NationStates Jolt Archive

CanuckHeaven,

Let me be plain with you.
.....

1441 was the 17th Resolution on Iraq. 17 Resolutions that state that he was in violation of the cease-fire. If Hussein was NOT in vioation of it, then why did we have 17 resolutions? If he wasn't in violation of the Cease-fire, then why weren't the sanctions removed?

The UN found him in violation of the Cease-fire many times but did nothing about it. We've had enough of Hussein's violations and we finally did something about it. Us, the Brits, Australians, ect ect ect.
17 resolutions by the US Congress?

Nope! We were defending ourselves from WMD in the hands of terrorists. Yes there were no wmd in iraq, however according to the IAEA, he had them and we believe that they were moved or buried. Thus we still had legal grounds to go in under UN Resolutions and the violation of the Cease-fire.

So you would be happy for other countires to invade the US and capture your WMDs, especially since you even admit that you have thousands of them. The US had nothing to fear, since Iraq had neither the means nor the inclination to launch WMDs agains America, unlike the US, which has the power to project its force anywhere in the world and has the will to do so. Also, there are many millions of people who believe that Bush is one of the most dangerous men in the world, much more so than any terrorist.

The boogie woogie bugle boy from Company B is playing reveille.....

Check out the following web site and it punches holes in many of your weak arguments.

Iraq: Claim vs. Reality:

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 8, 2002

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul58.html

Claim: Iraq has consistently demonstrated its willingness to use force against the US through its firing on our planes patrolling the UN-established "no-fly zones."

Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991), Iraq's repression of the Kurds and Shi'ites was condemned, but there was no authorization for "no-fly zones," much less airstrikes. The resolution only calls for member states to "contribute to humanitarian relief" in the Kurd and Shi'ite areas. Yet the US and British have been bombing Iraq in the "no-fly zones" for 12 years. While one can only condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn't the real argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been flown over Iraq.

There is much, much, more there that should get you thinking?

Note that this web site was written BEFORE the US invasion of Iraq, and before you try to diminish the site, please take note that the author is a Republican Congressman.

Enjoy!! :D

17 resolutions by the US Congress?

17 UN Resolutions that declared Saddam Hussein in violation of the cease-fire and international law. What did the UN do? Nothing!

Now the world is mad that the US did something that was well within its rights under the Cease-fire agreement.

Argue all you want but once a cease-fire is violated, war is legitament.

The boogie woogie bugle boy from Company B is playing reveille.....

That is a good song and I have that song somewhere.

Check out the following web site and it punches holes in many of your weak arguments.

Iraq: Claim vs. Reality:

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 8, 2002

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul58.html

Claim: Iraq has consistently demonstrated its willingness to use force against the US through its firing on our planes patrolling the UN-established "no-fly zones."

Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991), Iraq's repression of the Kurds and Shi'ites was condemned, but there was no authorization for "no-fly zones," much less airstrikes. The resolution only calls for member states to "contribute to humanitarian relief" in the Kurd and Shi'ite areas. Yet the US and British have been bombing Iraq in the "no-fly zones" for 12 years. While one can only condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn't the real argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been flown over Iraq.

There is much, much, more there that should get you thinking?

Note that this web site was written BEFORE the US invasion of Iraq, and before you try to diminish the site, please take note that the author is a Republican Congressman.

Enjoy!! :D

But there is one minor problem! Under the Cease-fire agreement, he should have DISMANTLED his wmd program. He did not. He should've cooperated with UN Weapons inspectors. He did not! These two items alone is enough cause for us to go in and take out Saddam Hussein.

That is what International Law states too. Saddam Hussein violated this when he violated the cease-fire agreement. Under international law, we had full right to go in and take him out and we did so.

I do not care what the reasons were for going in, just the fact that we went in and took care of this tyrant who violated international law. So what your basically trying to tell me is that a dictator was in violation of International Law when he violated the cease-fire accord and that we are in violation of said law for upholding the said accord? That makes absolutely no sense.

American Republic, you clearly are not reading. It does not matter what Saddam did, the US and the UK, and it's coalition violated the policy. Saddam not complying to the resolutions is an issue that must be dealt by.. *gasps* guess what??? the UN! Period.

And BTW, the WMD program was shattered after the Gulf War to the point of almost (I won't say none because I know some were being produced, but not of great scale as the Bush administration reported) zero production of weapons, so I don't know what you're talking about him being a threat on that. Bush's cronies said so as well before 9-11.

An unhelpful, perhaps, but certainly interesting article.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3569.htm

A mind refresh...
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam/

First of all, I will say the following. I was against the US going into Iraq. I though it was poor strategic thinking, there wasn't compelling proof that the Iraqis were an immenent threat, and I was convinced that not even Saddam would live forever.

