NationStates Jolt Archive

*Bush utterly destroyed the city of Fallujah and by extentsion the entire country of Iraq just to steal their oil and get a vote on OPEC. Bush also overthrew Haitis for sweatshop owners and tried numerous times to kill Hugo Chavez to steal that countrys oil as well. Clearly Bush is an oil terrorist and an international scourge

A group of prominent Iraqi lawyers said at a conference in Baghdad this week that President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair should be tried as war criminals for the occupation of Iraq, highlighting the massive assaults on the city of Fallujah. They echoed earlier claims by an official from the US-backed Iraqi Health Ministry who charged that the US had used banned weapons against Fallujah. The lawyers called for establishing a truth commission to investigate US crimes in Iraq and demanded an end to what they called immunity for US occupation forces.
democracynow.org

Good.

Constructive in the extreme.
Another piece of unbiased news brought to you by Democracynow.org[/sarcasm]

I'll be a lawyer in a year or so.. After that, if I and a friend decide to try Fred Flintstone for treason, could democracynow.com write the headline "America Tries Flintstone For Treason" for me? I mean, I'd be a lawyer then, right? Doesn't that mean I represent 300 million Americans, the way this article calls a few lawyers in Iraq representatives of 25 million Iraqis? Good! :)

Good.

good

I'll be a lawyer in a year or so.. After that, if I and a friend decide to try Fred Flintstone for treason, could democracynow.com write the headline "America Tries Flintstone For Treason" for me? I mean, I'd be a lawyer then, right? Doesn't that mean I represent 300 million Americans, the way this article calls a few lawyers in Iraq representatives of 25 million Iraqis? Good! :)
The absolute power of unaccountability mixed with dubiously deserved respect and a popularly unpopular cause. Ain't it great? [/sarcasm] :)

Pepe is spot-on. These are just a few oddball lawyers. This isn't Iraq rising up to attack Bush and Blair in the legal field; this is a few lawyers angry about occupation and war attempting to right what they view as an injustice. Relax, Skape.

I say good. I'll be the first one to run down my street cheering and laughing if they get convicted.

I say good. I'll be the first one to run down my street cheering and laughing if they get convicted.
Do you honestly think this has any chance of proceding whatsoever? A few guys in Iraq say, "come to court so we can imprison you for life." Bush says, "no." Well, that settles that.

Relax, Skape.
Think about what you know about Skapedroe, now think about what you're asking him to do. They're rather mutually exclusive.

I really think that there needs to be some sort of independant judiciary, someone who can moniter the US other than its self and the international media circus who are more interested in filling the spots between adverts so they can have adverts.:(

The plain fact is that the US needs not only to be fair, but to be seen to be fair. There should be some independant body designed to inquire into matters like the prision abuse and torture claims for the sake of, not only Iraq, but for the allied troops in Iraq. They need to have their names cleared so they are not under the soiled veil of the minority who have perpituated crimes in Iraq.

Do you honestly think this has any chance of proceding whatsoever? A few guys in Iraq say, "come to court so we can imprison you for life." Bush says, "no." Well, that settles that.

No, I don't, and that's the sad thing. If a leader of a country has enough power, nothing can be done to him. Not a fucking thing.

No, I don't, and that's the sad thing. If a leader of a country has enough power, nothing can be done to him. Not a fucking thing.
And I say good. I don't want every podunk country with a lawyer locking up world leaders for perceived or imagined wrongs.

What banned weapons did we supposedly use by the way?

*Bush utterly destroyed the city of Fallujah and by extentsion the entire country of Iraq just to steal their oil and get a vote on OPEC. Bush also overthrew Haitis for sweatshop owners and tried numerous times to kill Hugo Chavez to steal that countrys oil as well. Clearly Bush is an oil terrorist and an international scourge

A group of prominent Iraqi lawyers said at a conference in Baghdad this week that President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair should be tried as war criminals for the occupation of Iraq, highlighting the massive assaults on the city of Fallujah. They echoed earlier claims by an official from the US-backed Iraqi Health Ministry who charged that the US had used banned weapons against Fallujah. The lawyers called for establishing a truth commission to investigate US crimes in Iraq and demanded an end to what they called immunity for US occupation forces.
democracynow.org

Never mind the fact that it was the Iraqi interm government that called for the move, seeing how they hold the soverignty of Iraq and could technically have and still expell american forces whenever they feel fit. Ahh the unbias accuracy of Democracynow :rolleyes:

And I say good. I don't want every podunk country with a lawyer locking up world leaders for perceived or imagined wrongs.

So, it wasn't wrong in any way to flatten Fallujah?

What banned weapons did we supposedly use by the way?
Napalm and White Phosphorus, AFAIK.

So, it wasn't wrong in any way to flatten Fallujah?
People in Fallujah were shooting us. That leaves one of two options.
1) Taking days to evacuate the civilians, letting numerous terrorists escape, so that people aren't needlessly killed,
or 2) actually flatten Fallujah. Drop a few fuel air bombs and kill every living thing in the city. No more terrorists.

You can take your pick, I personally don't see the problem with killing the people who are killing us.

Constructive in the extreme.
Another piece of unbiased news brought to you by Democracynow.org[/sarcasm]
Rule of thumb: If it's:

a. posted by Skapedroe,
b. copy/pasted from demagoguerynow.org,
c. all of the above,

you can pretty much discount it as another tin-foiled hat piece of garbage.

People in Fallujah were shooting us. That leaves one of two options.
1) Taking days to evacuate the civilians, letting numerous terrorists escape, so that people aren't needlessly killed,
or 2) actually flatten Fallujah. Drop a few fuel air bombs and kill every living thing in the city. No more terrorists.

You can take your pick, I personally don't see the problem with killing the people who are killing us.

it wasn't exactly days.. more like weeks, might i again mention the move only happend when the Iraqi governing council gave the green light as they recognized it as a clear threat ...

People in Fallujah were shooting us. That leaves one of two options.
1) Taking days to evacuate the civilians, letting numerous terrorists escape, so that people aren't needlessly killed,
or 2) actually flatten Fallujah. Drop a few fuel air bombs and kill every living thing in the city. No more terrorists.

You can take your pick, I personally don't see the problem with killing the people who are killing us.

Yes, kill all the helpless civilians who did nothing to us, just to eradicate a few hundred terrorists. Brilliant!

Napalm and White Phosphorus, AFAIK.
Wrong answer!

Neither napalm nor white phosphorus are banned by the Geneva Conventions, if I recall correctly.

Yes, kill all the helpless civilians who did nothing to us, just to eradicate a few hundred terrorists. Brilliant!
So you'd go with option one then? Which is what we did. So I don't see the problem.

Yes, kill all the helpless civilians who did nothing to us, just to eradicate a few hundred terrorists. Brilliant!
The civilians were allowed to evacuate if they so desired (and many did.) Those who stayed had been warned of the consequences, especially if they made any attempt to fight back.

So you'd go with option one then? Which is what we did. So I don't see the problem.

Pfff, more like option 1, then option 2.

I'd go with option 1, then purge the place.

So, it wasn't wrong in any way to flatten Fallujah?
Not at all. I still think the US took it too easy on that rat-infested hole.

Napalm and White Phosphorus, AFAIK.

Show an independent source that shows we used Napalm or WP. There was some confusion about the fire bombs used during the advance on baghdad but those were not Napalm. The US discontinued use of Napalm in the 70's. We carry no reserves of it.

People just LOOOVe democracynow and spew that trash as whole hearted "truth" .... well as long as they do so... perhaps its time to start giving equally "ACCURATE" information from sources like http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm

Pfff, more like option 1, then option 2.

I'd go with option 1, then purge the place.
Personally, I'd let everyone leave who wanted to, detain them for a few days, and in the intermittance drop a neutron bomb on the city. When they get home their houses are up, the rats are dead, and everyone's happy.

Personally, I'd let everyone leave who wanted to, detain them for a few days, and in the intermittance drop a neutron bomb on the city. When they get home their houses are up, the rats are dead, and everyone's happy.
Unfortunately, the bleeding hearts from the Left would have had a fit one way or the other. I still think Fallujah would have made a dandy parking lot.

The U.S. never signed the napalm ban or white phosporus ban treaties. Everyone else did though. Oh well, I'm wrong a lot. :(

Show an independent source that shows we used Napalm or WP. There was some confusion about the fire bombs used during the advance on baghdad but those were not Napalm. The US discontinued use of Napalm in the 70's. We carry no reserves of it.

That is correct. We disposed of our Napalm reserves in the 1970's, right here in Houston (well, Pasadena, to be exact).

Unfortunately, the bleeding hearts from the Left would have had a fit one way or the other. I still think Fallujah would have made a dandy parking lot.

meh....make it a thick black swimming pool...

Unfortunately, the bleeding hearts from the Left would have had a fit one way or the other. I still think Fallujah would have made a dandy parking lot.
Nah, the civilians are fine. We just need to kill the people that need killing.

The U.S. never signed the napalm ban or white phosporus ban treaties. Everyone else did though. Oh well, I'm wrong a lot. :(

UN troops often use WP grenades....

Personally, I'd let everyone leave who wanted to, detain them for a few days, and in the intermittance drop a neutron bomb on the city. When they get home their houses are up, the rats are dead, and everyone's happy.

Sounds about right. Just destroy an entire city full of history because you think it's the good thing to do.

UN troops often use WP grenades....
Whoa, what is that? The Holier-than-Thou UN troops use WP? And yet the UN somehow lectures the U.S.???

Sounds about right. Just destroy an entire city full of history because you think it's the good thing to do.
Clearly you have no idea what a neutron bomb does:
http://www.manuelsweb.com/neutronbomb.htm

Sounds about right. Just destroy an entire city full of history because you think it's the good thing to do.
Did you bother reading it? Neutron bombs kill the vermin (and the rats and roaches too) while preserving the structures...

Did you bother reading it? Neutron bombs kill the vermin (and the rats and roaches too) while preserving the structures...

Well then, if it does what it says it does... I'm all for it.

Well then, if it does what it says it does... I'm all for it.
It sends out radiation with a very short half life to kill people with radiation poisoning. People don't like it because they call it the "capitalists' bomb," kill the people, save the buildings.

It sends out radiation with a very short half life to kill people with radiation poisoning. People don't like it because they call it the "capitalists' bomb," kill the people, save the buildings.

Strange. If the city is evacuated properly, and somehow the terrorists and insurgents are coaxed into staying to snipe us and trap us like the Viet Cong did, then the Neutron Bomb would be perfect.

Think about what you know about Skapedroe, now think about what you're asking him to do. They're rather mutually exclusive.Well, he's excitable, I'll admit, but sometimes that's not a bad thing. Take when he was pointing out the utterly corrupt and cynical abuse of power the Republicans were guilty of in the Schiavo thing when he brought that Senate memo to this forum. He over-reacts and believes a bit too much of what he reads, but he's not always in the wrong.

Yea, but Bush got like thousands of nukes, worlds strongest army, and whole lot of other shit protecting him, so the lawyers can claim him all they want, it's not really going to affect him

It's like that joke: the Federal Court of Lichstein has forbidden the sale of Microsoft stock on the New York Stock Exchange.

It sends out radiation with a very short half life to kill people with radiation poisoning. People don't like it because they call it the "capitalists' bomb," kill the people, save the buildings.
No, the neutron bomb's radiation doesn't have a half life, because it's 99.9999% gamma rays, which are very high frequency electromagnetic waves, and they don't even stay behind after the radiation source stops emiting them.

It was developed in the Cold War. When the US army has found out that USSR has got a shitload of tanks, more than the entire NATO, they have devised this bomb, that would, in case of war, explode over a division of tanks, killing all soldiers riding in them, and then American soldiers would simply come over, throw out the dead bodies, and turn the tanks around.

Well, he's excitable, I'll admit, but sometimes that's not a bad thing. Take when he was pointing out the utterly corrupt and cynical abuse of power the Republicans were guilty of in the Schiavo thing when he brought that Senate memo to this forum. He over-reacts and believes a bit too much of what he reads, but he's not always in the wrong.
Good point, though I disagree about the Schiavo case, because there is precedent in the Senate for such narrow actions. I'll grant a point though...Skapedroe is only wrong 99.44% of the time.

The "winners" of any war are immune to any prosecution and that is how it is and will always be. The "winners" don't get punished... that's clear when the US bombed and destroyed the two Japanese cities in World War II which is still having affects today, causing abnormalities at birth etc. due to the continuous effects of the Atom Bomb. Things will never change...

The "winners" of any war are immune to any prosecution and that is how it is and will always be. The "winners" don't get punished... that's clear when the US bombed and destroyed the two Japanese cities in World War II which is still having affects today, causing abnormalities at birth etc. due to the continuous effects of the Atom Bomb. Things will never change...
And your point would be...

That absolutely nothing is going to happen no matter how much Bush and Blair do or do not deserve to be tried as war criminals.

That absolutely nothing is going to happen no matter how much Bush and Blair do or do not deserve to be tried as war criminals.
The only war criminals in this whole matter are, mostly, behind bars or dead. You want war criminals? How about Saddam Hussein and his 2 hell-spawn, Uday and Qusay? Do the comparisons...better yet, THINK.

I'm not picking a side here and I don't support anything Saddam Hussein has done. The fact of the matter is this entire discussion is pointless as Bush is the winner. You seem to have selective reading as I stated do or do not deserve. I don't think they deserve to be tried as war criminals, I just simply wanted to say even if they did deserve it nothing would go through as they are the WINNERS.

I'll be a lawyer in a year or so.. After that, if I and a friend decide to try Fred Flintstone for treason, could democracynow.com write the headline "America Tries Flintstone For Treason" for me? I mean, I'd be a lawyer then, right? Doesn't that mean I represent 300 million Americans, the way this article calls a few lawyers in Iraq representatives of 25 million Iraqis? Good! :)
theyre the top rated lawyers of Iraq

I'm not picking a side here and I don't support anything Saddam Hussein has done. The fact of the matter is this entire discussion is pointless as Bush is the winner. You seem to have selective reading as I stated . I don't think they deserve to be tried as war criminals, I just simply wanted to say even if they did deserve it nothing would go through as they are the WINNERS.
Correction taken. Personally, I think Bush and Blair did the world a favor by doing the dirty work the UN (as usual) refused to do.

And I say good. I don't want every podunk country with a lawyer locking up world leaders for perceived or imagined wrongs.
why not? Leaders are supposed to serve US

theyre the top rated lawyers of Iraq
Big deal. I bet they have Ramsey Clark with them. Oh no, wait...Ramsey is busy preparing Saddam Hussein's defense!

Those "top rated" lawyers are just like the Dims in the Senate. They certainly have better things to do, other than such frivolous conduct.

What banned weapons did we supposedly use by the way?
napalm

why not? Leaders are supposed to serve US
And Bush and Blair have served us well, by finishing a job the corrupt UN wouldn't bring itself to do.

Correction taken. Personally, I think Bush and Blair did the world a favor by doing the dirty work the UN (as usual) refused to do.

Agreed.

Not at all. I still think the US took it too easy on that rat-infested hole.
thats not very christian

Show an independent source that shows we used Napalm or WP. There was some confusion about the fire bombs used during the advance on baghdad but those were not Napalm. The US discontinued use of Napalm in the 70's. We carry no reserves of it.
firebombs is just another way of saying NAPALM

thats not very christian
Ridding the world of pure unadulterated evil is not Christian? On the contrary, it's about as Christian as can be.

Big deal. I bet they have Ramsey Clrak with them. Oh no, wait...Ramsey is busy preparing Saddam Hussein's defense!
Saddam is eating gourmet meals while his people cant even get online cause they dont have electricity

The "winners" of any war are immune to any prosecution and that is how it is and will always be. The "winners" don't get punished... that's clear when the US bombed and destroyed the two Japanese cities in World War II which is still having affects today, causing abnormalities at birth etc. due to the continuous effects of the Atom Bomb. Things will never change...

News reports from 1947; 1972; 1995. (I Found These In A Wormhole)

Victory!

Almost two years after the end of combat in the European theatre, we finally see an end to the Pacific War which we have fought for six years now, since the Japanese Pearl Harbor.

With the signing of the formal surrender by Japan's surviving minsters in the Imperial Capital, the war which has cost America and Japan millions of lives has finally drawn to a close. One nation lies in ruins and the other is severely weakened, especially in the last two years of the war, when Japanese forces were heavily entrenched on island after island, and fierce combat claimed an average of some thouands of lives per day. America is strong enough to carry but, but some believe Japan's male population has been so weakened that social dischord will erupt, as monogamy breaks down in the face of a necessity to breed.

The late General MacArthur, KIA one year and six days ago, in the Third Battle of Tokyo Bay, was reported almost a week before his death as saying "This war is taking too many lives, on both sides. Japan cannot surrender because of her honour, and America cannot surrender because the world needs strength. Both sides will fight to the bitter end, and I don't know that either side will benefit."

In a related incident, further evidence has come to light that a secret project to drop a 'nuclear bomb' - a weapon of extreme destructive capabilities - on Japan's cities was abandoned for fear of damaging world opinion. However many believe it now may have saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives, and brought a swift end to the campaign.

Memorial services are beginning across the Union today, as the millions of dead in the last two years are remembered alongside those who fought so valiantly in Europe's name. Japan has not announced any such plans, although they will probably be happier to see food supplies formerly diverted to the armed forces return. US Marines described the scenes in Japan as 'atrocious' and 'inhuman' as the government directed all resources to fighting
America, starving her own people in the process.

--

Civil unrest continues in Japan.

Riots continue throughout the major cities of Japan today, making it the fifth consecutive day. Japan's police and Defense Force claim the situation is contained, but it appears to be a losing battle. Many of the rioters are women, and teenagers, as the first generation following WW2 grows up.

With the knowledge that children as young as 13 were conscripted (A fact which has caused great anxiety and guilt for many heroic Marines.) to serve, it seems that Japan does not know who to turn against. The government which enacted this was demolished in 1947 and '48, and the new regime has proven ineffective in reducing poverty and maintaining law and order. Japanese crime skyrockets, and whilst West Germany, Great Britain, and France rebuild, Japan's cities often lie in ruins. One of the worst affected was Nagasaki, where our reporter writes of a scene of terrifying hardship and strife. Gangs rule the streets, raping and looting at will - though the gangs and victims both tend to be females, and there's little left to loot. Children are forced into prostitution, the main industry is the black market drug trade, and the majority of the buildings lie derelict after the vicious fighting, which was mirrorred across much of Japan as the nation refused to surrender.

--

China Annexes Japan

After decades of speculation, The People's Republic of China has taken control over the some thousands of islands that make up the former nation of Japan. Although in recent years there was a slight improvement in the conditions which plagued the fifties, sixties, and seventies, Japan's wealth continues to decline, and her technology did the same. Whereas once she was a match for the mightiest nations on the planet, today Japan is a third world province, her pride shattered, her people penniless, and her farm unplowed.

America and Europe expressed concern at the move, President Clinton saying "China's Human Rights record is questionable at best, and I don't know that this is good in the long term for the Japanese people.". A sentiment echoed by British Prime Minister John Major, who said "Since World War II Japan has been a struggling nation, but it is unlikely Chinese rule will be of great benefit to them.".

Nonetheless, China began setting up a branch of her beaurocracy in Kyoto this morning, and military personnel are being shipped in to 'preserve the peace'. Japan's parliament called the move a wise decision, and a temporary measure to help Japan back onto her feet. Protests and riots evidence the Japanese dissatisfaction with that analysis, but they were suppressed by Japan's notorious Self-Defense Force, who have been involved in numerous atrocities over the last decades.

--

I'm not saying that's what would have happened, but it's a distinct possibility. Nukes are not nice or pretty weapons, but sometimes they're better than the alternative.

Saddam is eating gourmet meals while his people cant even get online cause they dont have electricity
And whose fault is that? Who was warned to leave Iraq? Who decided to play chicken with the world? Who denied Iraqis internet access and other forms of communication for over 35 years? Who was killing his own countrymen left and right? Who had rape rooms throughout Iraq?

And, by the way, there are plenty of Iraqi bloggers nowadays...so I guess, as usual, you're wrong.

People in Fallujah were shooting us. That leaves one of two options.
1) Taking days to evacuate the civilians, letting numerous terrorists escape, so that people aren't needlessly killed,
or 2) actually flatten Fallujah. Drop a few fuel air bombs and kill every living thing in the city. No more terrorists.

You can take your pick, I personally don't see the problem with killing the people who are killing us.
If the US hadn't invaded Iraq illegally in the first place, then no one would killing Americans in Iraq. The flattening of Fallujah is a travesty, and I do believe that there will be more stories to write before this reign of terror (by US invaders) is over.

Correction taken. Personally, I think Bush and Blair did the world a favor by doing the dirty work the UN (as usual) refused to do.
Ahhh yes the dirty work:

February 1982
Despite objections from Congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries and helps the Iraqis in their war against Iran.

November 1983
Secretary of State George Schultz is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are using chemical weapons against the Iranians, but a National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran.

November 26, 1983
National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 on "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War" says the U.S. priority is to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, not to protect human rights or watch for chemical weapons.

December 20, 1983
Reagan presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld meets with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

January 20, 1984
U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz designates Iran as sponsor of international terrorism.

July 1984
CIA begins providing Iraq intelligence necessary to organize its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

June 18, 1985
At a press conference, Reagan promises the U.S. will never submit to terrorists' demands.

July 18, 1985
Reagan approves a plan to sell arms to the Iranians to help win the release of hostages held in Beirut by Iranian terrorists.

March 21, 1986
U.S. refuses to sign a U.N. Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

May 1986
The U.S. Department of Commerce begins to license 70 biological exports to Iraq, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

August 27, 1986
Reagan signs an anti-terrorism law banning arms sales to countries that support terrorism.

August 1988
Iran and Iraq reach a ceasefire in their war.

Either your memory is conveniently short or you forgot about all the "dirty work" that has happened in Iraq with the US's blessing? :eek:

If the US hadn't invaded Iraq illegally in the first place, then no one would killing Americans in Iraq. The flattening of Fallujah is a travesty, and I do believe that there will be more stories to write before this reign of terror (by US invaders) is over.

