NationStates Jolt Archive

A threat to some liars, a tool for others.

Agreed my friend

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

~~SNIP~~


Impressive 7 page list and all, but you got it from a weblog?

Part of the problem you are having probably stems from you thinking that everyone is pointing a finger solely at the US for supplying Saddam with military, and chemical weapons? I am well aware that Saddam was armed by a multitude of nations but the US involvement is far more insidious than that.

Who removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations? Ronald Reagan

Who established diplomatic relations with Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War? Ronald Reagan via Donald Rumsfeld

Which country was legitimizing supplying weapons to Iraq? The US

This is most important (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm):

Rumsfeld’s December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed “topics of mutual interest,” according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. “[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world,” Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. “It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.”

Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States “in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be ‘contrary to U.S. interests’ and has made several moves to prevent that result.”

In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.”

The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. “Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists,” the U.N. report said. “The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun.”

Prior to the release of the UN report, the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying “available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons.”

Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, “We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular.”

Compared with the rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick’s reaction was hardly a call to action.

Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department “evidence.” On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.”

A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld’s aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld’s achievements helping to “reopen U.S. relations with Iraq.” The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.

Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan’s Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:

“First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved.”

In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department—in the name of “increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market”—pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam “transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.”

In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.”

In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq’s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.

The US placed the goodhousekeeping seal of approval on the Iraq regime and the weapons flowed DESPITE the Iraq use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. The US bears a huge responsibility for the successes of Saddam Hussein, and the truly sad part about ALL of this, is that through Hussein, the US was getting revenge for the hostage taking incident in Iran in 1979.

Now you can either ignore the US's complicity in this matter, and go on posting endless lists, or you can finally accept that which has been offered here?

CH:

So do you think we should've left him in power or clean up a mistake?

Here is something else that has been bandied about often on these boards, in regards to support for UN measures and legality of use of force:

Friday's unanimous vote in the U.N. Security Council (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1111-02.htm) supporting the U.S. resolution on weapons inspections in Iraq was a demonstration of Washington's ability to wield its vast political and economic power, say observers.

''Only a superpower like the United States could have pulled off a coup like this,'' an Asian diplomat told IPS.

The unanimous 15-0 vote, he said, was obtained through considerable political and diplomatic pressure. The lobbying, he added, was not done at the United Nations, but in various capitals.

Besides its five veto-wielding permanent members - the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia - the Security Council also consists of 10 non-permanent, rotating members who hold office for two years.

France, China and Russia, in almost a single voice, said they decided to back the resolution because of assurances by the United States that it would return to the Security Council before launching a military attack on Iraq. The resolution, they argued, does not provide the United States with the automatic use of military force.

I do believe that this spells out clearly that the US would need Security Council approval before launing an invasion of Iraq.

Here is something else that has been bandied about often on these boards, in regards to support for UN measures and legality of use of force:

Friday's unanimous vote in the U.N. Security Council (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1111-02.htm) supporting the U.S. resolution on weapons inspections in Iraq was a demonstration of Washington's ability to wield its vast political and economic power, say observers.

''Only a superpower like the United States could have pulled off a coup like this,'' an Asian diplomat told IPS.

The unanimous 15-0 vote, he said, was obtained through considerable political and diplomatic pressure. The lobbying, he added, was not done at the United Nations, but in various capitals.

Besides its five veto-wielding permanent members - the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia - the Security Council also consists of 10 non-permanent, rotating members who hold office for two years.

France, China and Russia, in almost a single voice, said they decided to back the resolution because of assurances by the United States that it would return to the Security Council before launching a military attack on Iraq. The resolution, they argued, does not provide the United States with the automatic use of military force.

I do believe that this spells out clearly that the US would need Security Council approval before launing an invasion of Iraq.

Interesting. 1441 offered Serious Consequences so what type of Serious Consequences did they mean?

And as I told you before, we don't need anyone's permission to go to war. We have the right to wage war whenever we want too. Its called Soveriegnty.

I have acknowledged the role that the US played in supporting Saddam Hussein when he most certainly did not deserve our support. That is indisputable.

Two things:

1. Yes, we were at fault for supporting him, but nobody is disputing that. What is your point? I still believe that he needed to be removed from power.

2. I am absolutely sure that we were not alone in supporting him. Custodes Rana has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we were far from alone (we were far surpassed, in fact) in supporting him militarily. Did every country he listed sell military hardware to Iraq and then stand in united diplomatic opposition to Saddam and his crimes? Was the US alone in our hypocritical diplomatic support of Iraq? NO.

... and goodnight! Happy hunting to Canuck and Corneliu!

I have acknowledged the role that the US played in supporting Saddam Hussein when he most certainly did not deserve our support. That is indisputable.