That said, the US led invasion of Iraq was not illegal under US law, as the President has the authority to send in troops, while Congress has the authority to declare war, and the War Powers act clarifies that. The Congress did agree to give Bush the authorization to use military force (which may not have been a good idea but seemed that way at the time). Both the British and the US have admitted catastrophically bad intelligence led them to that decision (well Bush hasn't admitted it, but most Americans who pay attention have) and the French and Israelis thought the intelligence was right too. I don't know what the Russians and Chinese thought, but indications are that they thought the Iraqis had WMDs too.

According to the UN Charter, nations have the right of self defense under that charter. Bush claimed (incorrectly as it turned out) that the US faced an imminent threat of attack by Iraq if not directly, than through surrogates. 9/11 gave that rationale creditability. So at the time of the invasion, the US claimed under international law that it was threatened by attack and could claim that under the UN Charter its invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Its thin, REALLY thin, but the invasion was not illegal. But it just might turn out to be a colossal blunder (lets hope not, for everyones sake, including the Iraqis).

American Republic, you clearly are not reading. It does not matter what Saddam did, the US and the UK, and it's coalition violated the policy. Saddam not complying to the resolutions is an issue that must be dealt by.. *gasps* guess what??? the UN! Period.

How did we violate a policy that says that we have the right to attack if Saddam violated the Cease fire? I'm the one that seems to have more of an explanation here than anyone else. I do know the facts of this. I have been following this story for far to long. I do know what is going on over there. I do know how this all started. We were within our right as sovereign nation to hold Iraq responsible for violating the Cease-fire. If you like, I can email my father and have him come in and tell you point by point why we went into Iraq. Also 1441 clearly stated "Serious Consequences" if Saddam did not comply. Guess what? He didn't! Thus under 1441, we can go in and take him out.

And BTW, the WMD program was shattered after the Gulf War to the point of almost zero production of weapons, so I don't know what you're talking about him being a threat on that. Bush's cronies said so as well before 9-11.

Then why did he still have the capacity to make WMD when he was supposed to have dismantled them? Why has the IAEA report saying that he did have them even after he was supposed to have gotten rid of them?

An unhelpful, perhaps, but certainly interesting article.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3569.htm

A mind refresh...
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam/

I do know about Iraq's WMD! I also know he would've restarted producing them the moment the sanctions were lifted. The mere fact that he can do this shows that he did not follow 1441 or any other resolution as well as the Cease-fire. Sorry! He broke the law and we took him out. The war was 100% legal under International Law! No matter how hard you try to deny it, the facts point to this war being legal.

New Shiron says it well.

Clearly, as he also pointed, the amount of evidence to prove the threat was very low. In a way it shows both the understanding for human revenge on "terrorists" (though Iraq was not) and the actions of stupidity behind the military attack.

American Republic
All of that was greatly based on assumptions, but hardly any fact.
If you want me to get the article of the Iraqi official who throughout the 90's reported Iraq was slowly dismantling the weapons program after 1991 and proved it was almost destroyed, I'll find it, but don't come in with a weak repsonse as the one you have just given suggesting "Saddam was gonna rebuild the program" because that's what the Bush administration has said all along after 9-11.

American Republic
I didn't even have to read the whole thing you replied to.
It's all based on assumptions and not fact.
If you want me to get the article of the Iraqi official who through the 90's reported Iraq was slowly dismantling the weapons program after 1991, I'll find it, but don't come in with a weak repsonse as the one you have just given.

Its only assumption to you because I have a different opinion than you. I have more experience in this matter from a military standpoint because I have relatives that serve in the military and I do know what happens when nation's violate a cease-fire. Under International Law, war is legitament when a nation breaks a cease-fire and the said nation gets attacked. Here, Hussein violated the cease-fire and we finally went in under it and took him out. That is a very irrefutable Fact that he violated it. This was basically the only grounds we needed to go in.

AR,
I could care less if you were even in the army.
The US and its coalition violated UN policy! Why do you not get that.
I am slowly starting to belive most military-influenced people have hard heads, you know why? because I know some myself.

As for the assumption thing, no. It's not because "it's a different opinion"
is because if I get anyone to read that who is not biased on this argument, they would point there is more opinion and act of assumption on your side than there is hard facts.

17 UN Resolutions that declared Saddam Hussein in violation of the cease-fire and international law. What did the UN do? Nothing!
So basically your point is....those 17 UN Resolutions make the Iraq war Legal....