Nope.. saddam would just have probably killed another 1000 or so people because he felt like it, starved another 100,000 or so people because he was stealing the money from the oil for food program and continue to be spitting in the face of the UN and the world community as they scramble to find ways to contain him (seeing how mulitple documentations stated that the sanctions were the only thing keeping him from getting wmd.. EVEN THOUGH france wanted to lift sanctions if no WMD were found ) ...

Also last i saw 1441 clearly stated Iraq was in violation and had to comply with the inspects fully and wholey or face serious consequences and LAST I HEARD Hanz Blix was the one who said that DID NOT HAPPEn (please stop me when i get to the part where it was an illegal invasion ) .. i will LOVE to see the UN bring the US up on charges in this matter..

Of course serious consequence meant something more seroius then economic sanctions no fly zones but less serious then military action :rolleyes:

The only reason why France opposed invasion was because 1 they were bought off with oil for food money (even though the US takes the blame for hundreds of thousands of starving people while France pockets the money) and 2 France was the largest creditor to Iraq with billions of dollars locked up in Oil contracts (all of which nullifed with the fall of Saddam) funny to mention as Saddam was pulled from power France still claimed its loans and investments were vaild :rolleyes:

I think we know what the REAL anti-war sentiment was about

oh wait wait.. iknow we invaded for oil.. nevermind the fact we are paying almost 60 a barrel now for that oil to people who mostly hate and are dependent on.. darn those wars for oil seem to be so profitable.. wonder when we get to see.. you know.. the product (oil)

If the US hadn't invaded Iraq illegally in the first place, then no one would killing Americans in Iraq. The flattening of Fallujah is a travesty, and I do believe that there will be more stories to write before this reign of terror (by US invaders) is over.
There is no such thing as an illegal war. No one has the right or authority to legislate war. Travesty? Hardly. A travesty would be to bomb the city WITH the civilians.

Ahhh yes the dirty work:

February 1982
Despite objections from Congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries and helps the Iraqis in their war against Iran.

November 1983
Secretary of State George Schultz is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are using chemical weapons against the Iranians, but a National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran.

November 26, 1983
National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 on "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War" says the U.S. priority is to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, not to protect human rights or watch for chemical weapons.

December 20, 1983
Reagan presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld meets with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

January 20, 1984
U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz designates Iran as sponsor of international terrorism.

July 1984
CIA begins providing Iraq intelligence necessary to organize its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

June 18, 1985
At a press conference, Reagan promises the U.S. will never submit to terrorists' demands.

July 18, 1985
Reagan approves a plan to sell arms to the Iranians to help win the release of hostages held in Beirut by Iranian terrorists.

March 21, 1986
U.S. refuses to sign a U.N. Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

May 1986
The U.S. Department of Commerce begins to license 70 biological exports to Iraq, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

August 27, 1986
Reagan signs an anti-terrorism law banning arms sales to countries that support terrorism.

August 1988
Iran and Iraq reach a ceasefire in their war.

Either your memory is conveniently short or you forgot about all the "dirty work" that has happened in Iraq with the US's blessing? :eek:

nevermind
Korea
bosnia
Kosovo
rwanda
somolia
shri lanka
sudan
:rolleyes:

I can see how the UN was such a big player in each of these.. minus the US's troops of course ... its always the little things like genocide which seem to slip past the UN huh...

There is no such thing as an illegal war. No one has the right or authority to legislate war. Travesty? Hardly. A travesty would be to bomb the city WITH the civilians.

its always those technicalities which seems to be lost in these discussions

its always those technicalities which seems to be lost in these discussions
It's enormously presumptuous to assume that a group has the power to determine the "legality" of war. Why is the UN more fit to that than anything else? The legality of a war is determined solely by who is willing to oppose the aggressor, nothing more.

It's enormously presumptuous to assume that a group has the power to determine the "legality" of war. Why is the UN more fit to that than anything else? The legality of a war is determined solely by who is willing to oppose the aggressor, nothing more.

oh no.. they will argue (something as flimsy) as international law dictates.. (nevermind the fact that law which as no legitmacy is based solely on international treaties of which have been borken and made for thousands of years) :eek:

nevermind
Korea
bosnia
Kosovo
rwanda
somolia
shri lanka
sudan
:rolleyes:

I can see how the UN was such a big player in each of these.. minus the US's troops of course ... its always the little things like genocide which seem to slip past the UN huh...
You obviously just read right past my post? The US aided and abetted Mr. Hussein. Are you oblivious to that?

Korea...that is another story that you might want to read up on? Then throw in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

There is no such thing as an illegal war. No one has the right or authority to legislate war. Travesty? Hardly. A travesty would be to bomb the city WITH the civilians.
Fron the UN Charter:

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.

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Since the US did not receive a directive from the Security Council, the US violated the Charter.

People in Fallujah were shooting us. That leaves one of two options.
1) Taking days to evacuate the civilians, letting numerous terrorists escape, so that people aren't needlessly killed,
or 2) actually flatten Fallujah. Drop a few fuel air bombs and kill every living thing in the city. No more terrorists.

You can take your pick, I personally don't see the problem with killing the people who are killing us.


So from this statement I can assume that you usually endorse the targetting of civilians in a military conflict? Lets go through this.

People in Fallujah are shooting at you. What percentage? Are there distinct groups of military and civilians? I belive so. I recognize that in places like Iraq it can be difficult to tell who is an enemy target (after all I'm Canadian, and most of us still remember that embarassing little friendly fire incident).

I also notice that you said "Kill every living thing in the city." Genocide anyone?

And lets go back to why they were shooting at you in the first place. You were invading their country. Not quelling a disturbance in your country, or in your one of your protectorates (And don't get me started on American protectorates).

Going through this, it occurs to me that your statements is basically "Any culture that has members that oppose American expansionism deserves to be annhilated utterly." This correct?

You obviously just read right past my post? The US aided and abetted Mr. Hussein. Are you oblivious to that?

Korea...that is another story that you might want to read up on? Then throw in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

not really.. those weren't UN missions were they now :rolleyes:

and y eah.. you picked out one little obsenity among the sea of dirty work we actually completed.. i again repeat rwanda bosnia kosovo being the most outragous.. May as well throw sudan in ther eseeing how the US is helping to maintain even the feible stalemate we currently have (despite the fact people are still dying daily) What major international crisis has the UN averted without the movement of the US in any major fashion ? ... as opposed to the number of international incidents the US had to avert because the UN was incapable of doing so... that was the issue of doing the UN's dirty work...

It's enormously presumptuous to assume that a group has the power to determine the "legality" of war. Why is the UN more fit to that than anything else? The legality of a war is determined solely by who is willing to oppose the aggressor, nothing more.
You really should read the UN Charter, which the US signed and agreed to?

Even your own Richard Perle stated that the invasion was illegal.

Links to Opinions on Legality of War Against Iraq (http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm)

Fron the UN Charter:

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.

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Since the US did not receive a directive from the Security Council, the US violated the Charter.
Who cares what a charter says. I could write a charter right now. Does that make me a moral authority over war? No. It's not given based on how well you write a paper.

Fron the UN Charter:

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.

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Since the US did not receive a directive from the Security Council, the US violated the Charter.

LOL there is that pesky international law however illegitmate it may be... you know most will argue 1441 was the directive from the Security Council ... even if the Council was being corrupted by Frances influence. And again, those are mere treaties of which have been broken throughout history... there is no body of power capable of legislating war my friend.. espeically the UN (incapable of even dealing with its orginal purpose ... stopping genocide)

You really should read the UN Charter, which the US signed and agreed to?

Even your own Richard Perle stated that the invasion was illegal.

Links to Opinions on Legality of War Against Iraq (http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm)
Doesn't make it any more or less illegal. The UN has no more authority to legislate war than any other group.

not really.. those weren't UN missions were they now :rolleyes:

and y eah.. you picked out one little obsenity among the sea of dirty work we actually completed.. i again repeat rwanda bosnia kosovo being the most outragous.. May as well throw sudan in ther eseeing how the US is helping to maintain even the feible stalemate we currently have (despite the fact people are still dying daily) What major international crisis has the UN averted without the movement of the US in any major fashion ? ... as opposed to the number of international incidents the US had to avert because the UN was incapable of doing so... that was the issue of doing the UN's dirty work...
Somehow, I do believe you have missed the point entirely?

So from this statement I can assume that you usually endorse the targetting of civilians in a military conflict? Lets go through this.

People in Fallujah are shooting at you. What percentage? Are there distinct groups of military and civilians? I belive so. I recognize that in places like Iraq it can be difficult to tell who is an enemy target (after all I'm Canadian, and most of us still remember that embarassing little friendly fire incident).

I also notice that you said "Kill every living thing in the city." Genocide anyone?

And lets go back to why they were shooting at you in the first place. You were invading their country. Not quelling a disturbance in your country, or in your one of your protectorates (And don't get me started on American protectorates).

Going through this, it occurs to me that your statements is basically "Any culture that has members that oppose American expansionism deserves to be annhilated utterly." This correct?
No, you completely misread my statement. I said pick one or two, not one and two. I'm a oner myself. But take a class in reading comprehension and get back to me.

Doesn't make it any more or less illegal. The UN has no more authority to legislate war than any other group.
Did you read ALL those legal opinions in two minutes? Or are you an expert on international law? According to the UN Charter, yes the UN has the right to authorize war.

Somehow, I do believe you have missed the point entirely?

no i didn't miss it.. i disreguarded it.. beacuse your using it to cloud a perfectly legitmate statement. The US has done the UN's dirty work throughout history, and history shows it clear as day if you care to take a simple political science course on international conflicts.

in fact.. your so called point only highlights MY point... The UN KNEW genocide was occuring in Iraq, but either chose to do nothing or was incapable of doing anything because the US chose to ignore it.. in fact your point was probably one of the few instances in history where the US did not do the UN's dirty work

Did you read ALL those legal opinions in two minutes? Or are you an expert on international law? According to the UN Charter, yes the UN has the right to authorize war.

and again... you qoute a body which holds little or no legitmacy in the wider eyes of the international community.. The international community respects international law when it so fits them. Beyond that they "find the loop holes" or disreguard it outright. I only need direct you to something so pointless as the international criminal court to highlight my point.

LOL there is that pesky international law however illegitmate it may be... you know most will argue 1441 was the directive from the Security Council ... even if the Council was being corrupted by Frances influence. And again, those are mere treaties of which have been broken throughout history... there is no body of power capable of legislating war my friend.. espeically the UN (incapable of even dealing with its orginal purpose ... stopping genocide)
I love the irony of your post. You state that international law is "illegitimate", yet you envoke that Resolution 1441 gave the US the directive to invade Iraq. :eek:

BTW, just to set you straight here, UN Security Resolution 1441, did NOT grant the US permission to invade Iraq.

I love the irony of your post. You state that international law is "illegitimate", yet you envoke that Resolution 1441 gave the US the directive to invade Iraq. :eek:

BTW, just to set you straight here, UN Security Resolution 1441, did NOT grant the US permission to invade Iraq.

not directly.. though it warned of "serious consequences" .. and like i stated before.. those consequences "Obviously" meant something more serious then international trade sanctions but less serious then military action (think we just about used up all of the UN's tricks in its play book there)

And I only even bother to mention 1441 because your so instant to see some kind of legal argument.... It is clear that International law lacks legitmacy throughout the international community, why is this such a shocker ?

Did you read ALL those legal opinions in two minutes? Or are you an expert on international law? According to the UN Charter, yes the UN has the right to authorize war.
No, who cares. To have a law, you have to have a law giver. The UN is not the moral position to make laws.

no i didn't miss it.. i disreguarded it.. beacuse your using it to cloud a perfectly legitmate statement. The US has done the UN's dirty work throughout history, and history shows it clear as day if you care to take a simple political science course on international conflicts.

in fact.. your so called point only highlights MY point... The UN KNEW genocide was occuring in Iraq, but either chose to do nothing or was incapable of doing anything because the US chose to ignore it.. in fact your point was probably one of the few instances in history where the US did not do the UN's dirty work
You disregarded it because you don't want to be reminded that the US has dirty hands too? The US has killed far more innocent people than Saddam could ever of dreamed of, and the fact that the US aided and abetted Mr. Hussein's reign of terror is absolutely inexcusable.

Attacking Iraq and killing tens of thousands more innocent Iraqis is truly mind boggling.

You disregarded it because you don't want to be reminded that the US has dirty hands too? The US has killed far more innocent people than Saddam could ever of dreamed of, and the fact that the US aided and abetted Mr. Hussein's reign of terror is absolutely inexcusable.

Attacking Iraq and killing tens of thousands more innocent Iraqis is truly mind boggling.
We killed 20,000 civilians at most.

No, who cares. To have a law, you have to have a law giver. The UN is not the moral position to make laws.
If you didn't read the legal opinions then how can you be qualified to respond to whether the war in Iraq was legal or not, other than to give your own biased opinion and that would be all that it is....your opinion. :eek:

If you didn't read the legal opinions then how can you be qualified to respond to whether the war in Iraq was legal or not, other than to give your own biased opinion and that would be all that it is....your opinion. :eek:
Because a WAR CANNOT BE ILLEGAL NOR CAN IT BE LEGAL. For something to be LEGAL there has to be a LAW. The only person or entity who can make just laws is a person or entity who is the position to do so. The UN is not, it just likes to think it is.

We killed 20,000 civilians at most.
Oh only 20,000, yeah, I guess that is not too many, yet I am willing to bet that you were extremely upset when 3,000 people died in the WTC?

I guess it doesn't matter....they are are only a bunch of Iraqis?

You disregarded it because you don't want to be reminded that the US has dirty hands too? The US has killed far more innocent people than Saddam could ever of dreamed of, and the fact that the US aided and abetted Mr. Hussein's reign of terror is absolutely inexcusable.

Attacking Iraq and killing tens of thousands more innocent Iraqis is truly mind boggling.

tens of thousands.. so how many died under the sanctions..(which france was helping along as they accepted bribes )? under saddams genocide (which the UN was incapable of dealing with or didn't care to deal with because the US was indifferent)? ... how many died because insurgents (not US soldiers) kill them ? I think you have your numbers mixed up here... Saddam and his political allies have killed far more Iraqi's then the US ever cared to. The US as in most wars sacrifices its own people for goals of which rarely even have direct impacts on its citizens or interests... you should be thanking your lucky stars you have a US to keep the UN relevant

And I know you ignore my point because there is no argument against it.. the UN is a usless organization worth nothing more then the intermidary position it is able to play between two disputing sides.. beyond that it does more harm then good.

And i never said the US had clean hands.. no meaningful country in the world does. Quite frankly I dont even think its important

Give up, canuck. They want to believe that, so be it. Let them learn from the mistakes of not enforcing the league of nations, and try to catch a flight to africa when ww3 breaks out. Hopefully, the americans wont look for lebensraum in mozambique ^_^

(Yes, im being extreme, but still).

Oh only 20,000, yeah, I guess that is not too many, yet I am willing to bet that you were extremely upset when 3,000 people died in the WTC?

I guess it doesn't matter....there are only a bunch of Iraqis?
3,000 killed in one day in an unprovoked act of war that deliberately targetted civilians versus 20,000 killed over two years accidentally in a declared war against a monster? I guess it doesn't matter, you're a fool.

If you didn't read the legal opinions then how can you be qualified to respond to whether the war in Iraq was legal or not, other than to give your own biased opinion and that would be all that it is....your opinion. :eek:

all of those opinions you just stated are from experts in international law... he is saying international law has no legitmacy and as such their opinions mean moot.. if you grab a lawyer from any independent member state they will tell you their laws superceed the laws of the international community.. period

Because a WAR CANNOT BE ILLEGAL NOR CAN IT BE LEGAL. For something to be LEGAL there has to be a LAW. The only person or entity who can make just laws is a person or entity who is the position to do so. The UN is not, it just likes to think it is.
Okay, for arguments sake, China decides to invade Taiwan and take over. That is okay? If not, why not?

Give up, canuck. They want to believe that, so be it. Let them learn from the mistakes of not enforcing the league of nations, and try to catch a flight to africa when ww3 breaks out. Hopefully, the americans wont look for lebensraum in mozambique ^_^

(Yes, im being extreme, but still).
Not enforcing the League? How did you even form that sentence? Maybe what you mean is that people should have learned from the mistakes of having an ineffectual League, which is no different than the current ineffectual UN.

Okay, for arguments sake, China decides to invade Taiwan and take over. That is okay? If not, why not?
Depends on who intervenes. Countries speak with actions, not papers in the UN. If someone stops them, then they were not ok. If we stand by and let the Taiwanese get killed, then clearly it was the right thing to do, since the UN wouldn't let an unjust invasion go through right? Cause otherwise it would be pointless if it couldn't stop the only thing it was charged with stopping...

all of those opinions you just stated are from experts in international law... he is saying international law has no legitmacy and as such their opinions mean moot.. if you grab a lawyer from any independent member state they will tell you their laws superceed the laws of the international community.. period
Yet you might have forgotten that the US agreed to the UN Charter and your Constitution recognizes the legitimacy of such treaties.

Yet you might have forgotten that the US agreed to the UN Charter and your Constitution recognizes the legitimacy of such treaties.
Yeah, but the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it trumphs the charters we agree to.

Okay, for arguments sake, China decides to invade Taiwan and take over. That is okay? If not, why not?

its not ok because the US supports Taiwan and has a policy to defend it... Legally China is a soverign nation and has the power to do what it will..

might I also point out that Taiwan is not considered an indepenent nation in the eyes of the UN.. so it would be china putting down a sort of rebellion. Your choice in international incidents is a poor one

Yeah, but the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it trumphs the charters we agree to.

bingo..

and i belive no where in our constitution does it say it is unconstitutional to reneg on an international treaty :rolleyes:

Edit: and the legimiacy of those treaties remains only so long as both parties see fit to fulfill them.. beyond that there are no binding ties

I rather like this.. its like giving a quick lesson in international law and the importance there of... I knew i shoulda been a teacher :D

Give up, canuck. They want to believe that, so be it. Let them learn from the mistakes of not enforcing the league of nations, and try to catch a flight to africa when ww3 breaks out. Hopefully, the americans wont look for lebensraum in mozambique ^_^

(Yes, im being extreme, but still).
You know, that I do not give up easy. :D

What concerns me most, is the lost lessons that life teaches us daily. I don't believe that the reasons for the destruction of the WTC have been fully understood, and on a daily basis, the US is making more enemies not less. History is the teacher, yet the student is unwilling to learn.

Not enforcing the League? How did you even form that sentence? Maybe what you mean is that people should have learned from the mistakes of having an ineffectual League, which is no different than the current ineffectual UN.

The UN is powerful when its members follow it. The reason why the UN is becoming weak is because the US is following it less, it see's that there is no longer a superpower to challange it, and it doesn't need it to survive. The UN can only be as strong as nations let it be, and without it, catastrophies and tradgedy's occur. Wait and see, if the US follows on this path.

Depends on who intervenes. Countries speak with actions, not papers in the UN. If someone stops them, then they were not ok. If we stand by and let the Taiwanese get killed, then clearly it was the right thing to do, since the UN wouldn't let an unjust invasion go through right? Cause otherwise it would be pointless if it couldn't stop the only thing it was charged with stopping...
Why should anyone intervene? If there is no UN and no Charter, then it would be a free for all?

The UN is powerful when its members follow it. The reason why the UN is becoming weak is because the US is following it less, it see's that there is no longer a superpower to challange it, and it doesn't need it to survive. The UN can only be as strong as nations let it be, and without it, catastrophies and tradgedy's occur. Wait and see, if the US follows on this path.
So the UN is strong when the US works with it, and ineffectual when the US works against it? Clearly the thing you should realize from this is that the UN is just another layer of government that has no purpose except the feelgood factor.

The UN is powerful when its members follow it. The reason why the UN is becoming weak is because the US is following it less, it see's that there is no longer a superpower to challange it, and it doesn't need it to survive. The UN can only be as strong as nations let it be, and without it, catastrophies and tradgedy's occur. Wait and see, if the US follows on this path.
This is an extremely grave concern the world over. Iraq was the beginning of the Highway to Hell?

Why should anyone intervene? If there is no UN and no Charter, then it would be a free for all?
The world is a free for all. If we were to invade Canada right now, what would happen? No superpower would fight us because of MAD. Similarily, if France invaded Spain, who would care? The U.S. doesn't want to start a nuclear war in Europe, and in both cases the UN would be useless. People should intervene if what is happening is morally wrong, but who decides what's morally wrong? The guy with the biggest guns.

Yeah, but the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it trumphs the charters we agree to.

As much as I agree that the idea of an "illegal" war, especially if legality is supposed to be decided by an organization with no efficacity or credibility such as the UN is invalid, the U.S. Constitution does not trump treaties in any way. Treaties are in some ways superior to the Constitution - the Supreme Court has no say over whether a treaty can be signed or if the terms are worthwhile, fair, or would result in genocide overseas. The Supreme Court can only rule the effects it has on citizens of the U.S. to be constitutional or not, and they usually decide that treaties are above the objections of anyone other than the President. See Missouri vs. Holland.

So the UN is strong when the US works with it, and ineffectual when the US works against it? Clearly the thing you should realize from this is that the UN is just another layer of government that has no purpose except the feelgood factor.
The UN is strong when ALL the countries work with it. If countries like China and Russia were not UN members and started running around the Middle East like the US, how long before we have a colossal melt down?

People underestimate the value of the UN. :(

The UN is strong when ALL the countries work with it. If countries like China and Russia were not UN members and started running around the Middle East like the US, how long before we have a colossal melt down?

People underestimate the value of the UN. :(

As long as a single nation can veto the will of all others on the Security Council, or declare that it will never approve a measure, no matter how long the terms are negotiated, the usefulness of the organization is shown for what it is.

As much as I agree that the idea of an "illegal" war, especially if legality is supposed to be decided by an organization with no efficacity or credibility such as the UN is invalid, the U.S. Constitution does not trump treaties in any way. Treaties are in some ways superior to the Constitution - the Supreme Court has no say over whether a treaty can be signed or if the terms are worthwhile, fair, or would result in genocide overseas. The Supreme Court can only rule the effects it has on citizens of the U.S. to be constitutional or not, and they usually decide that treaties are above the objections of anyone other than the President. See Missouri vs. Holland.
A President cannot sign a treaty that is patently against the Constitution. We could not sign a treaty that removed the right to freedom of speech in all member nations. Ceding warwaging authority to a conglomerate of other nations to me, is patently against the idea of the Constitution.

