop the US from turning a blind eye to the use of these WMD.

Which explains why France, Denmark, Italy, Germany, and the USSR continued to send supplies to make chemical weapons as well.

It did not stop the US from supplying weapons to Iran to counter attack against Iraq.

Again, re-read my post.
Britain
France
USSR
China
N.Korea
DDR(East Germany)
Italy
Brazil
Czechoslovakia

All sold weapons to Iraq AND Iran.

It did not stop the US from telling Saddam that the US had "no issue" in regards to Kuwait, that is until Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Read the fine print....
Here are excerpts from a document described by Iraqi Government officials as a transcript of the meeting, which also included the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz.

LOL....I'd really trust any transcripts from "Iraqi Government officials"....LOL

It did not stop the US from using "Shock and Awe", to remind the world that Iraq was not the only country ever to use WMD.

Irrelevant. Here you go skippy....

1) The term "weapon of mass destruction" means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of--(A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;

(B) a disease organism; or

(C) radiation or radioactivity.



It did not stop the US from using Abu Ghraib in similar fashion as Saddam.

Yeah, torture is now defined as: making a person uncomfortable either through nakedness or embarrassment...

Not everyone in the world is blind.

Just blind to what other countries in the world do. Maybe you should send the Israeli's a big thank you card for something they did in 1982!! LOL

Personally speaking, I believe that the US has made a huge mistake in inserting themselves into this part of the world. Believe me, I hope I am wrong, but only time will tell.

You're SO right. We should have let the French and Russians re-arm Iraq(Saddam). Then when Iraq invaded yet another country, all the little anti-Americans could blame the US, once again!!


Ummmm I wasn't just trying to blame the US, I was just pointing out the complicity of the US government in regards to suppling Iraq with biological weapons.

Sure sounds like blame to me.....continually ignoring that other countries besides the US have done as much if not more to arm Iraq!

The US wanted revenge against Iran and got it. The other countries on the list just wanted to profit from the sale of arms.

So monetary profit from the deaths of Iraqi's and Iranians is exceptable. But arming boths sides for revenge isn't. Yeah, BIG moral difference there.

Kwangistar, u originally said that Schrodder and Chirac are spinless populists, what is the job of a politician and a leader if not to protect and defend the needs and rights of their population?

As for the war yes I belive it was completly unjustified and in the long run will not help anything. Already most of the middle east distrusts and hates the west. With this new invasion from a coliation of western powers can only cause more and more distrusts among the middle east.

Kwangistar, u originally said that Schrodder and Chirac are spinless populists, what is the job of a politician and a leader if not to protect and defend the needs and rights of their population?

If the purpose was simply to follow the will of the majority, then there shouldn't be any parties, no need to have elections, it should just be a bunch of guys doing whatever the polls tell them to (more so than it is now). No unpopular moves, no matter how necessary they might be.

This is an outright lie! The US did not supply Iraq with WMDs. Baghdad University was sent samples by numerous countries. Maybe you should re-read my posts!

It is definitely true that other countries armed Iraq and contributed to their nuclear, biological, and chemical programs (NBC). However, it is untrue that the US was not involved. The issue is far wider than a few biological samples (although those are of some concern):

In particular, the US contributed to Iraq's chemical weapons program
http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021001-iraq3.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html

One of the reasons that you aren't hearing about this is that the pages describing western companies that gave Iraq components for chemical and biological weapons were removed from Iraq's declaration before it was handed to the UN security council.

The US wasn't the sole supplier, but it does bear some responsibility. (Do other countries? Sure. Did those countries invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqis? Only one of them.)

Yeah, torture is now defined as: making a person uncomfortable either through nakedness or embarrassment...

Minimization of Abu Grahib bothers me at a deep level.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

And that's just what was photographed and videotaped. From what congressional leaders have said, there's much worse stuff that hasn't been disclosed. The red cross quotes the local staff as saying that as many as 80% of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were completely innocent.

Comparing the US's actions to those of other countries, btw, smacks of moral relativism...

Only Congress can declare war. In that respect, every 'war' after WWII (Korea, Vetnam, Iraq, so on) was an illegal war, as Congress did not issue a declaration of war for any of them.

Wrong. A declaration of war is not the only way for the US to become involved militarily.

How about you read and study the constitution and US Code before you talk.

See the post after next for more details.