AR, is that the Fundation of your Cease-Fire Philosophy??

AR,
I could care less if you were even in the army.
The US and its coalition violated UN policy! Why do you not get that.
I am slowly starting to belive most military-influenced people have hard heads, you know why? because I know some myself.

and why do you not get that Iraq as violated UN Policy for 12 friggin years? Don't you think that after twelve years and seventeen Resolutions that we would've gone in long before now? Thank God for Bush calling Iraq on violating the UN Resolutions and doing something about it.

As for the assumption thing, no. It's not because "it's a different opinion"
is because if I get anyone to read that who is not biased on this argument, they would point there is more opinion and act of assumption on your side than there is hard facts.

There is hard facts that he violated the Cease-fire and ALL 17 Resolutions.

So basically your point is....those 17 UN Resolutions make the Iraq war Legal....

AR, is that the Fundation of your Cease-Fire Philosophy??

My Cease-fire Philosphy is, you don't follow it to the letter, good-bye!

Hussein did not follow it to the letter. We all know it so we finally took him out and good ridence too.

Hussein did not follow it to the letter. We all know it so we finally took him out and good ridence too.Good ridance indeed...

But The Iraq War is illegal.

I just want to say....I am a veteran of the United States Air Force. I worked in counter-intelligence with a top secret security clearance. And I can tell you this because I already saw the paperwork. The reason we went ahead and invaded Iraq without UN approval first is because we are allowed to.

Years ago, the United Nations passed a law that stated:

"The United States of America has the solemn authority to defend against any threat or perceived threat to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, not requiring prior acknowledgement of the United Nations Security Council."

The United States has not broken the law because the UN ensured that.

Years ago, the United Nations passed a law that stated:

"The United States of America has the solemn authority to defend against any threat or perceived threat to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, not requiring prior acknowledgement of the United Nations Security Council."

The United States has not broken the law because the UN ensured that.

I understand that part, but I have to agree with the person that said making Saddam Hussein into threat was pretty thin. He didn't have the capabilities, he didn't purchase the uranium that Bush went before the world and declared he had... and since the war no WMD's have been found. Everything that Bush declared were a threat to our country were non-existent...
and for claiming that Hussein was going to start in as soon as the sanctions were lifted... I had never heard that there was any consideration that the sanctions were going to be lifted.
Going on a pre-emptive strike because someone is going to do something is as bad as idea behind the Minority Report movie pf preventing murders before they happen by arresting the person for the crime and commiting them to a life sentence before they actually commit it.

It is very well known that the United States is only in the UN for appearances. Once you leave isolationism long enough to make the rest of the world hate you, there's no going back. But I seriously doubt the American government factors the UN into most of its plans, unless of course it helps get elected.

I just want to say....I am a veteran of the United States Air Force. I worked in counter-intelligence with a top secret security clearance. And I can tell you this because I already saw the paperwork. The reason we went ahead and invaded Iraq without UN approval first is because we are allowed to.

Years ago, the United Nations passed a law that stated:

"The United States of America has the solemn authority to defend against any threat or perceived threat to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, not requiring prior acknowledgement of the United Nations Security Council."

The United States has not broken the law because the UN ensured that.
Yeah the US has a "secret" deal (you call it a law) with the UN that the US can do whatever they want???? Perhaps you are reading too many science fiction novels?

Yeah the US has a "secret" deal (you call it a law) with the UN that the US can do whatever they want???? Perhaps you are reading too many science fiction novels?

Actually, I can believe what he is saying.

How did we violate a policy that says that we have the right to attack if Saddam violated the Cease fire? I'm the one that seems to have more of an explanation here than anyone else. I do know the facts of this. I have been following this story for far to long. I do know what is going on over there. I do know how this all started.
So because you state that you have been following this for a long time that you think you know what you are talking about? Do you think that you are all knowledgeable and others that have also followed this for just as long or longer somehow don't know what they are talking about? That smacks of arrogance of the first degree especially when you cannot support your arguments with any identifiable facts.

We were within our right as sovereign nation to hold Iraq responsible for violating the Cease-fire. If you like, I can email my father and have him come in and tell you point by point why we went into Iraq.
Congratulations to sinking to the depths of another poster such as Cornlieu, who when confronted with a wealth of "facts", plays the "my father knows best" card, or my mom is an economics major, she knows more than you do.

I can tell you point blank that the US did NOT go into Iraq with the UN's Security Council's blessings. Au contraire, the US did not get the Resolution that it NEEDED to attack Iraq. Perle says it was "illegal", and Annan says it was "illegal", and many other international lawyers have stated it was "illegal".