The UN is strong when ALL the countries work with it. If countries like China and Russia were not UN members and started running around the Middle East like the US, how long before we have a colossal melt down?

People underestimate the value of the UN. :(
It's hard to underestimate zero.

This is an extremely grave concern the world over. Iraq was the beginning of the Highway to Hell?

On the contrary.. Iraq was the beginning of a new world realiziation.. terrorists and dictators supproting terrorist activites are put on notice.. even the ineffiencies and ineffectual nature of the UN couldn't stop this.. Say what you will of Bush, but 5 years ago everyone thought Democracy in the Middle east was a dream.. it is now a reality becomeing more and more clear day by day.

And you all respond as though the UN's position on Iraq was the right one laying the blame on the US.... quite frankly who is to blame for the rift.. I will argue France, Germany, and China.. all of whom (we now today see) had clear alterior motives to preventing war (being massive finacial investments/bribary in the cases of some) were the rift in the UN... while the US (whom others claim waged a war of oil: which is trash because we pay twice today what we did before the war for that same oil) seemingly had no motives of concrete nature to speak of... (waging an unpopular war costing billions and the lives of American soldiers)

A President cannot sign a treaty that is patently against the Constitution. We could not sign a treaty that removed the right to freedom of speech in all member nations. Ceding warwaging authority to a conglomerate of other nations to me, is patently against the idea of the Constitution.

again correct.. your just comming out swinging tonight ~_^ .. i couldn't have explained it clearer myself

The constitution trumps all other law... PERIOD

A President cannot sign a treaty that is patently against the Constitution. We could not sign a treaty that removed the right to freedom of speech in all member nations. Ceding warwaging authority to a conglomerate of other nations to me, is patently against the idea of the Constitution.

That's a valid opinion, but treaties and the Constitution are still co-equal. Only when a treaty denies a specific right to a U.S. citizen, where damage can be proved, can the Court question it. When it deals with foreigners or foreign policy, the Court has no say.

Edit: Or a State, naturally.

The world is a free for all. If we were to invade Canada right now, what would happen? No superpower would fight us because of MAD. Similarily, if France invaded Spain, who would care? The U.S. doesn't want to start a nuclear war in Europe, and in both cases the UN would be useless. People should intervene if what is happening is morally wrong, but who decides what's morally wrong? The guy with the biggest guns.
You haven't got a clue what would happen in those scenarios? Who would have thought that a World War would start with the assasination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand? Just because the US seems invincible, doesn't mean that it is, and the lesson of Sept. 11, 2001 proves that.

The UN is strong when ALL the countries work with it. If countries like China and Russia were not UN members and started running around the Middle East like the US, how long before we have a colossal melt down?

People underestimate the value of the UN. :(

I am just wondering what circumstances other then a natural disaster can ALL countries work together in unicen for a single goal ?? Because if this were even remotly possible.. we would not have had Rwanda but a few years ago.. and Sudan today... or Bosnia yesterday ...

the UN is not being underestimated here.. only over estimated.. the Tsunami effort was the first productive thing the UN has done in the last decade

The world is a free for all. If we were to invade Canada right now, what would happen? No superpower would fight us because of MAD. Similarily, if France invaded Spain, who would care? The U.S. doesn't want to start a nuclear war in Europe, and in both cases the UN would be useless. People should intervene if what is happening is morally wrong, but who decides what's morally wrong? The guy with the biggest guns.

If US invaded canada? A massive, crippling stop of all, or at least all major trade to the US. The UN would have to relocate, before probably kicking the US out. Sanctions would be put on the US as a rouge nation, and the us would be told if it invaded any other nations, massive retaliation would follow, by the only weapon where the US is vulnerable(Nuclear weapons). Even if the UN didnt do this, individual nations would come together, if the US did something as big as invade Canada.

Things like no relatiation for Iraq give americans a false sense of security. Before, the only way of protection was conventional warfare. With nuclear weapons, no nation is willing to provoke nuclear retaliation. The US would hope that no nation would actually nuke it, but to stop the US from becoming a Hegemon, you would be surprised. It would only take one of the four other security council members to cripple the US, or completely obliterate it, with nuclear weapons. Now come the arguments saying how pussy the other nations are, and how they would never risk it. Believe what you want. Its late, im out.

That's a valid opinion, but treaties and the Constitution are still co-equal. Only when a treaty denies a specific right to a U.S. citizen, where damage can be proved, can the Court question it. When it deals with foreigners or foreign policy, the Court has no say.
What I mean is that if a treaty and the Constitution are in conflict, the Constitution wins out. Seperate spheres and all that. Like if a state and the federal government are in conflict, the federal government wins out.

You haven't got a clue what would happen in those scenarios? Who would have thought that a World War would start with the assasination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand? Just because the US seems invincible, doesn't mean that it is, and the lesson of Sept. 11, 2001 proves that.
You haven't got a clue as to the reality of the world we live in. No one could declare war on the US, it would be the end of the world, everyone would die. When one side started losing, off the nukes would go, and then the other side would return fire, and that would be it. Ever seen the movie Wargames? The best line is from the computer who calculates the way to win "global thermonuclear war." "A strange game, doctor, it seems the only way to win is not to play." The world of today is leaps and bounds different than the world of our grandfathers, back then they never even heard of nuclear, or sarin, or anthrax. Times have changed. If you think that a sneak attack killing 3,000 civilians is indicative of anything that would happen if two nuclear-armed countries engaged of war then you're living in some bizzare fantasy world.

If US invaded canada? A massive, crippling stop of all, or at least all major trade to the US. The UN would have to relocate, before probably kicking the US out. Sanctions would be put on the US as a rouge nation, and the us would be told if it invaded any other nations, massive retaliation would follow, by the only weapon where the US is vulnerable(Nuclear weapons). Even if the UN didnt do this, individual nations would come together, if the US did something as big as invade Canada.

Things like no relatiation for Iraq give americans a false sense of security. Before, the only way of protection was conventional warfare. With nuclear weapons, no nation is willing to provoke nuclear retaliation. The US would hope that no nation would actually nuke it, but to stop the US from becoming a Hegemon, you would be surprised. It would only take one of the four other security council members to cripple the US, or completely obliterate it, with nuclear weapons. Now come the arguments saying how pussy the other nations are, and how they would never risk it. Believe what you want. Its late, im out.
No one would nuke the US. Cause you know, we have them too. We'd get condemned, we'd get sanctioned, and we'd get Canada. That'd be the end of it. Who's going to nuke us first? Hell, we have more nukes than anyone on the planet, and we won't even use them against people who DON'T have them, because we don't want to start encouraging it.

As long as a single nation can veto the will of all others on the Security Council, or declare that it will never approve a measure, no matter how long the terms are negotiated, the usefulness of the organization is shown for what it is.
Yes they need to make improvements in this regard, but the organization remains the voice of reason to a great extent and its' demise will lead to chaos.

Yes they need to make improvements in this regard, but the organization remains the voice of reason to a great extent and its' demise will lead to chaos.
Reason? These are the people who tell you that there is no genocide in Darfur, just that a lot of people of one ethnicity are being killed off. Reason my ass.

China on the Human Right's Commission?

That's a valid opinion, but treaties and the Constitution are still co-equal. Only when a treaty denies a specific right to a U.S. citizen, where damage can be proved, can the Court question it. When it deals with foreigners or foreign policy, the Court has no say.

Edit: Or a State, naturally.

the courts dont have to have to question something for the constitutionality of something to be in play.. the President is bound by all means to represent the nation and the law in his position... Treaties and the Constitution are NOT co-equal because if the President defys a treaty.. there are ... no legitmate bodies upon which to judge him... but if he defys the constitution then there is a legitmate body by which to judge him ... in being the people !

The reason why international law is not legitmate is because international treaties themselves have held very little if any legitmacy throughout their history. They only have remained so long as both parties saw fit to full fill their ends... the moment one party was displeased with the agreement the treaty was dismissed

On the contrary.. Iraq was the beginning of a new world realiziation.. terrorists and dictators supproting terrorist activites are put on notice.. even the ineffiencies and ineffectual nature of the UN couldn't stop this.. Say what you will of Bush, but 5 years ago everyone thought Democracy in the Middle east was a dream.. it is now a reality becomeing more and more clear day by day.

And you all respond as though the UN's position on Iraq was the right one laying the blame on the US.... quite frankly who is to blame for the rift.. I will argue France, Germany, and China.. all of whom (we now today see) had clear alterior motives to preventing war (being massive finacial investments/bribary in the cases of some) were the rift in the UN... while the US (whom others claim waged a war of oil: which is trash because we pay twice today what we did before the war for that same oil) seemingly had no motives of concrete nature to speak of... (waging an unpopular war costing billions and the lives of American soldiers)

Clear alterior motives? The same can be said of america. Being biased in your beliefs though, you will say that the other side is the only one.

Both sides probably had some alterior motives, and both sides probably had somewhat the position they actually professed. If you think the us cabinet came into a meeting and said "Ok, Iraq. How can we lie about it, and steal its oil?", or the French cabinet saying "Ok, we are stealing money from the oil-for-food program. How can we keep this up?", then you are officially a conspiracy theorist, and pretty much you are invalid for argument. Private companies have abused the situation in iraq, the post-war iraq by american ones, and the oil-for-food program by companies in france, as well as in america, and other major powers.

What I mean is that if a treaty and the Constitution are in conflict, the Constitution wins out. Seperate spheres and all that. Like if a state and the federal government are in conflict, the federal government wins out.


Unless the National Interest is at stake. In such cases, the Tenth Amendment is void, as are individual rights. The Court maintains the right to judicial review, but they've never decided against a treaty, and have no basis to deny it based on Article II Section II Clause II jurisprudence, such as in Holland. I guess you could call it the Constitution winning out, except the Constitution says nothing in the area of treaties, other than 2/3 of Senators may be called to approve. But when one precedent denies other sections of the Constitution, it's not a win, I don't think - it's just procedure.

Also, if States and the Federal government are in conflict over power or jurisdiction, States win, in theory, according to the Tenth Amendment, although it depends which area of law you're talking about.

You haven't got a clue as to the reality of the world we live in. No one could declare war on the US, it would be the end of the world, everyone would die. When one side started losing, off the nukes would go, and then the other side would return fire, and that would be it. Ever seen the movie Wargames? The best line is from the computer who calculates the way to win "global thermonuclear war." "A strange game, doctor, it seems the only way to win is not to play." The world of today is leaps and bounds different than the world of our grandfathers, back then they never even heard of nuclear, or sarin, or anthrax. Times have changed. If you think that a sneak attack killing 3,000 civilians is indicative of anything that would happen if two nuclear-armed countries engaged of war then you're living in some bizzare fantasy world.
If you think that no one would declare war on the US, then you are the one living in fantasy? That statement reeks of pure arrogance. Would the US take a chance that no one would be willing to challenge THEIR authority?

the courts dont have to have to question something for the constitutionality of something to be in play.. the President is bound by all means to represent the nation and the law in his position... Treaties and the Constitution are NOT co-equal because if the President defys a treaty.. there are ... no legitmate bodies upon which to judge him... but if he defys the constitution then there is a legitmate body by which to judge him ... in being the people !


Treaties are above the Constitution in this respect, since the President cannot be punished for breaking one, unless the Congress decides to censure or impeach him because of it. Remember though, the Constitution says nothing about treaties - we have only precedent to go off of.

Edit: Justice Holmes explicitly gives this right to the President - to speak for the Nation.

If you think that no one would declare war on the US, then you are the one living in fantasy? That statement reeks of pure arrogance. Would the US take a chance that no one would be willing to challenge THEIR authority?
No, you moron, there's nothing arrogant about it, no one would declare war on China either. You don't declare war on someone who can wipe out all your major population centers for 50 years with the touch of the button. No one would invade the US, their country would be a parking lot if they did, and they know that. That's why no one stops China from killing Tibetans, no one cared when France killed people in the Ivory Coast, and no one cared when we invaded Iraq. And by care, I mean did something, other than whine on message boards.

Please leave Prime Minister Tony Blair out of this.... i know hes a big ARSEHOLE but its George Bush who needs shooting


anywho


Saddam and his followers need shooting also, if he was not removed from iraq we would have seen WW3 and 4




Peace out followers of the Holy Hippos

i know hes a big ARSEHOLE but its George Bush who needs shooting
Actually, I think it's you who needs to stop making yourself look like an ass.

Clear alterior motives? The same can be said of america. Being biased in your beliefs though, you will say that the other side is the only one.

Both sides probably had some alterior motives, and both sides probably had somewhat the position they actually professed. If you think the us cabinet came into a meeting and said "Ok, Iraq. How can we lie about it, and steal its oil?", or the French cabinet saying "Ok, we are stealing money from the oil-for-food program. How can we keep this up?", then you are officially a conspiracy theorist, and pretty much you are invalid for argument. Private companies have abused the situation in iraq, the post-war iraq by american ones, and the oil-for-food program by companies in france, as well as in america, and other major powers.

on the part of France probably not on the issue of the oil for food bribaries they were taking.. but i asure you some where powerful people in the government had the discussion on what war would mean for the billions in outstanding loans and investments they had tied up in Iraq.. That alone is enough to take a position which is otherwise seen as altruistic and moral (preventing a war) and might I add.. highly popular with the voters.. Something much more belivable then Bush facing an economy just comming out of recession saying how can we fabricate intelegence so that we can go into Iraq when the country (THE VOTERS on an up comming ELECTION YEAR) and the world no less clearly opposes us to steal oil we may never get (only to pay twice that after the war)

Of course neither of these do I feel are important.. but If we are going to be throwing around accusations of alterior motives.. I just like to point one.. there is only one side we have concrete proof of today with far more belivablity as oppose to the other >.>

Please leave Prime Minister Tony Blair out of this.... i know hes a big ARSEHOLE but its George Bush who needs shooting


anywho


Saddam and his followers need shooting also, if he was not removed from iraq we would have seen WW3 and 4


You don't see a contradiction here? ;)

Edit: Speaking of England, this was post 1,066 of mine. Eerie, eh?

Treaties are above the Constitution in this respect, since the President cannot be punished for breaking one, unless the Congress decides to censure or impeach him because of it. Remember though, the Constitution says nothing about treaties - we have only precedent to go off of.

Edit: Justice Holmes explicitly gives this right to the President - to speak for the Nation.

Justice Holmes need not give him this right, because all responsiblities in foregin affiars are delegated to the executive per the constitution... so thats a rather no brainer.. and your only reasoning as to why treaties are ABOVE the constitution is because the President can break them without recourse ? ... this is your argument giving treaties legitmacy ? are you serious ??

Yes the President can break a treaty so long as Congress agrees.. obviously the PResident can't be waging war without Congresses consent.... To address your point.. I really can't, because i dont understand it. Infact I feel like you just made my point (showing why Treaties are unimportant and lacking legitmacy)

No, you moron, there's nothing arrogant about it, no one would declare war on China either. You don't declare war on someone who can wipe out all your major population centers for 50 years with the touch of the button. No one would invade the US, their country would be a parking lot if they did, and they know that. That's why no one stops China from killing Tibetans, no one cared when France killed people in the Ivory Coast, and no one cared when we invaded Iraq. And by care, I mean did something, other than whine on message boards.

*Applauds* :p

*Applauds* :p
As much as I appreciate arguing with a supporter (to help), bed calls. I leave the good fight to you, Invidentia :)

Justice Holmes need not give him this right, because all responsiblities in foregin affiars are delegated to the executive per the constitution... so thats a rather no brainer.. and your only reasoning as to why treaties are ABOVE the constitution is because the President can break them without recourse ? ... this is your argument giving treaties legitmacy ? are you serious ??

Yes the President can break a treaty so long as Congress agrees.. obviously the PResident can't be waging war without Congresses consent.... To address your point.. I really can't, because i dont understand it. Infact I feel like you just made my point (showing why Treaties are unimportant and lacking legitmacy)

The President can revoke other parts of the Constitution, such as the First or Tenth Amendment, using treaties. He cannot do this in any other way. All I'm saying is that treaties can be used to rise above a Constitutional conflict, as with the Migratory Bird Act, and traditionally have only to be justified under advice and consent, rather than strict scrutiny or any other test. If the President wants something done through treaty, and less than 2/3 of Congress opposes it, then tradition tells us that he cannot be stopped. Holmes looked at an instance of this happening and declared the Executive power over treaties to trump the Tenth Amendment - that's all I meant by that - Holmes clarified the intent of Section II Clause II.

No one would nuke the US. Cause you know, we have them too. We'd get condemned, we'd get sanctioned, and we'd get Canada. That'd be the end of it. Who's going to nuke us first? Hell, we have more nukes than anyone on the planet, and we won't even use them against people who DON'T have them, because we don't want to start encouraging it.

The US has nukes? Ohh, well, thanks! I didnt know!

My point was, if the US was being blatantly imperialist, the first reaction would be halting trade, which would in many ways cripple the us economy, if enough people shut it off. If the US continued to be blatantly imperialist, and conventional force couldnt stop it, nations would resort to nuclear weapons. Russia could obliterate the entire US. Any of the other three security council members have enough nuclear weapons to take out every american city over 250k in population, as well as its major military and industrial centers, which would completely cripple the US. The US could, and would destroy them too, but if its a choice between stopping a superpower from beginning to take over the world, and letting it walk over the world, at least one nation would choose to fight.

No, you moron, there's nothing arrogant about it, no one would declare war on China either.
Oh, now I am a moron? :eek:

You don't declare war on someone who can wipe out all your major population centers for 50 years with the touch of the button.
They don't really have to declare war.....they just have to attack you like they did in Vietnam?
No one would invade the US, their country would be a parking lot if they did, and they know that.
The Us has already been invaded or did you forget that small matter? What is to say that the next time that you are invaded, that it will be ten times worse? BTW, what happened to the US economy after 9/11?

That's why no one stops China from killing Tibetans, no one cared when France killed people in the Ivory Coast, and no one cared when we invaded Iraq.
Ummm lots of people cared when the US invaded Iraq....millions of people marched worldwide in protest.

And by care, I mean did something, other than whine on message boards.Ahhh there is that ego again. BTW, how do you know that people aren't going to do something about your invasion of Iraq?

The President can revoke other parts of the Constitution, such as the First or Tenth Amendment, using treaties. He cannot do this in any other way. All I'm saying is that treaties can be used to rise above a Constitutional conflict, as with the Migratory Bird Act, and traditionally have only to be justified under advice and consent, rather than strict scrutiny or any other test. If the President wants something done through treaty, and less than 2/3 of Congress opposes it, then tradition tells us that he cannot be stopped. Holmes looked at an instance of this happening and declared the Executive power over treaties to trump the Tenth Amendment - that's all I meant by that - Holmes clarified the intent of Section II Clause II.

.... NO you seem to be mixing up your governmental processes here... Signing the treaty is only showing that the US is agreeing to the terms of whatever agreement.. the actual federal law int he Migratory Bird Act is the ratifcation there of.. The treaty without the ratifcation is worthless.. So the President signing the treaty itself is meaningless unless it is followed by a ratification process...

The same can be said about the EU constitution... All of the member states have signed the Treaty.. does this now mean it is in effect overriding their constititutions ? NO! because a ratification processess must be completed where by each memberstate passes laws in accrodance with their own constitutions accepting the terms of the treaty.

All you have outlined is what a hollow shell a Treaty really is

The US has nukes? Ohh, well, thanks! I didnt know!

My point was, if the US was being blatantly imperialist, the first reaction would be halting trade, which would in many ways cripple the us economy, if enough people shut it off. If the US continued to be blatantly imperialist, and conventional force couldnt stop it, nations would resort to nuclear weapons. Russia could obliterate the entire US. Any of the other three security council members have enough nuclear weapons to take out every american city over 250k in population, as well as its major military and industrial centers, which would completely cripple the US. The US could, and would destroy them too, but if its a choice between stopping a superpower from beginning to take over the world, and letting it walk over the world, at least one nation would choose to fight.
I agree with you totally.

I grew up during the Cold War and when the Berlin wall came tumbling down, that represented the end of that Cold War. It would appear that the US with the recent acquistion of Iraq could be and probably is fueling what could be Cold War 2.

More countries will be seeking nuclear weapons to protect themselves from what they see as the newest bully on the block. Nuclear proliferation will commence again. China's economy is growing by leaps and bounds and I am sure that they are watching every step of the US in the Middle East, and will take the necessary military enhancements to catch up to the US? Even Russia's economy is improving after divesting itself of some peripheral anchors and will also be watching every move by the US?

They don't really have to declare war.....they just have to attack you like they did in Vietnam?

... this shows a clear lacking of historical knoweldge.. you would well know the so called "attack" on the american ship during the Vietnam era was staged by the government so that they could enter the war with the pretext of protecting their military vessels. Infact the attack never actually occured..

The Us has already been invaded or did you forget that small matter? What is to say that the next time that you are invaded, that it will be ten times worse? BTW, what happened to the US economy after 9/11?

... uhh I must have forgot it.. when was the last time the US was invaded the Mexican American War? you know techinically a terrorist attack dosn't constitute an invasion.. is suggest you consult your dictionary on that one. And in times of invasion.. one does not nessesarly worry about things like the health of the economy.. one tends to focus on, you know the essentials... like survival.

Ummm lots of people cared when the US invaded Iraq....millions of people marched worldwide in protest.
Ahhh there is that ego again. BTW, how do you know that people aren't going to do something about your invasion of Iraq?

:rolleyes: you clearly knew he was speaking of governmental forces.. and besides protesting is hardly anything substanial.. If the world REALLY wanted to stop the US they would have... afterall normal citizens could get a simple thing like a landmine treaty ban passed when no world government supported it... you think they would beable to stop a war when every (i use the word every very loosely) world government "opposed" it.

I agree with you totally.

I grew up during the Cold War and when the Berlin wall came tumbling down, that represented the end of that Cold War. It would appear that the US with the recent acquistion of Iraq could be and probably is fueling what could be Cold War 2.

More countries will be seeking nuclear weapons to protect themselves from what they see as the newest bully on the block. Nuclear proliferation will commence again. China's economy is growing by leaps and bounds and I am sure that they are watching every step of the US in the Middle East, and will take the necessary military enhancements to catch up to the US? Even Russia's economy is improving after divesting itself of some peripheral anchors and will also be watching every move by the US?

I know when you say "acquisition of Iraq" you mean that Iraq is totally soverign having now a democractically elected government by which does not even nessesarly support American troops being in the country but realizing their importance and vitality to the nations stability allows them to remain while the US cointues to spend nearly 60 bucks a gallon to people who would rather see us dead... *deep breath* RIGHT ? ....

and on the contrary.. i think fewer countries will be willing to risk necular proflieration because they would then enter the all so scary realm of "axis of evil" .. and those already doing so ... well quite frankly have been doing so for some time and had Iraq never happend they would still be doing so...

might i also add while its very nice of you to give China such due credit they are still a good 20 years off from being a significant world power... and even today their military capabilities while be it all impressive that they are even where they are today are depressingly inferior to the US and even now the US is surping more technoligical advancment at the mere thought of a militaristic china.. And one small blocade could very well bring chinas booming economy to a screaching hault (if they were to invade Taiwan.. another reason why they WONT)... and people underestimate the level of corruption which is running rampent in Chinas governmental structures because of all that economic growth.. some experts are already quitely whispering of an impending collaspes because of the rampent corruption..

Just keep an eye out

Well its all been grand and I hope some of you have learned something in this little international law lesson .. I hope to lecture to you again some time.. until then I must retire myself.. I hope you dont enjoy your ignorant bliss all too much .. ill be back to poke holes in it soon enogh ~_^

... this shows a clear lacking of historical knoweldge.. you would well know the so called "attack" on the american ship during the Vietnam era was staged by the government so that they could enter the war with the pretext of protecting their military vessels. Infact the attack never actually occured..
Wasn't referring to the bogus ship attack:

1957

Communist Insurgency into South Vietnam: Communist insurgent activity in South Vietnam begins. Guerrillas assassinate more than 400 South Vietnamese officials. Thirty-seven armed companies are organized along the Mekong Delta.

Terrorist Bombings Rock Saigon: Thirteen Americans working for MAAG and US Information Service are wounded in terrorist bombings in Saigon.

1959

Weapons Moving Along Ho Chi Minh Trail: North Vietnam forms Group 559 to begin infiltrating cadres and weapons into South Vietnam via the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The Trail will become a strategic target for future military attacks.

US Servicemen Killed in Guerilla Attack: Major Dale R. Buis and Master Sargeant Chester M. Ovnand become the first Americans to die in the Vietnam War when guerillas strike at Bienhoa

It is quite clear that North Vietnam was starting this battle.

... uhh I must have forgot it.. when was the last time the US was invaded the Mexican American War? you know techinically a terrorist attack dosn't constitute an invasion.. is suggest you consult your dictionary on that one.
The dictionary is quite clear....the US was invaded by Al Queda representatives on Sept. 11, 2001.
And in times of invasion.. one does not nessesarly worry about things like the health of the economy.. one tends to focus on, you know the essentials... like survival.
You have missed the point once again? The invasion on Sept. 11, 2001 caused severe economic damage. Such economic damage can seriously affect the ability to fund a war, especially since much of the US debt is owned by foreign powers such as China.

I know when you say "acquisition of Iraq" you mean that Iraq is totally soverign
Look up sovereign in your dictionary......that is not Iraq. The US still holds sway with all the troops and of course lets not forget that the US hijacked the Iraqi economy with Bremer's Orders. You really are behind in your history?
having now a democractically elected government
Many would challenge whether the elections were indeed "democratic", especially when the US dictated when the election would take place, guarded the polling stations, most Sunnis didn't take part, and many suggestions that food rations would be withheld unless people voted.
by which does not even nessesarly support American troops being in the country but realizing their importance and vitality to the nations stability allows them to remain
While the US builds 14 "enduring" bases in Iraq, because they plan to stay for a long time.
while the US cointues to spend nearly 60 bucks a gallon to people who would rather see us dead... *deep breath* RIGHT ? ....60 bucks a gallon?
and on the contrary.. i think fewer countries will be willing to risk necular proflieration because they would then enter the all so scary realm of "axis of evil"
Well NK is already in the "axis of evil", but are working overtime to develop nukes especially after witnessing what happens to countries like Iraq who didn't have any.
.. and those already doing so ... well quite frankly have been doing so for some time and had Iraq never happend they would still be doing so...
Meanwhile, the US adds to the poliferation by selling F16 fighter jets to Pakistan which can carry a nuclear payload. :eek:

Many would challenge whether the elections were indeed "democratic", especially when the US dictated when the election would take place, guarded the polling stations, most Sunnis didn't take part, and many suggestions that food rations would be withheld unless people voted.

Then 'many' would be idiots. Here's the deal;

The US decided when the election would take place because the US needed to make sure an election took place, and because people like you were making so much damned noise they had to rush into it.

The polling stations were guarded, I think (Though yanno, I might be making this shit up.), because of the major threat of terrorism. Is there something wrong now with trying to perserve Iraqi lives? Because I seem to recall you being the one bitching about how many Iraqis died.

The Sunnis didn't take part. Do you know what this means? It means it is their loss. They had a chance to cast their vote, they threw it away. What, do they want a cuddle? Many have also said they now consider abstaining a mistake, but let's not let a little realization get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Many suggestions? Oh, did they? Links, please? And how about more than suggestions; how about actual evidence, hrrrm? Recorded conversations, or written threats, that kind of thing. Or is that a bit too far into the realm of reality for you?

No one would nuke the US. Cause you know, we have them too. We'd get condemned, we'd get sanctioned, and we'd get Canada. That'd be the end of it. Who's going to nuke us first? Hell, we have more nukes than anyone on the planet, and we won't even use them against people who DON'T have them, because we don't want to start encouraging it.
Ummm one major problem with your thinking here. The problem would be the UK. which has nuclear weapons and would certainly come to the aid of one of her Commonwealth countries, especially since Canada went to the aid of the UK in WW1, and WW2.

Even the French might get sentimental over an invasion of Canada, due to her links with the people of Quebec. Oh, and France has nukes too. :eek:

At any rate, I really don't see the US invading Canada anytime soon. :D

By tokyo trials precedent Bush is a war criminal for Abu Ghraib, end of story. But hes the victor, so they'll be no trial :rolleyes:

By tokyo trials precedent Bush is a war criminal for Abu Ghraib, end of story. But hes the victor, so they'll be no trial :rolleyes:

There'a a big difference. The Japanese generals ordered the abuse of prisoners. Bush has no corresponding order. The Japanese never tried their own men for the abuse of prisoners. The US has tried, convicted, and jailed the soldiers who abused prisoners.

So there will be no trial.

And whose fault is that? Who was warned to leave Iraq? Who decided to play chicken with the world? Who denied Iraqis internet access and other forms of communication for over 35 years? Who was killing his own countrymen left and right? Who had rape rooms throughout Iraq?

And, by the way, there are plenty of Iraqi bloggers nowadays...so I guess, as usual, you're wrong.


The Iraqi people apparently had no civil rights-that is, until US soldiers set foot there. No one seems to care about the decades of torture, rape and murder that went on unchecked till the US took out sadaam, "Chemical Ali' and sadaam's two sons. Now, in the unfortunate instance that a truly innocent civilian is injured or killed, the US is totally accountable and portayed as conspiring to do so intentionally.
I guess you are only accountable if you accept accountability.

Then 'many' would be idiots.
Regardless of the backdoor insult, I shall proceed…..

Here's the deal;

The US decided when the election would take place because the US needed to make sure an election took place, and because people like you were making so much damned noise they had to rush into it.
People like me were entirely against hurried elections. Hurried elections in Iraq was a vote grabbing Bush re-election strategy/ploy to show the people of the US that Iraq was moving forward. Another election ploy was the statement by Bush that the US would pull out of Iraq if the newly elected government requested. Meanwhile, the US is building 14 “enduring” bases (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm) in Iraq.

Who else was against “hurried” elections?

Iraq: A subverted democracy and a worthless constitution (http://www.kurdishmedia.com/reports.asp?id=2375)

10 February 2005 KurdishMedia.com - By Rauf Naqishbendi

A speedy national election and a hurried drafting constitution make up President Bush’s principle guide to tranquility and democracy in Iraq. These policies are not only misguided, but with the passage of time can only further worsen the already deteriorating situation in Iraq.

U.S. Approach to Iraqi Elections "Dangerously Accelerated" (http://www.ceip.org/files/news/10-8-03-US_approach_Iraqi_elections.asp?from=newsnews)

In a new Carnegie policy brief, The Right Road to Sovereignty in Iraq, leading democracy promotion experts Marina Ottaway and Thomas Carothers warn that early elections in postconflict situations are often dangerous. Hurried elections, they point out, often do more damage than good, producing results that are rejected by some political factions or that favor radical groups over still-emergent moderate forces.

See above, re: Kurdish fears.


The polling stations were guarded, I think (Though yanno, I might be making this shit up.), because of the major threat of terrorism. Is there something wrong now with trying to perserve Iraqi lives? Because I seem to recall you being the one bitching about how many Iraqis died.
IF the elections had taken place once hostilities had been significantly curtailed, there would likely have been no need to have US forces guarding Iraqi election polling stations. I am sure that the Iraqi people would have been much more comfortable voting without US troops outside the polling stations?

The Sunnis didn't take part. Do you know what this means? It means it is their loss. They had a chance to cast their vote, they threw it away. What, do they want a cuddle? Many have also said they now consider abstaining a mistake, but let's not let a little realization get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Currently the Republicans hold power in the US, just like the Sunnis held power in Iraq before the invasion. Imagine if you will that the US was taken over by another country, and the Republicans failed to take part in a forced election….would you consider that democracy in action?


Many suggestions? Oh, did they? Links, please? And how about more than suggestions; how about actual evidence, hrrrm? Recorded conversations, or written threats, that kind of thing. Or is that a bit too far into the realm of reality for you?
I find the accolades that you heap upon me truly overwhelming….again, I shall proceed…

Iraq Election - Some Just Voted For Food (http://www.rense.com/general62/iraqelectionsomejustvoted.htm)

"Two of the food dealers I know told me personally that our food rations would be withheld if we did not vote," said Saeed Jodhet, a 21-year-old engineering student who voted in the Hay al-Jihad district of Baghdad.

Sanctions against those who do Not Vote: No Vote, No Ration Card, No Food (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO501F.html)

In the weeks leading up to the election, there were reports that food rations would be cancelled if voters did not show up at the polls. In Fallouja, polling stations were set up "at centers that distribute food, water and cash payments to residents whose homes were devastated by the offensive" (LA Times, 31 Jan 2005).

Having presented my rebuttal, you may continue with the glorious amounts of praise that you so freely distribute. :eek:

I checked out www.democracynow.org and can't find this article on their site. Can you link directly to it please?

Do you honestly think this has any chance of proceding whatsoever? A few guys in Iraq say, "come to court so we can imprison you for life." Bush says, "no." Well, that settles that.

if the put some barrels of oil out he just might fall for it and come :)

Meanwhile, the US adds to the poliferation by selling F16 fighter jets to Pakistan which can carry a nuclear payload. :eek:

Meanwhile, the US adds to the proliferation by selling American Tourister Suitcases (which can carry nukes) to Pakistan (and just about every other nuclear capable nation too)! I propose a UN resolution to ban suitcases, lest someone use them to carry a weapon! And cars, they can carry weapons too. Lets ban them! Oh! Oh! Oh! People! They can carry lots of weapons! Lets make sure to add them to the ban list too!

Boo-fucking-hoo. Quitcher whiny bitching and grow up. The world isn't a safe place: it is inhabited by Bad People who do Naughty Things, and they don't want to join your commune, walk around in bare, unwashed feet, and smoke grass. Sometimes you need to put boot to ass on said Bad People, and when you do, the picture ain't pretty, but you do your damned best to pick up the peices and put them together in some semblance of order when you're done. It's rarely a smooth process (Germany and Japan didn't recover from WWII overnight) but the end result is worth the cost (the economic costs of WWII have been repaid many times over since Germany and Japan were rebuilt). I have no doubt that your bleeding liberal heart is right now pining over the lost souls who had their lives taken from them in war, but I have news for you: people die! Right now, people are dying in ways that are more terrible, more painful, more tragic than getting shot with a bullet or blown up by a bomb blast. Today, ~28000 people will die; many from causes more horrible than those experienced in war. Some day, the descendants of the casualties of the Iraq war will look back on their sacrifice and say that it was worth it. And if the effort fails? At least we *tried* to effect a positive change, instead of sitting on our fat, collectivized asses crying over a class revolution that will never come.[/nuclear flame]

If the US hadn't invaded Iraq illegally in the first place, then no one would killing Americans in Iraq. The flattening of Fallujah is a travesty, and I do believe that there will be more stories to write before this reign of terror (by US invaders) is over.

We were never at peace with Iraq...we had a state of cease-fire under an agreement signed by Saddam after the first Gulf War. Saddam broke that agreement - along with 17+ UN resolutions. We had every right to invade per the terms of the cease fire agreement.

You obviously just read right past my post? The US aided and abetted Mr. Hussein. Are you oblivious to that?

Korea...that is another story that you might want to read up on? Then throw in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

The Vietman conflict began under a Democratic (Kennedy-Johnson) administration.

IF the elections had taken place once hostilities had been significantly curtailed, there would likely have been no need to have US forces guarding Iraqi election polling stations. I am sure that the Iraqi people would have been much more comfortable voting without US troops outside the polling stations?


How can you say this while at the same time people are asking the US to leave Iraq? I don't understand how you can expect the hostilities to be "significantly curtailed" without a force there to counter the hostility.


Currently the Republicans hold power in the US, just like the Sunnis held power in Iraq before the invasion. Imagine if you will that the US was taken over by another country, and the Republicans failed to take part in a forced election….would you consider that democracy in action?


If there is an election, and a group of people chooses not to vote (how can it be "forced" if some choose not to take part?) then it’s their loss. That’s all there is to it. If Republicans choose not to vote, then it’s their loss. Such is the method of democracy.

*Bush utterly destroyed the city of Fallujah and by extentsion the entire country of Iraq just to steal their oil and get a vote on OPEC. Bush also overthrew Haitis for sweatshop owners and tried numerous times to kill Hugo Chavez to steal that countrys oil as well. Clearly Bush is an oil terrorist and an international scourge

A group of prominent Iraqi lawyers said at a conference in Baghdad this week that President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair should be tried as war criminals for the occupation of Iraq, highlighting the massive assaults on the city of Fallujah. They echoed earlier claims by an official from the US-backed Iraqi Health Ministry who charged that the US had used banned weapons against Fallujah. The lawyers called for establishing a truth commission to investigate US crimes in Iraq and demanded an end to what they called immunity for US occupation forces.
democracynow.org

This, Skape, is spam. Congradulations, more ammo for our case against you.

Fron the UN Charter:

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.

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Since the US did not receive a directive from the Security Council, the US violated the Charter.

See 2 posts above...the first Gulf War was approved by the UN, a cease-fire agreement was signed, and broken by Saddam. We had the legal authority to invade.

Why should anyone intervene? If there is no UN and no Charter, then it would be a free for all?

That is a straw-man argument. You claim the UN is the supreme arbiter on war. If that is the case the UN should act agains nations who go to war illegally. He is asking if they would intervene and you are avoiding a response with a question no one is asking.

So if the US invasion of Iraq is illegal, why doesn't the UN act? Because the US IS the UN. Without the US there is no UN.

The UN has presided over, or silently authorized, the killing of more people in the latter half of the 20th century than Hitler killed in the gas chambers.

What I mean is that if a treaty and the Constitution are in conflict, the Constitution wins out. Seperate spheres and all that. Like if a state and the federal government are in conflict, the federal government wins out.

Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The States win unless there is a constitutional referance of Federal authority.

While orginally had no intention of responding to any of this dribble.. some of it was boarder line ignorance.. and if there is anything I cannot tolerate.. that is ignorance.
The dictionary is quite clear....the US was invaded by Al Queda representatives on Sept. 11, 2001.

Obviously.. you have no general command of the English langauge if this is the manner in which you think the word "Invaded" applies. Yes Al Queda forces intruded and encroached on American soil. Just as I can encroach or "invade" your personal space. This however, is not the word the other chap was using when he said "no country would dare invade the United States" As in to say the the act of instrusion with the use of military forces for the specific purpose of conquring a terrirotry.

You have missed the point once again? The invasion on Sept. 11, 2001 caused severe economic damage. Such economic damage can seriously affect the ability to fund a war, especially since much of the US debt is owned by foreign powers such as China.

and once again I did not miss your point.. your point is moot.. because wars are historically waged reguardless of economic cost because survival is at stake. (ie. palestine vs Israel).

Look up sovereign in your dictionary......that is not Iraq. The US still holds sway with all the troops and of course lets not forget that the US hijacked the Iraqi economy with Bremer's Orders. You really are behind in your history?

And here is where the ignorace flourishes :headbang: .. Bremers Orders are no longer in effect since sovereignty was handed over the Iraqi government months ago. The US holding sway with troops.. is of course a foolish comment seeing how the troops are US troops.. there on the invitation of the Iraqi government. If the Iraqis so asked for the US to leave... the US would have to leave.. and have stated they would. The rest of our comments are nothing but mere conjecture and opinion of which have no relevance.

Many would challenge whether the elections were indeed "democratic", especially when the US dictated when the election would take place, guarded the polling stations, most Sunnis didn't take part, and many suggestions that food rations would be withheld unless people voted.

Funny you should mentioned the US dicated when the elections would be held when it was the world community and the iraqis themselves clamoring orginally for the elections to be held at the earliest possible date. Only after the US committed a to a date that people suddenly start to complain the US is rushing things. Oh the hipocracy of international opinion. Again you obviously dont seem to have been paying attention to news outlets during the elections or you would have seen the US had no visible presence at polling stations.. only Iraqi forces protected those sectors.. and your so called "suggestions" lacking any serious proof are nothing more then conspiricy theories. Seeing how the Sunnis account for only 20% of the population and that they had enjoyed the power of Iraq for the last 3 decades it seems this makes it hardly un-democratic.. and while the election was not fully representative.. a representative government is not required to have a democraticly elected government. They were not kept from voting.. they chose not to vote.. there is a vast difference.

Meanwhile, the US adds to the poliferation by selling F16 fighter jets to Pakistan which can carry a nuclear payload.

Here obviously you have no knowledge of what neclear proliferation means.. so here is the definition. Technically i could strap a nuke onto a tank.. by selling that tank dosn't mean im proliferating the spread of neclear technology.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Nuclear_proliferation

Well NK is already in the "axis of evil", but are working overtime to develop nukes especially after witnessing what happens to countries like Iraq who didn't have any.

Im sorry.. what was North Korea doing for the 8 years Clinton was in office after the treaty had been signed so that they would stop researching them ? OHHHH YEAHHHHHHH .... building nukes... before Iraq you say (WHat a shocker) Yes.. I Can see how the Iraq war really made North Korea build nukes.. something they ... obviously were going for before ? totally oblivious it seems! just stop arguing now because with each insinuation you make you reveal your position for what it is.. baseless

That is a straw-man argument. You claim the UN is the supreme arbiter on war. If that is the case the UN should act agains nations who go to war illegally. He is asking if they would intervene and you are avoiding a response with a question no one is asking.

So if the US invasion of Iraq is illegal, why doesn't the UN act? Because the US IS the UN. Without the US there is no UN.

bravo.. show his argument for what it is.. hollow and baseless :D

We were never at peace with Iraq...we had a state of cease-fire under an agreement signed by Saddam after the first Gulf War. Saddam broke that agreement - along with 17+ UN resolutions. We had every right to invade per the terms of the cease fire agreement.
Ummm that would be a negative.

*Bush utterly destroyed the city of Fallujah and by extentsion the entire country of Iraq just to steal their oil and get a vote on OPEC. Bush also overthrew Haitis for sweatshop owners and tried numerous times to kill Hugo Chavez to steal that countrys oil as well. Clearly Bush is an oil terrorist and an international scourge

A group of prominent Iraqi lawyers said at a conference in Baghdad this week that President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair should be tried as war criminals for the occupation of Iraq, highlighting the massive assaults on the city of Fallujah. They echoed earlier claims by an official from the US-backed Iraqi Health Ministry who charged that the US had used banned weapons against Fallujah. The lawyers called for establishing a truth commission to investigate US crimes in Iraq and demanded an end to what they called immunity for US occupation forces.
democracynow.org
You know what Skippy Pedro? If either you or "democracynow" told me it was raining, I would immediately BURN every umberella I owned!

~~SNIP~~
Hmmm lets see now.....US sells WMD to Iraq.......Iraq uses them on Iran....thats OK. Iraq uses them on their own people.....still ok by US who blocks UN Resolution trying to condemn the action.

US says that Saddam has WMD and is a threat to the US.....US decides to invade Iraq without permission from UN Security Council.

US uses weapons of mass destruction during the "Shock and Awe Show", killing many Iraqis.

US sells WMD to Pakistan.....and the beat goes on?

If anyone needs a reality check, it would be you? :eek:

See 2 posts above...the first Gulf War was approved by the UN, a cease-fire agreement was signed, and broken by Saddam. We had the legal authority to invade.
Ummm again a negative. Read Resolution 1441 and then you will know why.

That is a straw-man argument. You claim the UN is the supreme arbiter on war. If that is the case the UN should act agains nations who go to war illegally. He is asking if they would intervene and you are avoiding a response with a question no one is asking.

So if the US invasion of Iraq is illegal, why doesn't the UN act? Because the US IS the UN. Without the US there is no UN.
Read all of the thread.....I was being somewhat sarcastic to his post.

The US is NOT the UN.......the US has gotten away with a "freebie"....this time. :(

*Bush utterly destroyed the city of Fallujah and by extentsion the entire country of Iraq...

Wow! Even I underestimated the man! I mean I have seen some badass individuals in my time but one man uttrly destroying a city is some pretty wicked pwnage! :eek:

>.>

Wow! Even I underestimated the man! I mean I have seen some badass individuals in my time but one man uttrly destroying a city is some pretty wicked pwnage! :eek:

>.>

People have this concept of Fallujah being "utterly destroyed".