This is not a case of "father knows best", and I find it rather insulting to suggest that I should somehow believe you for that reason alone. :eek:

Stick with facts if you want to debate with the big boys?

Some more homework for you:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Jayne-Kramer0920.htm

The Illegal Iraq Invasion
According to the UN Charter, the U.S. Constitution,
Resolution 1441, and the Nuremberg Charter

When it all filters down this is how it goes.

1) The UN have, as I know it, never backed up the restrictions on Iraq or any other nation for that matter. I personally think that the UN need some serious re-thinking in its structure and that even though it was started with good intention, it needs to do more than warn nations they are doing wrong.

2) We were attacked by terrorists. We have information that told us who this terrorist group was. If that is not of a enough sensible reason to attack them, I do not know what is. Bush should not need the guise of WMB to attack Iraq. This regime needed to be taken out anyway. I dont know the legallities of it, but it should be legal to attack Iraq.

When it all filters down this is how it goes.

1) The UN have, as I know it, never backed up the restrictions on Iraq or any other nation for that matter. I personally think that the UN need some serious re-thinking in its structure and that even though it was started with good intention, it needs to do more than warn nations they are doing wrong.

2) We were attacked by terrorists. We have information that told us who this terrorist group was. If that is not of a enough sensible reason to attack them, I do not know what is. Bush should not need the guise of WMB to attack Iraq. This regime needed to be taken out anyway. I dont know the legallities of it, but it should be legal to attack Iraq.
Not bad for a first post on NS. Now I could also suggest that you step back and take a wider view, perhaps by reading all the posts in this thread?

2) We were attacked by terrorists. We have information that told us who this terrorist group was. If that is not of a enough sensible reason to attack them, I do not know what is. Bush should not need the guise of WMB to attack Iraq. This regime needed to be taken out anyway. I dont know the legallities of it, but it should be legal to attack Iraq.holly macaroni

So because you state that you have been following this for a long time that you think you know what you are talking about? Do you think that you are all knowledgeable and others that have also followed this for just as long or longer somehow don't know what they are talking about? That smacks of arrogance of the first degree especially when you cannot support your arguments with any identifiable facts.

Congratulations to sinking to the depths of another poster such as Cornlieu, who when confronted with a wealth of "facts", plays the "my father knows best" card, or my mom is an economics major, she knows more than you do.

I can tell you point blank that the US did NOT go into Iraq with the UN's Security Council's blessings. Au contraire, the US did not get the Resolution that it NEEDED to attack Iraq. Perle says it was "illegal", and Annan says it was "illegal", and many other international lawyers have stated it was "illegal".

This is not a case of "father knows best", and I find it rather insulting to suggest that I should somehow believe you for that reason alone. :eek:

Stick with facts if you want to debate with the big boys?

Some more homework for you:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Jayne-Kramer0920.htm

The Illegal Iraq Invasion
According to the UN Charter, the U.S. Constitution,
Resolution 1441, and the Nuremberg Charter

that website is all well in good but it neglects to talk about the UN Charters allowance for the principal of Self Defense, which is basically what Bush cited for the invasion (immenent threat standard). The US Congress gave Bush authorization to US force (which takes care of the US Constitution part of it), the Resolution is part of the Self Defense claim, and the Nuremberg Charter allows for self defense as well.

I am not saying the US was correct, but based on the intelligence cited, the US believed it was acting in self defense. The fact that is wrong certainly doesn't help, but the invasion's illegality under international law is highly open to debate.

By the way, just becaus a web site is cited doesnt make the source right. This is clearly a site with a bias, and therefore just as suspect as asking the RNC if it thought the invasion is right. Oddly enough, their website and everybody else on that side of the fence is convinced they were right too.

Just because the poster you chastized didn't agree with you doesn't make him any more or less wrong than you are potentially.

After Second World War, America *never signed up to the Geneva Conventions-
So they never broke international law when they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan- they made their own laws. And that needs to stop.
This war for peace and hope is fruitless- get it?

However, Australia (and Britain?) did sign them. Therefore, Australia should be tried for war crimes for invading a defenceless country.


edit: BTW, the US were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
www.fromthewilderness.com run by an ex-CIA worker.

The US (more specifically the CIA) planned to self sabotage themselves
near Vietnam, so the people of America could support the case for going
into war in Vietnam.

*did they sign it, or didn't they? It sounds like they didn't.