Nothing could be further from the truth.

People have this concept of Fallujah being "utterly destroyed".

Nothing could be further from the truth.


I know...

I wonder where they get these ideas. >.>

Regardless of the backdoor insult, I shall proceed…..

People like me were entirely against hurried elections. Hurried elections in Iraq was a vote grabbing Bush re-election strategy/ploy to show the people of the US that Iraq was moving forward. Another election ploy was the statement by Bush that the US would pull out of Iraq if the newly elected government requested. Meanwhile, the US is building 14 “enduring” bases (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm) in Iraq.

Who else was against “hurried” elections?

Iraq: A subverted democracy and a worthless constitution (http://www.kurdishmedia.com/reports.asp?id=2375)

10 February 2005 KurdishMedia.com - By Rauf Naqishbendi

A speedy national election and a hurried drafting constitution make up President Bush’s principle guide to tranquility and democracy in Iraq. These policies are not only misguided, but with the passage of time can only further worsen the already deteriorating situation in Iraq.

U.S. Approach to Iraqi Elections "Dangerously Accelerated" (http://www.ceip.org/files/news/10-8-03-US_approach_Iraqi_elections.asp?from=newsnews)

In a new Carnegie policy brief, The Right Road to Sovereignty in Iraq, leading democracy promotion experts Marina Ottaway and Thomas Carothers warn that early elections in postconflict situations are often dangerous. Hurried elections, they point out, often do more damage than good, producing results that are rejected by some political factions or that favor radical groups over still-emergent moderate forces.

See above, re: Kurdish fears.

I'm in full AGREEMENT that taking a long time to sort this out is better than hurrying it, the thing is I was never one who was calling for troops to be withdrawn ASAP (Or rather I was, but my definition of ASAP is rather different.); just the same way I was never the one claiming it was an illegal war, or that it was all for oil or something.

Whilst by opposing the war, you were. Opposing the war means you want the troops out now, and you want the entire thing over now, and screw the Iraqis. That's how it breaks down.

Oh, and it was hardly a backdoor insult. I figured it was pretty plain what I think of you.

IF the elections had taken place once hostilities had been significantly curtailed, there would likely have been no need to have US forces guarding Iraqi election polling stations. I am sure that the Iraqi people would have been much more comfortable voting without US troops outside the polling stations?

Yes, and I'm quite sure the terrorists would have taken advantage of that if we did it today, but as I pointed out above, opposition to the war directly indicates a necessity for it to happen right away.

Currently the Republicans hold power in the US, just like the Sunnis held power in Iraq before the invasion. Imagine if you will that the US was taken over by another country, and the Republicans failed to take part in a forced election….would you consider that democracy in action?

Well if the Republicans were a minority of the population, and they were running a brutal dictatorship with rape rooms from Maine to San Diego, where Alaska would probably be a by-word for concentration camp, and where major league baseball players were regularly tortured for losing, I'd have to say it wouldn't be such a terrible thing to withhold their vote. As it is, the fact they could abstain shows it is not forced - at least, not insofar as anyone is forced to vote or forced to vote for anyone. Apparently, the US putting the vote into a country which has seen some decades of brutal and vile rule isn't an attempt to make up for not doing it earlier, it's just undemocratic, despite the fact that the Republicans CHOSE not to vote in your hypothetical scenario, just as the Sunnis CHOSE not to vote there. It's like my failing to vote in the UK elections. If I don't, I lose out. It's not an indictment of the system.

Overlooking of course the 60-70% of Iraqis who did vote. That's a damned high proportion.

I find the accolades that you heap upon me truly overwhelming….again, I shall proceed…

Iraq Election - Some Just Voted For Food (http://www.rense.com/general62/iraqelectionsomejustvoted.htm)

"Two of the food dealers I know told me personally that our food rations would be withheld if we did not vote," said Saeed Jodhet, a 21-year-old engineering student who voted in the Hay al-Jihad district of Baghdad.

Sanctions against those who do Not Vote: No Vote, No Ration Card, No Food (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO501F.html)

In the weeks leading up to the election, there were reports that food rations would be cancelled if voters did not show up at the polls. In Fallouja, polling stations were set up "at centers that distribute food, water and cash payments to residents whose homes were devastated by the offensive" (LA Times, 31 Jan 2005).

"Two of the food dealers I know told me personally that our food rations would be withheld if we did not vote."

Really?

Two of MY friends told me if I finished FFVII in under 10 hours Aeris comes back to life and has an orgy with Heideggar and Diamond WEAPON.

And I note that the 30-40% of Iraqis who didn't vote don't really appear to be starving... nope, no reports of a third of Iraq starving to death after the elections...

Maybe the voting stations were set up at focal points of the populations? You know, the same way we vote at schools and stuff? Or is that too outlandish? Yeah, you're right, gotta be a conspiracy, not simply making sure everyone knows where the polling station actually is or anything, and certainly not using places the Coalition has had experience defending and can try to ensure the safety of better than a distinct environment...

I read threads like this for the humor. :rolleyes:

I'm convinced that the only reason that people oppose the Iraq occupation is that they want the US to lose.

If the US pulls out, they lose. And the Iraqi people lose, big time.

If the US stays, eventually the insurgency dies out, the Iraqi people get on their feet, and the US can leave claimaing a win.

The people who oppose the war know that the insurgents are militarily weak compared to insurgencies in the past.

People who oppose the war gloat about Vietnam. Let's look at the stats, shall we?

In Vietnam, the Viet Cong could attack US troops at will. And live to see tomorrow. They inflicted 6111 deaths on US forces each year.

They had a tactic called "holding by the belt buckle". Stay close enough to US ground forces, and they can't use bombs or artillery on the insurgents.

In Iraq, insurgents who engage US troops with direct fire end up dead. Period. If you count all losses as combat losses, they are inflicting 750 deaths on US forces each year.

When they try the "holding the belt buckle" tactic, as they did in Fallujah, the US troops were wearing extremely effective body armor. They also had instant radio and Internet access to precision GPS munitions delivered by artillery and aircraft.

No longer was it necessary for US troops to call for multiple planeloads of ordnance to hit a single insurgent strongpoint. Or for a barrage of artillery shells.

Now, a single shell, or a single bomb, came from the sky and landed right in the insurgents' laps.

No longer was it necessary to level the whole place to get a handful of men.

And the US troops ruled the night. Not just with night vision, but with thermal imaging that works regardless of the weather, and shows men hiding behind curtains and vegetation.

The US troops also had much more accurate rifles - with sights you can use in day or night - on every rifle.

Unlike the poorly trained draftees of the Vietnam Era, every one of the infantrymen in Fallujah had years of experience and training with the advanced weaponry.

So the people who oppose the war KNOW the insurgents can't win. They KNOW the insurgents are now incapable of intimidating the Iraqi people. They KNOW the insurgents are incapable of inflicting enough casualties to cause the "Vietnam Effect".

So they have to beg, plead, and cry for the US to pull out. Because otherwise, the insurgents will get a group discount at the cemetery.

The "winners" of any war are immune to any prosecution and that is how it is and will always be. The "winners" don't get punished... that's clear when the US bombed and destroyed the two Japanese cities in World War II which is still having affects today, causing abnormalities at birth etc. due to the continuous effects of the Atom Bomb. Things will never change...
Just out of curiosity, have you ever heared of the Rape of Nanking? Or any of the other atrocities committed by Japanese troops in Asia?

why not? Leaders are supposed to serve US
Leaders are supposed to serve the people of their own country. Would it make sense to have lawers from Mexico impeach, try, and imprison the president of France? Chirac is not accountable to the people of Mexico.

You obviously just read right past my post? The US aided and abetted Mr. Hussein. Are you oblivious to that?

So did:
USSR
China
North Korea
Brazil
UK
France
DDR
Czechoslavokia
Italy
Spain
Portugal
West Germany
Poland
Hungary
Yugoslavia
Austria
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Sudan
Ethiopia
Jordan
Kuwait
UAE
^^^^^
This is apparently what you're oblivious to.

Meanwhile, the US adds to the poliferation by selling F16 fighter jets to Pakistan which can carry a nuclear payload. :eek:
Adding to the 744 or so planes they already have (just saw that number on the BBC News website). I really don't think 16 F16s are going to make any change at all in Pakistan's nuclear capability.

The US troops also had much more accurate rifles - with sights you can use in day or night - on every rifle.

Yes, because we all know what an inaccurate weapon the M-14 was!

(Even though some soldiers prefer using it in afghanistan, because of the long ranges...)

Insurgents Want to Go Home To Mother

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f37f03d2-9d9d-11d9-a227-00000e2511c8.html

Many would challenge whether the elections were indeed "democratic", especially when the US dictated when the election would take place, guarded the polling stations, most Sunnis didn't take part, and many suggestions that food rations would be withheld unless people voted.
I believe that Iraqi units guarded the polling stations. US troops were nearby ready to assist should they be needed.

Actually, I think it's you who needs to stop making yourself look like an ass.
anyone who is a Bush defender is historys biggest ass

anyone who is a Bush defender is historys biggest ass
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f37f03d2-9d9d-11d9-a227-00000e2511c8.html

Your precious insurgents want to give up...

Hmmm lets see now.....US sells WMD to Iraq.......Iraq uses them on Iran....thats OK. Iraq uses them on their own people.....still ok by US who blocks UN Resolution trying to condemn the action.
Prove that the US sold WMDs to Iraq. Since the anthrax that was sent to the Baghdad University by numerous countries was a laboratory sample, thus could not be used as a WMD. Iraqi scientists had to learn how to take those samples and grow cultures to make into WMDs. I've repeated this numerous times. Are you slow, or just have a serious case of "tunnel vision"??

Who did sell WMDs to Iraq?
Germany, Brazil, Luxembourg, India, Egypt, Netherlands and Singapore



US says that Saddam has WMD and is a threat to the US.....US decides to invade Iraq without permission from UN Security Council.

Broken record.....

US uses weapons of mass destruction during the "Shock and Awe Show", killing many Iraqis.

keeps playing the same tune.....

US sells WMD to Pakistan.....and the beat goes on?
Proof?


If anyone needs a reality check, it would be you? :eek:

You're giving advice on reality check??

That's amusing......... :rolleyes:

While orginally had no intention of responding to any of this dribble.. some of it was boarder line ignorance.. and if there is anything I cannot tolerate.. that is ignorance.


Obviously.. you have no general command of the English langauge if this is the manner in which you think the word "Invaded" applies. Yes Al Queda forces intruded and encroached on American soil. Just as I can encroach or "invade" your personal space. This however, is not the word the other chap was using when he said "no country would dare invade the United States" As in to say the the act of instrusion with the use of military forces for the specific purpose of conquring a terrirotry.



and once again I did not miss your point.. your point is moot.. because wars are historically waged reguardless of economic cost because survival is at stake. (ie. palestine vs Israel).



And here is where the ignorace flourishes :headbang: .. Bremers Orders are no longer in effect since sovereignty was handed over the Iraqi government months ago. The US holding sway with troops.. is of course a foolish comment seeing how the troops are US troops.. there on the invitation of the Iraqi government. If the Iraqis so asked for the US to leave... the US would have to leave.. and have stated they would. The rest of our comments are nothing but mere conjecture and opinion of which have no relevance.



Funny you should mentioned the US dicated when the elections would be held when it was the world community and the iraqis themselves clamoring orginally for the elections to be held at the earliest possible date. Only after the US committed a to a date that people suddenly start to complain the US is rushing things. Oh the hipocracy of international opinion. Again you obviously dont seem to have been paying attention to news outlets during the elections or you would have seen the US had no visible presence at polling stations.. only Iraqi forces protected those sectors.. and your so called "suggestions" lacking any serious proof are nothing more then conspiricy theories. Seeing how the Sunnis account for only 20% of the population and that they had enjoyed the power of Iraq for the last 3 decades it seems this makes it hardly un-democratic.. and while the election was not fully representative.. a representative government is not required to have a democraticly elected government. They were not kept from voting.. they chose not to vote.. there is a vast difference.



Here obviously you have no knowledge of what neclear proliferation means.. so here is the definition. Technically i could strap a nuke onto a tank.. by selling that tank dosn't mean im proliferating the spread of neclear technology.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Nuclear_proliferation



Im sorry.. what was North Korea doing for the 8 years Clinton was in office after the treaty had been signed so that they would stop researching them ? OHHHH YEAHHHHHHH .... building nukes... before Iraq you say (WHat a shocker) Yes.. I Can see how the Iraq war really made North Korea build nukes.. something they ... obviously were going for before ? totally oblivious it seems! just stop arguing now because with each insinuation you make you reveal your position for what it is.. baseless
It's not often I agree with so much said by someone with a non-moderate outlook. Congrats!

Adding to the 744 or so planes they already have (just saw that number on the BBC News website). I really don't think 16 F16s are going to make any change at all in Pakistan's nuclear capability.


This is just CanuckHeaven's way of whining about any little thing that the US does. Since Pakistan has a missile called the Ghauri Hatf-5, which has a range of 1500KM. Why risk losing a nuke on an aircraft, when they could hit nearly any part of India with a Ghauri Hatf-5??

I'm convinced that the only reason that people oppose the Iraq occupation is that they want the US to lose.

If the US pulls out, they lose. And the Iraqi people lose, big time.

If the US stays, eventually the insurgency dies out, the Iraqi people get on their feet, and the US can leave claimaing a win.

The people who oppose the war know that the insurgents are militarily weak compared to insurgencies in the past.

People who oppose the war gloat about Vietnam. Let's look at the stats, shall we?

-snip-

So the people who oppose the war KNOW the insurgents can't win. They KNOW the insurgents are now incapable of intimidating the Iraqi people. They KNOW the insurgents are incapable of inflicting enough casualties to cause the "Vietnam Effect".

So they have to beg, plead, and cry for the US to pull out. Because otherwise, the insurgents will get a group discount at the cemetery.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

I'm sick of people saying "the us military sucks and theyre losing in iraq".

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

I'm sick of people saying "the us military sucks and theyre losing in iraq".

The insurgents want to give up...
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f37f03d2-9d9d-11d9-a227-00000e2511c8.html

anyone who is a Bush defender is historys biggest ass
Anyone who mindlessly opposes the policies of Bush or any other leader without rational consideration free from the preformed opinion that he is wrong, evil, and/or "trying to take over the world" is history's biggest ass.

So did:
USSR
China
North Korea
Brazil
UK
France
DDR
Czechoslavokia
Italy
Spain
Portugal
West Germany
Poland
Hungary
Yugoslavia
Austria
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Sudan
Ethiopia
Jordan
Kuwait
UAE
^^^^^
This is apparently what you're oblivious to.
I was referring to the occupation forces of the US. The other major player on your list that is in Iraq is the UK. I am well aware that many countries aided Saddam for various reasons but it is the US that is setting up camp in Iraq and they intend to stay for a very long time. :eek:

Ummm that would be a negative.

That sounds suspiciously like a Skapedroe response. Since you seem to have more intelligence that he, would you mind elaborating? We were never at peace with Iraq after the first Gulf War, therefore, when Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement, we had every right to invade. Of don't you understand the term 'cease-fire agreement'?

Hmmm lets see now.....US sells WMD to Iraq.......Iraq uses them on Iran....thats OK. Iraq uses them on their own people.....still ok by US who blocks UN Resolution trying to condemn the action.

US says that Saddam has WMD and is a threat to the US.....US decides to invade Iraq without permission from UN Security Council.

US uses weapons of mass destruction during the "Shock and Awe Show", killing many Iraqis.

US sells WMD to Pakistan.....and the beat goes on?

If anyone needs a reality check, it would be you? :eek:


What precisely are you using as your definition of WMD's here? Are you're sticking that label to any explosive device (which is the only way I can find to justify your argument)?

1. Yep, we sold weapons to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. More Cold War maneuvering just like the past 30-40 years, all in the name of protecting the free world. I invite you to put Reagan on trial for that one.

2. Yep, we invaded with the excuse that he had WMD's, with credible intelligence to back it up. Turns out that he either didn't have them or shipped them out of the country, either way it's irrelevant to the discussion. Intelligence said he had them, we hoisted up the national security flag (which is all the justification we needed to prosecute the war - what the UN thinks is irrelevant) and went after him. Some people claim we could have pursued diplomacy to solve the problem. The problem is, we did pursue diplomacy; we let the UN pursue diplomacy; we waited for the IAEA to do an inspection of Iraq; and when all was said and done, Saddam ignored all diplomatic advances, flaunted sanctions, and laughed at the rest of the world, safe and secure in his knowledge that the mighty UN had no bite and no balls. When we decide to invade, what do we get? Protests from countries like France, who had oil contracts with Saddam that would be null and void if his government collapsed. Millions of bleeding hearts take to the streets protesting the war in an attempt to save a KNOWN BRUTAL DICTATOR from a fate far better than what he truly deserves.

3. What are you talking about? We dropped conventional bombs, some of which were equipped with smart guidance systems, but no WMD's, unless you're changing the definition.

4. Umm, nope.

5. Your reality check bounced. I charge a $25(glorious US dollars) fee for bounced checks. Please make sure your account has sufficient reality in it next time.

To Canuckheaven...

You have frequently pointed out that the US bears some responsibility for the dictatorships we see today, and that of Saddam Hussein specifically.

Even if we were partly responsible for their existence, why should that restrain us from correcting our mistakes???

Please answer directly. This is not the first time I have asked you.

Adding to the 744 or so planes they already have (just saw that number on the BBC News website). I really don't think 16 F16s are going to make any change at all in Pakistan's nuclear capability.
All the same, it is nuclear poliferation. Imagine one of these babies in the hands of terrorists.....might make what happened in New York on 9/11 like a Sunday school picnic?

So sell a few here and a few there, which will keep some more Americans employed and some more corporate executives a little richer, and the world a little more unsafe?

To Canuckheaven...

You have frequently pointed out that the US bears some responsibility for the dictatorships we see today, and that of Saddam Hussein specifically.

Even if we were partly responsible for their existence, why should that restrain us from correcting our mistakes???

Please answer directly. This is not the first time I have asked you.
Especially Saddam Hussein because the US had ulterior motives. For you see.....Saddam was sitting in his sandcastle....but it is the oil underneath that castle that is the biggest prize of this war.

Do you honestly believe that Congress would have approved the removal of Hussein, just by reason of regime change? Of course they wouldn't....that is why the trumped up charges of WMD and connections to Al Queda.

Especially Saddam Hussein because the US had ulterior motives. For you see.....Saddam was sitting in his sandcastle....but it is the oil underneath that castle that is the biggest prize of this war.

Do you honestly believe that Congress would have approved the removal of Hussein, just by reason of regime change? Of course they wouldn't....that is why the trumped up charges of WMD and connections to Al Queda.
Once again you do not answer my question. Why should the fact that we supported Saddam in the past prevent us from removing him from power today?

I was referring to the occupation forces of the US. The other major player on your list that is in Iraq is the UK. I am well aware that many countries aided Saddam for various reasons but it is the US that is setting up camp in Iraq and they intend to stay for a very long time. :eek:

Your post said nothing about the US occupation. "Various reasons" is that your explanation of Germany's involvement in Iraqi's chemical and biological warfare program??





You obviously just read right past my post? The US aided and abetted Mr. Hussein. Are you oblivious to that?

I see nothing mentioning the US occupation. Just another excuse to cover your BS.

All the same, it is nuclear poliferation. Imagine one of these babies in the hands of terrorists.....might make what happened in New York on 9/11 like a Sunday school picnic?

So sell a few here and a few there, which will keep some more Americans employed and some more corporate executives a little richer, and the world a little more unsafe?

Ahh, no. Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear technology. There's no nuke tech in an F16. And if terrorists wanted to get their hands on military jets, there are much easier places to get them than Pakistan (NK, Russian black market). I think you're just reaching here.

I was referring to the occupation forces of the US. The other major player on your list that is in Iraq is the UK. I am well aware that many countries aided Saddam for various reasons but it is the US that is setting up camp in Iraq and they intend to stay for a very long time. :eek:

And there is something wrong with that? We defeated an enemy, and we established a military presence. We get the chance to wave our national penis in everyone's face for generations, and the locals get their economy boosted by sales of goods to the base and soldiers. Thats the way this whole "war thing" works. We're still hanging out, flapping in the breeze in Germany and Japan, and it's been 60 years since WWII ended; don't expect us to leave Iraq anytime soon.

What precisely are you using as your definition of WMD's here? Are you're sticking that label to any explosive device (which is the only way I can find to justify your argument)?
The US used their new upgraded Mark 77 firebomb in an attack on Iraqi troops at Safwan Hill near the Kuwait border where Iraqi “…observation post was obliterated” as reported by Sydney Morning Herald correspondent on March 22nd 2003.

Last December American marines used Napalm in their invasion of the city of Fallujah. American Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, stated that in March and April of 2003 Napalm bombs were also dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River, south of Baghdad, as reported by Independent reporter in August of same year. The Bush administration, then, admitted the use of napalm in Iraq. American forces used napalm as well as white phosphorous bombs, another incendiary weapon, against civilians during their assault on Fallujah last December. Melted corpses of civilians were discovered in Fallujah.

American forces had also used chemical weapons in the form of gases during their assault on Fallujah especially in the Julan district. Three types of these chemical gases were used. The first was a sleeping gas that caused people to lose consciousness, allowing American forces to run over them with their tanks, and to gather them in houses and blow up the houses over them. The other two gases were poisonous; one turned the color of the victims to yellow, while the other turned their colors into black.

FRom another web site:

Fallujah residents reported that they saw “melted” bodies in the city, which suggests that U.S. forces used napalm gas, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that makes the human body melt.

From yet another web site: NOTE: Picture warning!!

Weapons of Mass Destruction Employed by US to Imolate Falluja: White Phosphorus is a Chemical Weapon (http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/0305/us_used_chemical_weapons_in_iraq.pdf)

Ummm again a negative. Read Resolution 1441 and then you will know why.

For reference:


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;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval:

(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;

(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (i) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission, of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 (b) above;

(iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below;

10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Special Commission, to develop a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of this resolution;

Saddam refused access to inspectors, kicked out the inspectors, and by most reliable intelligence accounts before the US invasion still had prohibited munitions and substances.


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

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

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

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

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

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

.
.
.

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

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

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

Saddam initially agreed to let the inspectors back in, proceeded to obstruct the free and total access referred to in 1441, did not account for materials known to exist befor inspectors were kicked out in 1998, and provided an incomplete, and by some reports, forged accounting for materials referred to in the resolution.

So, where in 1441 does it say we couldn't go in regarding the cease-fire agreement?

Edit: Here are liks to the resolutions for those wishing to educate themselves.
(Not a jab at fellow debaters -- just freedom of information)

687 (http://www.themoderntribune.com/un_resolution_687_1991_cease_fire_conditions_gulf_war_full_text_un_united_nation_resolution_871_-_iraq_wmd.htm)
1441 (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm)

Your post said nothing about the US occupation. "Various reasons" is that your explanation of Germany's involvement in Iraqi's chemical and biological warfare program??

I see nothing mentioning the US occupation. Just another excuse to cover your BS.
This thread has nothing to do with Germany. If you read far enough back, you will notice the relevance of my posting in regards to US complicity in Iraq.

For god's sake, canuckheaven, ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!!

"Once again you do not answer my question. Why should the fact that we supported Saddam in the past prevent us from removing him from power today?"

This thread has nothing to do with Germany.

Of course it doesn't, because out of all that information I posted that's all you got out of it? I'll back my statement up with facts. While you just repeat the same old BS with no proof!


If you read far enough back, you will notice the relevance of my posting in regards to US complicity in Iraq.

No I won't. You whine the same tune, yet give no facts to back up your BS.

If you wish to talk about arming Iraq with WMDs or conventional weapons let's talk.

You state the US sold WMDs to Iraq. Post the proof!

You state the US sold WMDs to Pakistan. Post the proof!

So far it's been the "US did this" and "US did that" with zero evidence to back up your BS.

For reference:

Saddam refused access to inspectors, kicked out the inspectors, and by most reliable intelligence accounts before the US invasion still had prohibited munitions and substances.
Resolution 687 does not apply, as it is included as reference in Resolution 1441.

As far as the inspectors are concerned, they were in Iraq when Bush stated that the US was going to invade regardless, so they left.....Saddam didn't kick them out. BTW, the inspectors did not find any WMD while they were there. Read Blix's report about the high level of Iraqi co-operation with the UN inspection teams.

Saddam initially agreed to let the inspectors back in, proceeded to obstruct the free and total access referred to in 1441, did not account for materials known to exist befor inspectors were kicked out in 1998, and provided an incomplete, and by some reports, forged accounting for materials referred to in the resolution.
Read the news story by Scott Ritter prior to the US invasion of Iraq.

So, where in 1441 does it say we couldn't go in regarding the cease-fire agreement?

I am glad you posted the Resolution.....check out the bolded parts:

Originally Posted by UN Security Council Resolution 1441Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

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

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

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

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

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

Ohhhh you forgot Article 10 (which is extremely important):

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

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

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

Note: this is where the US was unable to get the other Security Council members to back the US & UK decision to use force against Iraq. The US/UK invasion of Iraq is clearly a violation of this clause of the Resolution!!

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;

The US and the UK violated this Resolution by invading Iraq!!

So, where in 1441 does it say we couldn't go in regarding the cease-fire agreement?
It doesn't say because it was not an option.

That's not Plutophobia. . .its Skapedroe baby!!!!

They are the same person except Plutophobia is Skapedroe light.

At least that is my theory. The Nation States thingy seems to be crawling today so maybe somebody already posted this but because I can't get into read most posts I have no idea.

Of course it doesn't, because out of all that information I posted that's all you got out of it? I'll back my statement up with facts. While you just repeat the same old BS with no proof!
I have posted tons of links in this thread and you are trying to side track the issue.

No I won't. You whine the same tune, yet give no facts to back up your BS.

If you wish to talk about arming Iraq with WMDs or conventional weapons let's talk.

You state the US sold WMDs to Iraq. Post the proof!

You state the US sold WMDs to Pakistan. Post the proof!

So far it's been the "US did this" and "US did that" with zero evidence to back up your BS.
You are totally missing the point. You have a one track mind trying to blame a whole bunch of countries with arming Iraq...that is not the issue here. The issue is that the US and UK illegally invaded Iraq.

PS....if you can't be bothered to backtrack on the thread, that would be your problem, not mine.....happy searching.

Try these links on for size.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Mar/11-723838.html

They are government sites, but they are not just a simple denial. They have credible support and decent arguments.


Lets start with the Mark-77 Incendiary bomb.
From the first site: "First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003.

Second, as noted above, no Mark-77 firebombs were used in Fallujah."

Someone got their conspiracy theories mixed up. No Mark-77s in Fallujah.


On to chemical weapons:
From the second site: "These reports claimed that an Iraqi Health Ministry official, Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, had announced at a March 1 press conference that the Iraqi Health Ministry had compiled a report confirming the use of mustard gas and nerve gas in Fallujah. On March 8, Dr. Shaker Al-Aineji, the Director-General of the Medical Operation Department of the Iraqi Ministry of Health stated that no one named Khalid ash-Shaykhli worked for the ministry, and that no such report existed."

The "Iraqi Health Ministry" did not have any reports accusing the US of the use of chemical weapons. Whoever pulled that stunt was not a qualified authoratative figure, but rather someone trying to injure the image of the US.

The claims of these weapons' use were displayed on the site aljazweera.com, an imitator NOT affiliated with Al Jazeera.


By the way, Canuckheaven have you given any thought to ANSWERING MY QUESTION?

That sounds suspiciously like a Skapedroe response. Since you seem to have more intelligence that he, would you mind elaborating? We were never at peace with Iraq after the first Gulf War, therefore, when Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement, we had every right to invade. Of don't you understand the term 'cease-fire agreement'?
If any violation occurred, it would be the US/Uk/France establishment of no-fly zones and using this opportunity to bomb Iraq during the intervening years of the end of the Gulf war and the invasion of Iraq in 2003:

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 does not specifically mention no-fly zones. The overflights could therefore be interpreted as being illegal with respect to international law. Regardless of the legal status, the northern no-fly zone is often credited for giving the parts of the Kurdish region of Iraq de-facto independence after the Gulf War.

Once again you do not answer my question. Why should the fact that we supported Saddam in the past prevent us from removing him from power today?
I did answer your question. Besides it being illegal to invade Iraq, according to the UN Charter, the fact that the US had ulterior motives for invading Iraq is what concerns many people around the world, including many in the US.

good
good.

Protests from countries like France, who had oil contracts with Saddam that would be null and void if his government collapsed. Millions of bleeding hearts take to the streets protesting the war in an attempt to save a KNOWN BRUTAL DICTATOR from a fate far better than what he truly deserves.
Why is everyone always picking on France?

Ok, lets see who was involved in these protests:

This wasn't just a localized protest?

Cities that participated in the 15 February 2003 protests (http://web.archive.org/web/20030801135105/http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=725)

Africa:

Bloemfontein, Bulawayo, Cairo, Cape Town, Durban, Harare, Johannesburg, Kigali, Lagos, Lusaka, Nairobi, Niamey, Rabat, Réunion

Asia/Middle East:

Amman, Aligarh, Baghdad, Bahawalpur, Bangalore, Bangkok, Beirut, Mumbai, Busan, Daegu, Daejeon, Damascus, Dili, Faisalabad, Gaza, Gojranwala, Gwangju, Hong Kong, Hyderabad, Islamabad, Jakarta, Karachi, Kharian, Kuala Lumpur, Kumamoto, Lahore, Larkana, Layya, Muharraq, Manama, Mandi Bahaudin, Manila, Matsumoto, Multan, Naha, Okara, Osaka, Otsu, Penang, Peshawar, Pune, Qasur, Rafah, Ramallah, Sahiwal, Sargodha, Seoul, Sheikhupura, Taipei, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, Wonju

Europe:

Aalborg, Aarhus, A Coruña, Aix-en-Provence, Agen, Akureyri, Albacete, Alcalá, Alfta, Algeciras, Alicante, Almería, Alta, Amsterdam, Andorra, Angoulême, Antwerp, Arendal, Arjeplog, Arosa, Arrecife, Athens, Ávila, Azuqueca de Henares, Bad Kreuznach-Land, Baiona, Bagnols-Sur-Ceze, Bangor, Barcelona, Belfast, Beoria, Bergen, Berlin, Bern, Bilbao, Bochum, Boden, Bodoe, Bodx, Bonn, Bordeaux, Bores, Borldnge, Bratislava, Briviesca, Brussels, Brxnnxysund, Brxnshxj, Bucharest, Budapest, Burgos, Cádiz, Castellón de la Plana, Ciudad Real, Ciutadella, Clermont-Ferrand, Cluj-Napoca, Coimbra, Copenhagen, Córdoba, Corinth, Cuenca, Darmstadt, Donosti, Dublin, Dülmen, Düsseldorf, Edinburgh, Elche, Elesund, El Hierro, El Rosario, Elverum, Erftstadt-Lechenich, Erfurt, Erlangen, Es, Esbjerg, Eskilstuna, Basque Country, Évora, Falun, Faro, Ferrol, Florx, Fraga, Fredericia, Fredrikstad, Gagnef, Galicia, Gasteiz-Vitoria, Gällivare, Gdvle, Gelsenkirchen, Girona, Gislaved, Gjxvik, Glasgow, Gothenburg, Granada, Guadalajara, Halmstad, Hamar, Hammerfest, Hania, Harstad, Haugesund, Hdrnvsand, Hedemora, Heide, Heilbronn, Helsingborg, Helsinki, Hereford, Hückelhoven, Huelva, Huesca, Hjxrring, Honningsveg, Hudiksvall, Ibiza, Idar-Oberstein, Igualada, Ioannina, Istanbul, Irakleio, Iruña-Pamplona, Isafjordur, Iserlohn, Jaén, Joensuu, Jvnkvping, Jyväskylä, Kaiserslautern, Kalamata, Kalmar, Karlshamn, Karlskrona, Kavala, Kemi, Kerkyra, Kiev, Kirkenes, Kiruna, Kolding, Konstanz, Kragerx, Kristiansand, Kristiansta, Kundgebung, Kuopio, Lancaster, Landau, Landshut, La Rochelle, Las Palmas, Leer, Le Mans, Levanger, Lillehammer, Limoges, Lingen, Lisbon, Ljubljana, Lleida, Lloret de Mar, Logroño, London, Longyearbyen, Ludvika, Lugo, Lulee, Lund, Luxembourg, Lyon, Macapá, Madrid, Mahón, Mainz, Málaga, Malmö, Mandal, Mariehamn, Marl, Marseille, Mataró, Melilla, Menden, Meppen, Moers, Mo i Rana, Molde, Monforte de Lemos, Montluconm, Moscow, Motala, Moulin, Mundaka, Murcia, Mytilini, Nantes, Narbonne, Narvik, Navplio, Nässjö, Neuwied, Nice, Nîmes, Nokia, Nordhorn, Norrköping, Nørrebro, Ockelbo, Ørsta, Oslo, Östersund, Ostrava, Otta, Oulu, Ourense, Oviedo, Paderborn, Palencia, Palma de Mallorca, Pamplona, Paris, Patras, Pecs, Peiraias, Perpignan, Piedralaves, Pitee, Ponta Delgada, Pontevedra, Porsgrunn, Porto, Poznan, Prague, Puertollano, Randers, Ratingen, Ravensburg, Rethymno, Reykjavík, Risør, Rissa, Risxr, Rodos, Rognan, Rome, Roros, Roskilde, Rovaniemi, Rxrvik, Saint-Gaudens, Salamanca, Sandnessjxe, Sandviken, San Sebastián, San Sebastián de Gomera, Santa Coloma, Santa Cruz de la Palma, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Santander, Santiago de Compostela, Saône-et-Loire, Sarpsborg, Savolinna, Schwäbisch Hall, Segovia, Seinäjoki, Seville, Sheffield, Shetland, Siegen, Siero, Silkeborg, Simrishamn, Skelleftee, Skien, Skopje, Sofia, Soria, Sortland, Sparti, Stavanger, Steinkjer, Stockholm, Stokmarknes, Strasbourg, Struer, Stuttgart, Sundsvall, Söderhamn, Svolvær, Sykkylven, Tampere, Talavera de la Reina, Tallinn, Tarragona, Tavagnacco, Teruel, Thessaloniki, Toensberg, Tomelilla, Toledo, Tornee, Tortosa, Toulon, Toulouse, Tours, Tripoli, Tromsø, Trondheim, Turku, Tønsberg, Uddevalla, Ulvik, Umeå, Valby, Valence, Valencia, Valladolid, Valletta, Västerås, Växjö, Vegan, Vege, Viborg, Vichy, Vienna, Vienne, Vigo, Villingen, Vilnius, Visby, Vitoria, Volos, Voronezh, Voss, Warsaw, Wetzlar, Wroclaw, Wuppertal, Zagreb, Zamora, Zaragoza

Latin America & the Caribbean:

Aguascalientes, Bahia, Bariloche, Bauru, Bermuda, Bogotá, Buenos Aires, Caracas, Caxias do Sul, Chihuahua, Ciudad Juárez, Cuernavaca, Goiania, Guadalajara, Guadeloupe, Havana, Kingston, Lima, Martinique, Mexicali, Mexico City, Monterrey, Montevideo, Quito, Rio de Janiero, Rio Grande do Sul, San Cristóbal, San José, San Juan, San Luis Potosí, San Miguel, San Salvador, Santa Cruz, Santiago, Santo Domingo, São Paulo, Tijuana, Veracruz, Xalapa

USA and Canada:

Akron, Amarillo, Annapolis Royal, Antigonish, Arcata, Armidale, Asheville, Ashland, Athens, Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Barrie, Beavercreek, Bellingham, Billings, Biloxi, Binghamton, Birmingham, Bisbee, Blacksburg, Bloomington, Boise, Boulder, Brampton, Brandon, Burlington, Butler, Calexico, Calgary, Canmore, Canton, Canton, Cape Cod, Cape Girardeau, Captain Cook, Carbondale, Castlegar, Cedar Rapids, Charleston, Charlotte, Charlottetown, Charlottesville, Chattanooga, Chatham-Kent, Chicago, Chico, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Cobourg, Colorado Springs, Columbia, Columbia, Columbus, Comox Valley, Concord, Cornwall, Corpus Christi, Cortez, Corvallis, Cranbrook, Croton-on-Hudson, Cowichan, Cumberland, Dallas, Dayton, Daytona Beach, DeLand, Denton, Detroit, Dubuque, Durango, Edmonton, Ellensburg, Elkins, Encino, Erie, Eugene, Fairbanks, Farmington, Fayetteville, Fillmore, Findlay, Flagstaff, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Smith, Fort Wayne, Fredricton, Fresno, Gainesville, Galesburg, Galveston, Geneva, Grand Forks, Grand Junction, Grand Prairie, Grand Rapids, Guelph, Hadley, Halifax, Hamilton, Hilo, Holland. Michigan, Honolulu, Houston, Hull, Huntsville, Indianapolis, Ithaca, Jasper, Jefferson City, Jersey City, Johnston, Juneau, Kamloops, Kansas City, Kelowna, Kezar Falls, Kingston, Kitchener, Knoxville, Lafayette, Lancaster, Lansing, Las Cruces, Las Vegas, Lawrence, Leavenworth, Lethbridge, Lexington, Lillooet, Lincoln, Little Rock, London, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Louisville, Macomb, Madison, McAllen, Meadville, Medicine Hat, Medford, Melbourne, Memphis, Minneapolis, Miami, Midland, Milwaukee, Minden, Mobile, Moncton, Montague Center, Massachusetts, Montpelier, Montreal, Mount Vernon, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Naples, Florida, Nashville, Tennessee, Nelson, British Columbia, New Britain, Connecticut, New Carlisle, Quebec, New Orleans, New York City, Newark, Delaware, Norfolk, Virginia, North Bay, Ontario, North Newton, Kansas, Olympia, Washington, Orange County, California, Orangeville, Ontario, Orillia, Ontario, Orlando, Florida, Ottawa, Palm Desert, California, Parker Ford, Pennsylvania, Parry Sound, Ontario, Pensacola, Florida, Penticton, British Columbia, Peoria, Illinois, Peterborough, Ontario, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Arizona, Pittsboro, North Carolina, Plattsburg, New York, Portland, Maine, Portland, Oregon, Port Perry, Ontario, Portsmouth, Ohio, Powell River, British Columbia, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Prince George, British Columbia, Qualicum Beach, British Columbia, Quebec City, Racine, Wisconsin, Raleigh, North Carolina, Red Deer, Alberta, Regina, Alberta, Richland Center, Wisconsin, Riverview, New Brunswick, Rockford, Illinois, Rolla, Missouri, Sackville, New Brunswick, St. Augustine, Florida, St. Catharines, Ontario, St. Charles, Louisiana, St. Joseph, Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri, St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Petersburg, Florida, Saguenay, Quebec, Salem, Oregon, Salmon Arm, British Columbia, Salt Lake City, Salt Spring Island, Sacramento, California, San Antonio, Texas, San Diego, California, Sandpoint, Idaho, San Francisco, San Jose, California, San Luis Obispo, California, Santa Barbara, California, Santa Cruz, California, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Santa Monica, California, Sarasota, Florida, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, Savannah, Georgia, Seattle, Sherbrooke, Silver City, New Mexico, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Sitka. Alaska, Sonora, California, South Bend, South Haven, Michigan, Spokane, Washington, Springfield, Missouri, Starkville, Mississippi, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Sudbury, Ontario, Summertown, Tennessee, Sydney, Nova Scotia, Tacoma, Washington, Tallahassee, Florida, Taos, New Mexico, Tehachapi, California, Temple, Thornbury, Ontario, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Tofino, British Columbia, Toronto, Trois-Rivières, Quebec, Truro, Nova Scotia, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Tucson, Uxbridge, Ontario, Valdosta, Georgia, Vallejo, California, Vancouver, British Columbia, Vancouver, Washington, Victoria, British Columbia, Vineyard Haven, Massachusetts, Watertown, New York, Wausau, Wisconsin, Waterloo, West Palm Beach, Florida, Westbank, British Columbia, Whitehall, Michigan, Whitehorse, Yukon, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Williamsburg, Virginia, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, Williamstown, Massachusetts, Wilmington, Delaware, Windsor, Ontario, Winnipeg, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Yakima, Washington, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, York, Pennsylvania, Youngstown, Ohio

Oceania:

Adelaide, Alice Springs, Armidale, Auckland, Bellingen, Brisbane, Bundaberg, Byron Bay, Cairns, Canberra, Central Coast, Christchurch, Dannevirke, Darwin, Dunedin, Forster-Tuncurry, Geelong, Gisborne, Greymouth, Hamilton, Hastings, Hobart, Kelowna, Kempsey, Launceston, Lismore, Maroochydore, Melbourne, Motueka, Nambucca Heads, Nelson, Newcastle, Noosa, Opotiki, Palmerston North, Perth, Rockhampton, Queensland, Rotorua, Saint Helens, Strahan, Sydney, Takaka, Tamworth, New South Wales, Taree, Tauranga, Thames, Timaru, Ulladulla, Wagga Wagga, Wanganui, Wellington, Westport, Whakatane, Whangarei, Wollongong Antarctica: McMurdo Station

TOTAL: 793 locales[4] (http://************/6ax3j)

If any violation occurred, it would be the US/Uk/France establishment of no-fly zones and using this opportunity to bomb Iraq during the intervening years of the end of the Gulf war and the invasion of Iraq in 2003:

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 does not specifically mention no-fly zones. The overflights could therefore be interpreted as being illegal with respect to international law. Regardless of the legal status, the northern no-fly zone is often credited for giving the parts of the Kurdish region of Iraq de-facto independence after the Gulf War.

Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait!

Holdonaminnit.

Are you trying to say that Saddam was the good guy, and his fair and just and non-genocidal treatment of the Kurds should not have been interfered with?

And I think you were crazy before. You make Herpower and Jesussaves look about as extreme as a pebble.

I have posted tons of links in this thread and you are trying to side track the issue.

You are totally missing the point. You have a one track mind trying to blame a whole bunch of countries with arming Iraq...that is not the issue here. The issue is that the US and UK illegally invaded Iraq.

PS....if you can't be bothered to backtrack on the thread, that would be your problem, not mine.....happy searching.

And the counterpoint has been made time and time again, ad nauseum, that the war was not, and could not have been illegal. The United Nations is an organization created by treaty, and as such, it is valid only so long as it is convenient. The general assembly is ruled by the third world, and the security council is a joke. The veto powers stand in such a way that any significant action is impossible, because there will always be one country against. When the resolutions passed by the UN are routinely laughed at and ignored by anyone who doesn't agree with them, can you really believe that there is any relevance left in this archaic, all-but-defunct organization?

I'll be a lawyer in a year or so.. After that, if I and a friend decide to try Fred Flintstone for treason, could democracynow.com write the headline "America Tries Flintstone For Treason" for me? I mean, I'd be a lawyer then, right? Doesn't that mean I represent 300 million Americans, the way this article calls a few lawyers in Iraq representatives of 25 million Iraqis? Good! :)

I'm with you, that headline really %~@ me off.

I say good. I'll be the first one to run down my street cheering and laughing if they get convicted.

You'd probably be the only one in a place like Houston Texas

Why is everyone always picking on France?

Ok, lets see who was involved in these protests:

This wasn't just a localized protest?



I was referring to the government itself. I acknowledged later the individual protesters

I have posted tons of links in this thread and you are trying to side track the issue.

You are totally missing the point. You have a one track mind trying to blame a whole bunch of countries with arming Iraq.

I don't have to try. It's a proven fact. Despite your tunnel vision.



1.You obviously just read right past my post? The US aided and abetted Mr. Hussein. Are you oblivious to that?

You = tunnel vision = oblivious.

2.Ahhh yes the dirty work:
February 1982
Despite objections from Congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries and helps the Iraqis in their war against Iran.

Not singling out any particular country are we? Tunnel Vision #2.