It all comes down to not Bush having made a mistake of Iraq being a threat, but simply a plan to get ourselves rich with oil and money. Nothing else.

that website is all well in good but it neglects to talk about the UN Charters allowance for the principal of Self Defense, which is basically what Bush cited for the invasion .......
Self-Defense?.....Iraq had no means to attack the US...no long range missiles...nothing

Self-Defense?.....Iraq had no means to attack the US...no long range missiles...nothing
This is a point on which the US claim to "self defence", is clearly shown to be devoid of substance. The very fact that Iraq for the most part only had short range missiles, which BTW were allowable for self defence, trumps the US claim to "self defence".

The slightly longer range, and slightly illegal, Al-Samoud 2 missiles which were being destroyed under UN supervision, clearly demonstrated Iraq's willingness to comply with UN Resolution 1441. It was during the destruction process of these missiles that the US decided to attack Iraq regardless of any Iraqi intention to comply with UN initiatives. Given the amount, and scope of the demilitarization of Iraq, Iraq was in a position of barely being able to defend themselves against local adversaries. The idea put forward that Iraq was a threat to the US is laughable under these circumstances to say the least.

An interesting article dated Monday, March 3, 2003:

Iraq is destroying more Al-Samoud 2 missiles after meeting a U.N. deadline over the weekend to begin the process, U.N. officials say.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/03/sprj.irq.missiles/

Iraq destroyed four missiles Saturday, meeting the Saturday deadline set by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix. The missiles were ordered destroyed because inspectors said they have a range beyond the 150 kilometers (93 miles) allowed under U.N. resolutions.

Al-Saadi said Baghdad was working with weapons inspectors on a schedule to destroy more than 100 Al-Samoud 2 missiles, but warned that could change if it becomes clear the United States intends to go to war.

Al-Saadi said Iraq was destroying the missiles as part of their "proactive cooperation" with inspectors, even though they could be useful in the event of war.

"My task, and only task, is to remove all excuses for waging war in the legal way, the legal route, that is, the U.N. route," he said. "If Iraq is not in material breach on that count, then if war takes place, if war happens, it's not because Iraq has not done all it could regarding disarmament."

How is it possible for the US to claim "self defence", given that Iraq was in no position whatsoever to attack the US?

The inspectors were doing their job and should have been allowed to continue.....

It all comes down to not Bush having made a mistake of Iraq being a threat, but simply a plan to get ourselves rich with oil and money. Nothing else.
This is probably the most relevant post in the whole thread?

The UN is nothing more than a cowardly eunuch. They sit around, pass all these resolutions, and make threats to enforce them. When it comes time to enforce them, they pass more resolutions threatening to use force. Then when a coalition of UN members, yes I said coalition, finally decides to do something about the problem, the eunuchs in New York start yelling and screaming, “You can’t do that!

Another good example of the UN inability to do anything is Darfur. While the UN sits and laments, “Oh how awful!” and passes resolutions they cannot and will not enforce, people are dying.

On a side note, I think the Canuck hasn’t gotten over the fact that they lost the French Indian war. :)

First of all, I will say the following. I was against the US going into Iraq. I though it was poor strategic thinking, there wasn't compelling proof that the Iraqis were an immenent threat, and I was convinced that not even Saddam would live forever.

That said, the US led invasion of Iraq was not illegal under US law, as the President has the authority to send in troops, while Congress has the authority to declare war, and the War Powers act clarifies that. The Congress did agree to give Bush the authorization to use military force (which may not have been a good idea but seemed that way at the time). Both the British and the US have admitted catastrophically bad intelligence led them to that decision (well Bush hasn't admitted it, but most Americans who pay attention have) and the French and Israelis thought the intelligence was right too. I don't know what the Russians and Chinese thought, but indications are that they thought the Iraqis had WMDs too.

According to the UN Charter, nations have the right of self defense under that charter. Bush claimed (incorrectly as it turned out) that the US faced an imminent threat of attack by Iraq if not directly, than through surrogates. 9/11 gave that rationale creditability. So at the time of the invasion, the US claimed under international law that it was threatened by attack and could claim that under the UN Charter its invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Its thin, REALLY thin, but the invasion was not illegal. But it just might turn out to be a colossal blunder (lets hope not, for everyones sake, including the Iraqis).

You said it very well, even though I agree with our going into Iraq, you stated the case very well. I wonder why Saddam's regime kept up the pretense of a WMD program, or did the WMD's disappear before the invasion?

The UN is nothing more than a cowardly eunuch...

...the Canuck hasn’t gotten over the fact that they lost the French Indian war. :)
With every post...You are building up your Credibility.

With every post...You are building up your Credibility.

I think he was joshing with you on that last point about the Canucks... since he used a smile emoticon...

Because the UN told them not to


Yeah, you have to have your troops already stationed there, and currently involved in the politics of that country(Ivory Coast)....for it to be "legal".