3.Hmmm lets see now.....US sells WMD to Iraq.......Iraq uses them on Iran....thats OK. Iraq uses them on their own people.....still ok by US who blocks UN Resolution trying to condemn the action.US says that Saddam has WMD and is a threat to the US.....US decides to invade Iraq without permission from UN Security Council.
US sells WMD to Pakistan.....and the beat goes on?
If anyone needs a reality check, it would be you? :eek:

You have a one track mind trying to blame the US with arming Iraq.


..that is not the issue here. The issue is that the US and UK illegally invaded Iraq.
*yawn*

Which you devolved into stating BS that the US sold WMDs to Iraq and Pakistan! Care to explain why Iraqi scientists couldn't use the bio-samples sent to the Baghdad University as WMDs? Or would that take some intelligence on your part?

Resolution 687 does not apply, as it is included as reference in Resolution 1441.

It is referenced because it provides a context for the new resolution, and does apply. It was not struck down, just referenced.

As far as the inspectors are concerned, they were in Iraq when Bush stated that the US was going to invade regardless, so they left.....Saddam didn't kick them out. BTW, the inspectors did not find any WMD while they were there. Read Blix's report about the high level of Iraqi co-operation with the UN inspection teams.

I was referring to 1998. Saddam kicked them out in 1998, which in and of itself should have led to immediate action by the UN.

Read the news story by Scott Ritter prior to the US invasion of Iraq.

Scott Ritter is not a credible source, so I don't accept his words as proof of anything. BTW, when he left Iraq he said there were weapons.

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;

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;


He was provided a final opportunity which he squandered by being obstinate, uncooperative, and by submitting false information in his final accounting of the prohibited materials. He was in material breach of the resolution which should have led to immediate action by the UN.


Ohhhh you forgot Article 10 (which is extremely important):

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

It's not important because we supported the UN in all these ways.

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;

Note: this is where the US was unable to get the other Security Council members to back the US & UK decision to use force against Iraq. The US/UK invasion of Iraq is clearly a violation of this clause of the Resolution!!

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;

The UN has an obligation to member states to act if it thinks we are in violation of international law. The US and UK were acting in self interest, and in the interest of the safety and security of the world. The opponents of the invasion are the very same who benefitted from the policy of complacency, and I reject their votes on the merits. For 12 long years the UN made threats and demands of Iraq, and for 12 years Saddam thumbed his nose at the international community. By not passing the resolution, the UN was basically saying that they were not going to follow through on what the had said. Words, if not backed up by actions are ineffectual, and lower the credibility of those who speak them.

The US again props up the UN, and finally back up the threats that were beginning to sound empty. If the UN wants to remain a legitimate part of world government, it needs to stop pontificating and start acting.

I really think that there needs to be some sort of independant judiciary, someone who can moniter the US other than its self and the international media circus who are more interested in filling the spots between adverts so they can have adverts.:(

The plain fact is that the US needs not only to be fair, but to be seen to be fair. There should be some independant body designed to inquire into matters like the prision abuse and torture claims for the sake of, not only Iraq, but for the allied troops in Iraq. They need to have their names cleared so they are not under the soiled veil of the minority who have perpituated crimes in Iraq.

Talk about a power trip. I assume this independant body wouldn't only police the actions of the US, but the better part of the world as well. Afterall, the US isn't the only country capable of violating international law... So what you wind up with is a small group of people with incredible political means, and the beginning of a global world order with a shotty foundation for democracy.

Try these links on for size.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Mar/11-723838.html

They are government sites, but they are not just a simple denial. They have credible support and decent arguments.


Lets start with the Mark-77 Incendiary bomb.
From the first site: "First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003.

Second, as noted above, no Mark-77 firebombs were used in Fallujah."

Someone got their conspiracy theories mixed up. No Mark-77s in Fallujah.


On to chemical weapons:
From the second site: "These reports claimed that an Iraqi Health Ministry official, Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, had announced at a March 1 press conference that the Iraqi Health Ministry had compiled a report confirming the use of mustard gas and nerve gas in Fallujah. On March 8, Dr. Shaker Al-Aineji, the Director-General of the Medical Operation Department of the Iraqi Ministry of Health stated that no one named Khalid ash-Shaykhli worked for the ministry, and that no such report existed."

The "Iraqi Health Ministry" did not have any reports accusing the US of the use of chemical weapons. Whoever pulled that stunt was not a qualified authoratative figure, but rather someone trying to injure the image of the US.

The claims of these weapons' use were displayed on the site aljazweera.com, an imitator NOT affiliated with Al Jazeera.


By the way, Canuckheaven have you given any thought to ANSWERING MY QUESTION?
Unfortunately, the links you provided come from questionable sources?

If any violation occurred, it would be the US/Uk/France establishment of no-fly zones and using this opportunity to bomb Iraq during the intervening years of the end of the Gulf war and the invasion of Iraq in 2003:

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 does not specifically mention no-fly zones. The overflights could therefore be interpreted as being illegal with respect to international law. Regardless of the legal status, the northern no-fly zone is often credited for giving the parts of the Kurdish region of Iraq de-facto independence after the Gulf War.

We bombed targets in the no-fly zones that were:
a) tageting our patrols, and
b) shooting at our patrols.

I don't see how that is "repressing Iraqi civillians".

And the flights could also be interpreted as allowable per the cease-fire agreement.

Fron the UN Charter:

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.

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Since the US did not receive a directive from the Security Council, the US violated the Charter.

*reads over the UN Charter*

"Yep! Nothing stating we can't wage war! Sir, you are free to fire as soon as the Authorization from Congress is in place."

"Very Well"

"Sir! Congress has approved the use of force."

"Fire at will Commander."

Unfortunately, the links you provided come from questionable sources?
While the site may be questionable, the information presented within is not.

In fact, the site does not put forth ANY new information at all. Every article mentioned is referenced with a link. Every site I have seen confirms that incendiary weapons are only banned from use against civilians, not military targets. The false "Iraqi Health Ministry" stunt is not disputed.

If the site simply said "The US has used no chemical weapons in Iraq", you would be absolutely right to reject that statement based on bias and lack of support. You are free to question the US Government's categorical denial of chemical or banned weapon use (as quoted in the articles I linked to).

However, these documents are not simple unsupported claims. They are backed up, even if the publisher might be biased.

I rather like this.. its like giving a quick lesson in international law and the importance there of... I knew i shoulda been a teacher :D

Master,

I just read a list of treaties and not a one says we given up our right to wage war. Does that mean we can go after any country?

Fallujah now is the safest city in Iraq (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8550183&posted=1#post8550183)

Well then, maybe crime does pay!

(Foolish liberals. Bad liberal! Bad! )

... this shows a clear lacking of historical knoweldge.. you would well know the so called "attack" on the american ship during the Vietnam era was staged by the government so that they could enter the war with the pretext of protecting their military vessels. Infact the attack never actually occured..

Yep, the attack never occured! Makes me wonder why we were there anyway.

... uhh I must have forgot it.. when was the last time the US was invaded the Mexican American War? you know techinically a terrorist attack dosn't constitute an invasion.. is suggest you consult your dictionary on that one. And in times of invasion.. one does not nessesarly worry about things like the health of the economy.. one tends to focus on, you know the essentials... like survival.

You could say the American Civil War! The Confederate States did invade the Union. :D

:rolleyes: you clearly knew he was speaking of governmental forces.. and besides protesting is hardly anything substanial.. If the world REALLY wanted to stop the US they would have... afterall normal citizens could get a simple thing like a landmine treaty ban passed when no world government supported it... you think they would beable to stop a war when every (i use the word every very loosely) world government "opposed" it.

Here here my friend.

I did answer your question. Besides it being illegal to invade Iraq, according to the UN Charter, the fact that the US had ulterior motives for invading Iraq is what concerns many people around the world, including many in the US.
I still don't see how that answers my question. The legality of the war doesn't enter into this, I asked specifically about our support of Saddam.

ULTERIOR: One could easily argue that Iraq's oil and seat on OPEC form ulterior motives, for they are motives "going beyond what is openly said or shown and especially what is proper" (Merriam-Webster Online: "ulterior").

However, I don't think that fixing our mistake by supporting Saddam fits that definition. On the contrary, while we don't trumpet the fact that we made a mistake in the first place, it should be a positive development that we are acting to fix it, not something improper.

Besides, other countries had ulterior motives in keeping Saddam in power, as others have stated previously.

As I understand it, your argument is basically: Since we are reluctant to openly admit our mistake in supporting him, we shouldn't have removed him from power?

Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait!

Holdonaminnit.

Are you trying to say that Saddam was the good guy, and his fair and just and non-genocidal treatment of the Kurds should not have been interfered with?

And I think you were crazy before. You make Herpower and Jesussaves look about as extreme as a pebble.
Did I ever mention that I liked Saddam Hussein? NO!! Do you really think that I think he is the good guy here? If you do then you are wrong. However, it is crystal clear that Saddam has been nothing but a puppet for the US, and if you don't think so, perhaps you should read up on the wonderful realtionship between Saddam and the then government of the US, lead by Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and lets not forget Donald Rumsfeld.

So many people have defended the death and destruction of thousands of innocent Iraqis in order to capture one madman? What about the devestation to the country itself and the economy? So many people around this rickety planet see the Iraq War for what it truly is.....an imperialistic endeavour by a corrupt administration, that will ultimately benefit the large corporations, the oil companies, and their shareholders. This isn't about low oil prices, it is about protecting the future supply of oil to the US. This isn't about "freedom" and "democracy", and it certainly wasn't about Iraq being a threat to the US. That charge in itself is truly laughable.

I truly believe that the US is more threatened by the people of Saudi Arabia, you know, the country that was the birthplace of 15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked the US on Sept. 11, 2001. How many of those terrorists came from Iraq? ZERO!!

When I was growing up as a kid, I had tons of respect for the US. I remember being in History class when it was announced over the PA that Kennedy had been assassinated.....the class was devestated and many of the girls were crying. Although I was shocked when 9/11 happened, I agreed with the Coalition attack on Afghanistan, but when the US invaded Iraq, I was equally shocked and I am truly saddened that the US has chosen to go down this path. Many more innocent people will die and the threat of terrorism has increased.

George W. Bush and his administration have squandered the goodwill that came out of the terrorist attacks on the US and that is a shame.

I am glad to see that public opinion is now running against them on the viability of this war, and perhaps it may stop them from attacking the next country on their list?

Look up sovereign in your dictionary......that is not Iraq. The US still holds sway with all the troops and of course lets not forget that the US hijacked the Iraqi economy with Bremer's Orders. You really are behind in your history?

Actually it is sovereign! However, your Canadian and against the Iraq war so I will forgive you.

Many would challenge whether the elections were indeed "democratic", especially when the US dictated when the election would take place, guarded the polling stations, most Sunnis didn't take part, and many suggestions that food rations would be withheld unless people voted.

We weren't even at the polls CH! We were away from the polls but were protecting them because all the Iraqis had to do was hollar and we would be there. Guess what? We really weren't needed! The Sunnis have now learned the error of that and those sunni Iraqi terrorists are even now looking for a way out.

While the US builds 14 "enduring" bases in Iraq, because they plan to stay for a long time.
60 bucks a gallon?

Close enough. Though we are still paying 2 bucks a gallon at the pump? Where's the oil at?

Well NK is already in the "axis of evil", but are working overtime to develop nukes especially after witnessing what happens to countries like Iraq who didn't have any.

Because they are running scared. Besides, the accuracy of missiles isn't that good. And as my Intro to Global Politics Professor is so fond of saying "I'm from Missouri! Show me"

Meanwhile, the US adds to the poliferation by selling F16 fighter jets to Pakistan which can carry a nuclear payload. :eek:

And a possible deal for F-18s for India :eek:

Do you honestly believe that Congress would have approved the removal of Hussein, just by reason of regime change? Of course they wouldn't....that is why the trumped up charges of WMD and connections to Al Queda.
Heres a better argument of yours that I just found, but it's still not good enough.

As you point out, the argument 'fixing our mistake' is not enough to convince Congress, the Nation, and the world of the need to depose Saddam. You're right about that.

However, if it could be used (albeit unsuccessfully) to convince Congress to support the war, how is it that you so often use the argument to oppose the war?

Unfortunately, the links you provided come from questionable sources?


Pot-kettle-black!!

The US again props up the UN, and finally back up the threats that were beginning to sound empty. If the UN wants to remain a legitimate part of world government, it needs to stop pontificating and start acting.

bah! I say allow them their delusion of significance, it keeps the member nations happy; then the rest of the world that *doesn't* live with its head in a paper bag can get on with the business of running the world properly (and I do mean business, in the very capitalist sense).

Ahhh yes the dirty work:

February 1982
Despite objections from Congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries and helps the Iraqis in their war against Iran.

November 1983
Secretary of State George Schultz is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are using chemical weapons against the Iranians, but a National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran.

November 26, 1983
National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 on "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War" says the U.S. priority is to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, not to protect human rights or watch for chemical weapons.

December 20, 1983
Reagan presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld meets with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

January 20, 1984
U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz designates Iran as sponsor of international terrorism.

July 1984
CIA begins providing Iraq intelligence necessary to organize its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

June 18, 1985
At a press conference, Reagan promises the U.S. will never submit to terrorists' demands.

July 18, 1985
Reagan approves a plan to sell arms to the Iranians to help win the release of hostages held in Beirut by Iranian terrorists.

March 21, 1986
U.S. refuses to sign a U.N. Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

May 1986
The U.S. Department of Commerce begins to license 70 biological exports to Iraq, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

August 27, 1986
Reagan signs an anti-terrorism law banning arms sales to countries that support terrorism.

August 1988
Iran and Iraq reach a ceasefire in their war.

Either your memory is conveniently short or you forgot about all the "dirty work" that has happened in Iraq with the US's blessing? :eek:


You forgot some very important prelude information, of course being a liberal and a canuck it is not at all suprising.

1979- Russia invades Afghanistan, The Shah of Iran is thrown out of power causing the Ayatollah comes to power with the American embassy being held hostage. Nicaragua fell to the communist, with Cuba's help I might add,

Meanwhile while this all happened our Dear idiot Carter sat back and did nothing. In fact he sped along the demise of the Shah, Who was at least friendly to America even if he was less than desirable in other areas. Why was Carter against the Shah? Well the Shah decided to hold military tribunals in his own country. Hmm what was it that the useful idiots told us all about Iraq? Oh yeah "We should respect the Sovereignty of that nation" but here we can see that Carter actually was against this and tried to impose his own will on another country. It can be said that through Carter's and those of the appeaser’s weakness caused Saddam to become the problem he was. You see without all this happening in Iran, Saddam wouldn't have been tempted to attack Iran. Who at the time had a much larger and better equipped Army?

Of course Carter could have done the right thing and kept American interests above his perverted notion of appeasement. In 1979 the Ayatollah started to purge the country of minorities, of course maybe this is ok to the liberals as it was Christians and we all know how evil they are compared to the Communist, who killed an estimated 25 million people in the 30 years prior to this, or the Islamic extremists that wish nothing more to blow themselves up for 72 virgins. Oh wait I guess the 72 virgins are tempting to a liberal as they never get that lucky with 1 woman. But I digress yet again.

These purging left the country in disarray and the military leaders were not happy with the way the revolution went. Saddam came to power in June of 1979; The Shah fell the January before. Saddam recognized this weakness and tried to exploit it. What he felt would take a year took 8 years and millions of lives. With Carters blunder in Iran it left the US without an ally in the region. So when the war broke out and we knew that the Iranian terrorists were standing and not really sure where Saddam stood. Reagan Chose what he felt was the lesser of two evils. Not only did Reagan choose Iraq but other countries as well.

So if you wish to blame the US for the rise of Saddam, at least have the balls to put the blame fully on a Liberal POS president that destroyed any chance to keep stability in that region in the late 70's.

So either your memory is very faulty or you look through things with rosed color glasses that attempts to make Conservatives the true evil ones. When in fact all things that have happened to America that were truly horrible were done during a Liberal President term.

Did I ever mention that I liked Saddam Hussein? NO!! Do you really think that I think he is the good guy here? If you do then you are wrong. However, it is crystal clear that Saddam has been nothing but a puppet for the US, and if you don't think so, perhaps you should read up on the wonderful realtionship between Saddam and the then government of the US, lead by Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and lets not forget Donald Rumsfeld.

Once again you do not answer my question. Why should the fact that we supported Saddam in the past prevent us from removing him from power today?

So many people have defended the death and destruction of thousands of innocent Iraqis in order to capture one madman? What about the devestation to the country itself and the economy?

What, you mean for the thirty five years Saddam was in charge, he was running a wealthy and prosperous nation? Yes, as we all remember, Iraq's healthcare, road, and water systems were all extensive, even competeing with Western Europe and the USA for quality! No, there's no possible way we might be trying to undo three and a half decades of corrupt rule - and Saddam sure as hell wasn't funelling aid money into building palaces for himself!

So many people around this rickety planet see the Iraq War for what it truly is.....an imperialistic endeavour by a corrupt administration, that will ultimately benefit the large corporations, the oil companies, and their shareholders. This isn't about low oil prices, it is about protecting the future supply of oil to the US. This isn't about "freedom" and "democracy", and it certainly wasn't about Iraq being a threat to the US. That charge in itself is truly laughable.

Even if your insane conspiracy theories were true (And frankly it's more likely The Twilight Zone is a documentary.), it would not change the fact that democracy has been spread in Iraq. Or is a 60%+ voter turnout insufficient for you? It seems to be around what Canada's had for some time now.

I truly believe that the US is more threatened by the people of Saudi Arabia, you know, the country that was the birthplace of 15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked the US on Sept. 11, 2001. How many of those terrorists came from Iraq? ZERO!!

Well, you see, we knew we had no chance of negotiating with Saddam. We've had twelve years of not very much except UN pontifications and Saddam's laying back with a smug smirk. He was also insane to the degree Stalin was; not someone you can negotiate with. Given the US's close ties to Saudi Arabia, I suspect it makes more sense to try and talk them out of it, you know? Kinda like the way Gaddafi disarmed after Iraq, instead of our having to take Libya over? I really can't figure it out;

"Attacking Iraq is wrong! Why didn't you attack such-andsuch?"

Try a little understanding of politics.

When I was growing up as a kid, I had tons of respect for the US. I remember being in History class when it was announced over the PA that Kennedy had been assassinated.....the class was devestated and many of the girls were crying. Although I was shocked when 9/11 happened, I agreed with the Coalition attack on Afghanistan, but when the US invaded Iraq, I was equally shocked and I am truly saddened that the US has chosen to go down this path. Many more innocent people will die and the threat of terrorism has increased.

Given all your grandstanding and links to posts about the terrible things the US has done, I find it hard to believe this single action of war in Iraq changed your mind so drastically. I believe the Iraq war was the right thing to do for no other reason than for the Iraqi people - and I believe good can come of it. I can accept, however, that a lot of people need to hate the US and blame it for all the ill in the world, so perhaps they should have been less hasty in declaring war, whilst France got her vast 'investments' out of the country.

George W. Bush and his administration have squandered the goodwill that came out of the terrorist attacks on the US and that is a shame.

What's a shame is that the liberals of Europe are so reluctant to see that the war in Iraq is not some end-of-the-world affair, it's legality can only be questioned if you make a series of unlikely assumptions (Which has already been covered here.), and they are apparently blind to the fact that the very presence of terrorism we're fighting in Iraq proves there was indeed a threat.

I am glad to see that public opinion is now running against them on the viability of this war, and perhaps it may stop them from attacking the next country on their list?

I'm not sure where you're getting your sources from. France? Germany? democracynow.org? Because as I recall, America voted Bush back in with a fairly large slice of the votes, yanno?

And I sure as hell hope Bush continues to pursue terrorism wherever it is to be found, because if not, we've got some problems. Without a major paradigm shift in US politics - I'm talking to the point where the Libertarians or Greens get elected here - nobody's opinion of the US will change. And I don't find it likely that many would care even if the US did pull out of everywhere (Execpt for the economic harm and lack of military protection, of course.), and they'd hate them all the same.

Unfortunately, the links you provided come from questionable sources?

Canuck, I posted the official After Action Report from Fallujah.

No air dropped fire bombs were used.

However, insurgents WERE burned alive. The procedure was simple.

They were holed up in the basement of a structure.
They were asked repeatedly in Arabic to surrender and come out.
They refused.

The standard procedure was to throw a white phosphorus mortar shell in with them, primed with some C-4 so that the shell would explode after being thrown in. Thus, the people in the basement burned alive without destroying the structure.

It's perfectly legal to use white phosphorus on combatants - people who shoot at you who decline to surrender.

I posted the WHOLE After Action Report and I guess you declined to read what is an OFFICIAL account - including the official methods used to get violent recalcitrant insurgents out of a basement.

Ahhh yes the dirty work:
February 1982
Despite objections from Congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries and helps the Iraqis in their war against Iran.
November 1983
Secretary of State George Schultz is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are using chemical weapons against the Iranians, but a National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran.
November 26, 1983
National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 on "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War" says the U.S. priority is to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, not to protect human rights or watch for chemical weapons.
December 20, 1983
Reagan presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld meets with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.
January 20, 1984
U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz designates Iran as sponsor of international terrorism.
July 1984
CIA begins providing Iraq intelligence necessary to organize its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.
June 18, 1985
At a press conference, Reagan promises the U.S. will never submit to terrorists' demands.
July 18, 1985
Reagan approves a plan to sell arms to the Iranians to help win the release of hostages held in Beirut by Iranian terrorists.
March 21, 1986
U.S. refuses to sign a U.N. Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons.
May 1986
The U.S. Department of Commerce begins to license 70 biological exports to Iraq, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.
August 27, 1986
Reagan signs an anti-terrorism law banning arms sales to countries that support terrorism.
August 1988
Iran and Iraq reach a ceasefire in their war.

Either your memory is conveniently short or you forgot about all the "dirty work" that has happened in Iraq with the US's blessing?


For those that want the truth and not a CanuckHeaven version.....

1977-1990. France sell Iraq (23) Mirage F-1C Fighter aircraft; (85) Mirage F-1 Fighter aircraft (various versions); (18) SA-342K/L Gazelle Light helicopters (assembled in Egypt); (5) Super Etendard FGA aircraft for use with AM-39 anti-ship missiles against Iranian warships and oil tankers in the Persian Gulf; (85) AMX-GCT 155mm Self-propelled guns; (100) AMX-10P IFV’s; (150) ERC-90 Sagaie Armoured cars; (115) M-3 VTT APC’s; (2) Rasit Battlefield radars; (113) Roland Mobile SAM systems; (1) TRS-2100 Tiger Surveillance radar (Fitted in Iraq on an Il-76 transport aircraft designated “Baghdad-1”); (6) TRS-2230/15 Surveillance radars; (280) AM-39 Exocet Anti-ship missiles For Mirage F-1E and Super Etendard aircraft; (36) AM-39 Exocet Anti-ship missile For AS-332 helicopters; (450) ARMAT Anti-radar missiles For Mirage F-1E FGA aircraft; (240) AS-30L ASM’s For Mirage F-1E FGA aircraft; (1,000) HOT Anti-tank missile For SA-342K helicopters and VCR-TH tank destroyers; (534) R-550 Magic-1 AAM’s For Mirage F-1C fighter aircraft; (2,260) Roland-2 SAM’s; (300) Super-530F AAM’s For Mirage F-1C fighter aircraft.

1978-1990. Soviet union sells Iraq (33) Il-76M/Candid-B Transport/tanker aircraft; (37) Mi-17/Hip-H Helicopters; (12) Mi-24D/Mi-25/Hind-D Combat helicopters; (30) Mi-8TV/Hip-F Helicopter; (61) MiG-21bis/Fishbed-N Fighter aircraft; (50) MiG-23BN/Flogger-H FGA aircraft; (30) MiG-25P/Foxbat-A Fighter aircraft; (8) MiG-25RB/Foxbat-B Reconnaissance; (41) MiG-29/Fulcrum-A Fighter aircraft; (46) Su-22/Fitter-H/J/K FGA aircraft; (25) Su-24MK/Fencer-D Bomber aircraft; (84) Su-25/Frogfoot-A Ground attack aircraft; (180) 2A36 152mm Towed guns; (100) 2S1 122mm Self-propelled guns; (100) 2S3 152mm Self-propelled guns; (10) 2S4 240mm Self-propelled mortars; (560) BM-21 122mm MRL; (576) D-30 122mm Towed guns; (576) M-46 130mm Towed guns; (10) SS-1 Scud/9P117M SSM launchers; (100) BRDM-2 Sagger-equipped tank destroyers; (200) PT-76 Light tanks; (60) SA-13/9K35 Strela-10 self-propelled AA systems; (160) SA-9/9P31 self-propelled AA systems; (2,150) T-62 Main battle tanks; (25) SA-6a/2K12 Kvadrat SAM systems; (80) SA-8b/9K33M Osa-AK Mobile SAM systems; (960) SA-13 Gopher/9M37 SAM’s; (100) SA-14 Gremlin/Strela-3 Portable SAM; (250) SA-16 Gimlet/Igla-1 Portable SAM’s; (840) SA-6a Gainful/3M9 SAM’s; (6,500) SA-7 Grail/Strela-2 Portable SAM’s; (1,290) SA-8b Gecko/9M33M SAM’s; (1,920) SA-9 Gaskin/9M31 SAM’s; (800) SS-1c Scud-B/R-17 SSM’s; (40) SS-1c Scud-B/R-17 SSM’s.

1978. Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov is assassinated using an “umbrella gun” that shoots a Ricin laced BB into his thigh. The attack is carried out by the KGB.

1978-1990. Germany (FRG), sells Iraq (28) BK-117 Helicopters (intended for VIP transport and Search & Rescue); (20) Bo-105C Light helicopters.

1979-1989. Brazil sells Iraq (67) Astros-2 MRL’s; (350) EE-11 Urutu APCs; (280) EE-3 Jararaca Reconnaissance vehicles; (1,026) EE-9 Cascavel Armoured cars; (13) Astros AV-UCF Fire control radars for use with the MRLs.

1979-1989. Switzerland sells Iraq (2) PC-6B Turbo Porter Light transport aircraft; (52) PC-7 Turbo Trainer Trainer aircraft; (20) PC-9 Trainer aircraft.

1979, April. Sverdlosk military industrial complex suffers a major Bio-weapons accident when a lethal cloud of weaponized Anthrax floats over a nearby village. An estimated 1,000 people eventually die. The soviet military seizes control of the area and begins clean-up operations. The incident is first reported the following October in a Frankfurt based Russian émigré newspaper. Later the next year, eyewitness accounts appear in Bild Zeitung, and intelligence sources confirm the accident which is denied by the Soviets, who claim the deaths were due to a minor outbreak of anthrax from infected meat. In 1992 Boris Yeltsin admits there was an accident. The later, “official” death toll is 66.

1979, July. Bakr resignes. Saddam Hussein takes over the Presidency of Iraq. Within days, five fellow members of the Revolutionary Command Council are accused of involvement in a coup attempt. They and 17 others are summarily executed.

1979, December. Soviets invade Afghanistan. Before the war, the Afghan population is estimated to have been somewhat more than fifteen million people. Over five million (a third of the country), became refugees, mostly in Pakistan and Iran; the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees called this ``migratory genocide.'' Millions more became refugees within the country, swelling the population of Kabul. Another million people are killed, either in fighting, or in massacres by Soviet troops, or by sheer starvation. Land-mines are effectively employed to make much of the countryside uninhabitable; also to make tens of thousands of people cripples. In a display of really macabre ingenuity, the Soviets take to scattering brightly-colored plastic toys, which explode when picked up by children. There is considerable evidence that, at least in some districts, the Soviets engage in deliberate campaigns of extermination, and make use of chemical weapons.

1979. Reports begin to filter out ot Laos of possible soviet bio-weapons use. Hmong tribesmen report that helicopters flown by Soviet-backed forces are spraying villages with a mysterious substance that causes horrific burns and lesions on the skin, and internal bleeding. Refugees call it “yellow rain ” (trichothecene mycotoxins). Later, reports of this same substance and others filter out of Afghanistan. Attacks in Southeast and Central Asia reportedly cause thousands of deaths between 1974 and 1981. Experts are split on the veracity of reports and the type of agent.

1980. Smallpox is considered to have been “eliminated” in the world population.

1980. Denmark sells Iraq (3) Al Zahraa Class Landing ships.

1980-1984. Italy sells Iraq (2) A-109 Hirundo Light helicopters; (6) S-61 Helicopters For VIP transport; 1 Stromboli Class Support ship.

1980’s. Soviet forces in Afghanistan employ chemical weapons against Muhajidin and civilians in areas under their control. Nerve and mico-toxin agents are the prime suspects. Their use is denied.

1980, September. Saddam renounces a border treaty with Iran in 1975. The treaty ceded half of the Shatt al-Arab waterway to Iran.

1980, September 22. The armed forces of Iraq launch an invasion against Iran. The Iraqi army, trained and influenced by Soviet advisers, has organic chemical warfare units and possesses a wide variety of delivery systems. When neither side achieves dominance, the war quickly stalemates. To stop the human-wave attacks by the Iranians, Iraq employs home-produced chemical agents as a defensive measure against the ill-prepared Iranians.
The first reported use of chemical weapons is in November 1980 (probably CS). For the next several years, reports circulate of additional chemical attacks.

“During the war with Iran, I remember telling someone [that] Khomeini isn't the only person who talks to god. Saddam Hussein thinks he talks to god. He has a message--he has to lead Iraq, make it a model for the Arab countries and then attract the rest of the Arab countries and become the sole Arab leader of modern times.” - Said Aburish, Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge.

1980-88. Chemical weapons are used extensively during Iran-Iraq war. Most are used by Iraq. Saddam is also believed to have used them against his own people, primarily Kurdish and Shiia minorities. First use during the war is by Iraq. By 1985 Iraq is producing 1,000 tons of various chemical weapons agents annually.
During the war, Saddam appoints his cousin, Ali Hasan al-Majid, as his deputy in the north. In 1987-88, al-Majid led the "Anfal" campaign of attacks on Kurdish villages. All villages within 20 kilometers of the Iranian border are ruthlessly destroyed, and many are attacked with chemical weapons. Amnesty International estimates that more than 100,000 Kurds were killed or “disappeared” during this period.
During the first half of the war the United States provides Iraq with limited military assistance in the form of satelite imagry of Iranian military dispostions and troop concentrations. Assistance is ended when their use of chemical weapons is confirmed.

1981-1984. Romania sells Iraq (150) T-55 Main battle tanks (transferred via Egypt); (256) T-55 Main battle tanks.

1981-1988. China sells Iraq (4) B-6 Bomber aircraft; (40) F-6 Fighter aircraft; (80) F-7A Fighter aircraft (Assembled in Egypt and transferred via Jordan); (50) Type-83 152mm Towed guns; (1,300) Type-59/T-54 Main battle tanks; (25) Type-653 Armored Recon Vehicles; (1,300) Type-69-II Main battle tanks; (650) YW-531C & YW-701/Type-63 APC; (100) CAS-1 Kraken/C-601 Anti-ship missiles For Tu-16/B-6 bomber aircraft; (1,000) HN-5A Portable SAMs.

1981-1988. UK sells Iraq (29) Chieftain Armoured Recon Vehicles; (10) Cymbaline Mk-1 Arty locating radars.

1981-1989. Egypt sells Iraq (80) EMB-312 Tucano Trainer aircraft; (18) SA-342K/L Gazelle Light helicopters; (300) BM-21 122mm MRLs (multiple rocket launcher); (210) D-30 122mm Towed guns; (96) M-46 130mm Towed guns; (300) Sakr-36 122mm MRLs; (250) T-55 Main battle tanks (Ex-Egyptian Army).

1981-1989. Spain sells Iraq (24) Bo-105C Light helicopters; (2) Al Fao Self-propelled guns.

1981. Israeli jets bomb the French-supplied 40-megawatt Osirak research reactor in Iraq. Experts agree that if this had not been done, Iraq would have had a functioning nuclear weapon by the time of the Gulf War. Iraqi scientists had planned, not to divert the existing French-supplied highly enriched nuclear fuel (enough for one bomb), but rather to blanket the reactor with natural or depleted uranium, which would produce plutonium. That would have made it possible to continue producing, eventually allowing repeated bomb production.

1982. The Soviets build a new germ warfare facility in Stepnogorsk, Kazakhstan to produce their new, more lethal variant of Anthrax. Named the Scientific Experimental and Production Base, it is the most advanced facility of its type ever built, and the only such facility outside of the Russian heartland. In 1991, Kazakhstan gains independence and in 1995 allows U.S. inspectors access to the abandoned facility.
Andy Weber, the chief inspector, calculates that at full capacity the plant could produce 300 tons of Anthrax in a single 220 day production cycle. More than enough to wipe out the entire population of the United States. Stepnogorsk is only one of six such facilities operated by the Soviet Union.
One reason Kazakhstan allows U.S. inspectors to visit, is their anger over the environmental disasters left over from the soviets WMD programs. The Russians used Kazakhstan and neighboring Uzbekistan for open-air tests on advanced chemical, germ and nuclear weapons. These tests have left many in these regions with radiation-related cancers and a host of debilitating diseases.
Vozrozhdeniye Island in the Aral Sea was used for open air tests of biological and chemical weapons on thousands of test animals. These tests also killed as many as 30,000 Taiga Antelope on the Usturt Plateau in western Uzbekistan which lies downwind of Vozrozhdeniye, not to mentions thousands of other game animals and livestock in the region.

1982. Austria sells Iraq (200) GHN-45 Towed guns. Officially ordered by Jordan, but illegally delivered to Iraq.

1982. Libya sells Iraq (400) EE-9 Cascavel Armoured cars.

1982. Iraq also establishes Muthanna State Establishment, also known as al-Muthanna, and operated under the front name of Iraq's State Establishment for Pesticide Production. It has five research and development sections, each tasked to pursue different programs. In addition, the al-Muthanna site is the main chemical agent production facility, and took the lead in weaponizing chemical and biological agents--including all aspects of weapon development and testing in association with the military.

1982-1990. Poland sells Iraq (15) Mi-2/Hoplite Light helicopters; (750) MT-LB APC’s; (400) T-55 Main battle tanks; (500) T-72M1 Main battle tanks.

1982, October 27. Iraq's first operational Scud Missile brigade, equipped with 9 launchers, fires its missiles at Iran. During the war, Iraq fires between 333 and 360 Scud missiles at Iran, 183 at Teheran alone. Iraq is known to have purchased over 1,000 Scud missiles from the Soviets during the war. The Iranians return the favor by firing their own Scuds at Baghdad.

1983, June. Iraq deploys Mustard Gas and uses it against Iran.

1983, November. Iran complains to the United Nations that Iraq is using chemical weapons against its troops.

1984. South Africa sells Iraq (200) G-5 155mm Towed guns.

1984. Iraq begins producing the nerve agent Tabun and deploys it within the year for use against Iran.

1984. 4000 prisoners are executed at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib Prison. 3000 more prisoners are executed at the Mahjar Prison between 1993 and 1998. Women prisoners at Mahjar are routinely raped by their guards.

1984, 1986, 1987. The United Nations dispatches teams of specialists to the area to verify claims of Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iran. The conclusion from all three trips is the same: Iraq is using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. In addition, the second mission also stressed that the use of chemical weapons by Iraq appeared to be increasing despite the publicity of their use. The reports indicated that Mustard agent and the nerve agent Tabun are the primary agents used, and that they were generally delivered in airplane bombs. The third mission reports the use of artillery shells and chemical rockets, and the use of chemical weapons against civilian personnel. The third mission is the only one allowed to visit Iraq.
The Iran–Iraq War fails to reach a military conclusion despite the use of chemical weapons by both sides. Roughly 5% (20,000) of the Iranian casualties are caused by chemical weapons. Many remain hospitalized to this day.

1984, April. Reagan goes public about suspected Soviet use of chemical and biological weapons in southeast asia and Afghanistan. A few days later the Wall Street Journal prints interviews from Soviet émigrés who allege that Moscow is, in fact, conducting a whole range of recombinant DNA experiment--including viruses containing cobra venom genes that would create deadly toxins inside the victims body after infection.
1985. Dr Rihab Taha is selected to head the biological weapons research team at al-Muthanna.

“Dr. Spertzel, it’s not a lie when you are ordered to lie.” - Dr Rihab Taha, response to UNSCOM inspectors when asked why she continued to lie in the face of proof, 1995.

1986. Iraq begins producing Sarin nerve agent.

1986. Baghdad University purchased an assortment of germs from the American Type Culture Collection, for “medical” research.
The collection serves as a global lending library for scientists doing research to combat infectious diseases to improve global health. Overseas customers were required to obtain a Commerce Department export license for the most virulent strains. These licenses had always been a formality since these germs were intended for peaceful research only, and the courtesy was extended to all who asked for legitimate reasons. Moscow, too has a vast collection of infectious diseases.

1987. After admitting for the first time that they possess chemical agents, the Soviets announced the halting of chemical weapons production.

1987, December 16. Production of the M687 binary projectile begins at Pine Bluff Arsenal. This was no small feat considering modern environmental and general public concerns. To resolve political concerns, the M20 canisters were filled and stored at Pine Bluff Arsenal, while the M21 canisters were produced and filled at Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant. The filled M21 canisters and shell bodies were then stored at Tooele Army Depot, Utah. In time of need, the parts could be combined and would provide the army with a chemical retaliatory capability.
Additional delivery systems are the BLU-80/B (BIGEYE) bomb and XM135 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Binary Chemical Warhead. Both utilize the binary concept. These systems dispersed the persistent nerve agent VX after mixing two non-lethal chemical agents (designated NE and QL).

1988. Gorbachev orders scientists at Sverdlosk to dispose of the tons of Anthrax it has stored at Zima, near Irkutsk. It is presumed that, in light of his policies of glastnost and perestroika, he nervous that Britain or the U.S. may demand to inspect the facility, revealing Soviet breaches of the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. The Anthrax is taken to the Vozrozhdeniye island test range in Kazakhstan where it is soaked in bleach and buried.

1988. While working at the Vector facility in Siberia, scientist Nikolai Ustinov accidentally infects himself with the Marburg virus while trying to perfect it as a weapon. Marburg, like Ebola, causes hemoragic fever. Ustinov dies, but his colleagues harvest the virus from his body and discover that it has mutated into a more virulent form which they designate “Variant U.”

1988. Al-Hakam, a large biological agent production facility, goes into operation in Iraq. Botulinin toxin and Anthrax are its main are its main production. By 1991 the plant produces about 125,000 gallons of agents. After stating for years that the plant was used to produce animal feed, the Iraqis admitted in 1995 that the plant was a biological warfare production facility. The admission come only as a result of a high-level defection. The site is supervised by Dr. Taha’s staff at Muthanna State Establishment.
In addition to producing biological warfare agents, they also conducted live-agent tests on animals. The Iraqis also later admitted they had prepared about 200 biological missiles and bombs. Still unaccounted for.
Hans Branscheidt a chemical expert says (in 2003), that Iraq purchased eight mobile chemical laboratories from the Federal Republic of Germany. He says that the construction of an Iraqi research center for missile technology "became almost exclusively the work of German companies." This report is confirmed by the head of Germany's intelligence service, August Hanning.

1988, March 17. The village of Halabja was bombarded by Iraqi warplanes. The raid was over in minutes. A Kurd described the effects of a chemical attack on another village: "My brothers and my wife had blood and vomit running from their noses and their mouths. Their heads were tilted to one side. They were groaning. I couldn't do much, just clean up the blood and vomit from their mouths and try in every way to make them breathe again. I did artificial respiration on them and then I gave them two injections each. I also rubbed creams on my wife and two brothers." (From "Crimes Against Humanity" Iraqi National Congress.)

1988, June. The Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center at Ft. Detrick produces a classified study stating that Iraq is building a “bacteriological arsenal”. Among the agents identified are Anthrax and Botulinin toxin. The report states that they are also producing germs for assassinations and that Hussein Kamal, Saddam’s son-in-law and head of Iraq's Intelligence Agency was personally supervising the program.
The report stated that the Iraqis had purchased many of their starter germs from the American Type Culture Collection. The scientific supply company that maintains the collection, the largest collection of germ strains in the world, is located in Maryland and is the same place the Rajneeshee Cult purchased the germs for their “pharmacy”, which they used in their Bio-attack in Oregon.
The intelligence report goes to the State Department, CIA, and various departments of the military. However, no one thinks to tell the Commerce Department or the American Type Culture not to allow any more purchases by Iraq.

1988, July. Iraq tests new helicopters fitted with aerosol generators for dispersing Anthrax.

1988, August. Iraq finally accepts a United Nations cease-fire plan ending the war with Iran. The only result of the war is a colossal loss of life on both sides.

1988, September. Human Rights Watch reports on Saddam’s attacks on the Kurds. Estimates vary, but according to Human Rights Watch up to 5,000 people were killed in the areas they are able to visit.
Shortly before, there were rumors that Libya had used chemical weapons obtained from Iran during an invasion of Chad. The United States rushed 2,000 gas masks to Chad in response. There were also reports of the Cuban-backed government of Angola using nerve agents against rebel forces.

You forgot some very important prelude information, of course being a liberal and a canuck it is not at all suprising.

1979- Russia invades Afghanistan, The Shah of Iran is thrown out of power causing the Ayatollah comes to power with the American embassy being held hostage. Nicaragua fell to the communist, with Cuba's help I might add,

-snip-

So if you wish to blame the US for the rise of Saddam, at least have the balls to put the blame fully on a Liberal POS president that destroyed any chance to keep stability in that region in the late 70's.

So either your memory is very faulty or you look through things with rosed color glasses that attempts to make Conservatives the true evil ones. When in fact all things that have happened to America that were truly horrible were done during a Liberal President term.
Idiot, Idiot, Idiot.

YOU, my good man, need to brush up on your history.

Aside from Israel/Palestine, The Cause of All of our Problems in the Middle East IS:

The CIA-run coup in 1953 that replaced Mohammed Mossadegh (a democratically elected and popular leader) with the tyranical Shah.

Mossadegh had nationalized the British oil company that had been oppressing his country for decades, and the British convinced us that Mossadegh was a dangerous Communist.

ACTING OUT OF THE US EMBASSY IN TEHRAN, CIA agents planned, funded, led, and executed the coup.

Thirty years later, the Iranian people rose up against the Shah and his oppression. When the US granted asylum to the Shah, they stormed the US Embassy and held hostages. WHAT NOBODY REMEMBERS OR TALKS ABOUT IS THIS: They stormed the Embassy because they were afraid that the US would use it to stage a coup to replace the Shah, just as we had done in 1953.

THE FOLLOWING ARE ALL RESULTS OF THE 1953 CIA COUP:
1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, 25 years of oppressive religious rule
Iran-Iraq War, sparked by the Revolution ^^
US support of Saddam against Iran
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, a direct result of the Iran-Iraq War
The First Persian Gulf War
Operation Iraqi Freedom


ONE MISTAKE, and look at the price we pay.

More truths...........

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.'


But the anthrax they received from the US was a WMD? Why go to Winchester??

For those that want the truth and not a CanuckHeaven version.....
snip


what is the source of that list? (no flame intended, I just need to establish credibility)

For those that want the truth and not a CanuckHeaven version.....

{insert giant list}
Somewhat one-sided, but it SURE AS HECK kills the argument that "the US supported and supplied Saddam"

So did everyone else, far more than we did.

Thank you.

*Bush utterly destroyed the city of Fallujah and by extentsion the entire country of Iraq just to steal their oil and get a vote on OPEC. Bush also overthrew Haitis for sweatshop owners and tried numerous times to kill Hugo Chavez to steal that countrys oil as well. Clearly Bush is an oil terrorist and an international scourge

A group of prominent Iraqi lawyers said at a conference in Baghdad this week that President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair should be tried as war criminals for the occupation of Iraq, highlighting the massive assaults on the city of Fallujah. They echoed earlier claims by an official from the US-backed Iraqi Health Ministry who charged that the US had used banned weapons against Fallujah. The lawyers called for establishing a truth commission to investigate US crimes in Iraq and demanded an end to what they called immunity for US occupation forces.
democracynow.org
Keep citing democracynow.org. You are doing wonders to your already absent credibilty.

Democracynow seems to be a huge threat to the liars of the world

Democracynow seems to be a huge threat to the liars of the world
A threat to some liars, a tool for others.