Two things:

1. Yes, we were at fault for supporting him, but nobody is disputing that. What is your point? I still believe that he needed to be removed from power.

2. I am absolutely sure that we were not alone in supporting him. Custodes Rana has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we were far from alone (we were far surpassed, in fact) in supporting him militarily. Did every country he listed sell military hardware to Iraq and then stand in united diplomatic opposition to Saddam and his crimes? Was the US alone in our hypocritical diplomatic support of Iraq? NO.

... and goodnight! Happy hunting to Canuck and Corneliu!

Good post dude. CH though will probably come back with another comment regarding America's support for Saddam as well as Ignore whatever it is I say in return.

Obviously ignorance is truely bliss O.o .. im rather glad i missed that entire mess i just read through.. it was the same dribble repeated over and over again... I also notice CH never bothered to reply to my comments.. probably because they are full truths of which cannot be argued.. a pitty.. a pitty -.-

Obviously ignorance is truely bliss O.o .. im rather glad i missed that entire mess i just read through.. it was the same dribble repeated over and over again... I also notice CH never bothered to reply to my comments.. probably because they are full truths of which cannot be argued.. a pitty.. a pitty -.-

Welcome to the CH ignore list. He's ignored me too!

I have acknowledged the role that the US played in supporting Saddam Hussein when he most certainly did not deserve our support. That is indisputable.

Two things:

1. Yes, we were at fault for supporting him, but nobody is disputing that. What is your point? I still believe that he needed to be removed from power.
My points were and always have been:

1. That Iraq was not a threat to the US.

2. That the removal of Hussein by force was illegal, and immoral.

3. That the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis just to get 1 madman is not worth the price.

4. That Congress would never have approved the use of force against Iraq, just to effect regime change.

5. That the US is building bases in Iraq because they plan on staying for a long, long, time.

6. That the US has hijacked the Iraqi economy through issuance of Bremer's Orders.

7. That considerable damage has been inflicted upon the infastructure of Iraq needlessly.

8. That the abuse, torture, and death of Iraqi prisoners, and civilians at the hands of occupation forces is a terrible atrocity, that should never have happened.

9. That terrorism has actually increased due to the invasion of Iraq.

10. That the US has alienated some traditional allies and fostered new enemies through this invasion.

11. That the US will use their "new" Iraqi bases to enforce "democracy" in other countries in the region.

12. That by occupying Iraq, the US is securing the future flow of oil to drive the US economic engines.

13. That US corporations stand to gain the most from this travesty.

14. That there was no WMD in Iraq and the UN inspection teams were not finding any. As long as Hussein was being co-operative, Iraq should never been attacked.

15. That many more countries would have joined in an attack on Iraq, IF Hussein had not co-operated with the UN inspectors.

16. That American/UK forces are dying needlessly, and that many more of their lives are being shattered through serious injuries, nevermind the long term emotional battles that will plague these people for a long time to come.

17. That you can't force "democracy" upon people if they are not receptive.

There are more but I think the salient points are there.

2. I am absolutely sure that we were not alone in supporting him. Custodes Rana has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we were far from alone (we were far surpassed, in fact) in supporting him militarily. Did every country he listed sell military hardware to Iraq and then stand in united diplomatic opposition to Saddam and his crimes? Was the US alone in our hypocritical diplomatic support of Iraq? NO.
As I posted earlier, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to send the UN inspectors back into Iraq, including the much maligned France, Germany, Russia, and China.

BTW, what is noticeably missing from Custodes Rana's list is this fact:

According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:

• Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
• Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
• Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
• Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
• Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
• Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.

The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984.

Serious caca no?

... and goodnight! Happy hunting to Canuck and Corneliu!
And a goodnight to you too!!!

Obviously ignorance is truely bliss O.o .. im rather glad i missed that entire mess i just read through.. it was the same dribble repeated over and over again... I also notice CH never bothered to reply to my comments.. probably because they are full truths of which cannot be argued.. a pitty.. a pitty -.-
If you could please point out the ones I didn't respond to, I will go back and look at them again....to be honest, there were many, many posts and I did find it difficult to keep up at one point.

I do spend a lot of time digging up resource material, not like some posters here.

My points were and always have been:

1. That Iraq was not a threat to the US.

Inaccurate! Threat to the US Presence in Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia.

2. That the removal of Hussein by force was illegal, and immoral.

Wrong again. 17 UN Resolutions, violations of the US Cease-fire, US's right to wage war on any nation!

3. That the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis just to get 1 madman is not worth the price.

How many innocents died thanks to Saddam?

4. That Congress would never have approved the use of force against Iraq, just to effect regime change.

Wanna bet?

5. That the US is building bases in Iraq because they plan on staying for a long, long, time.

If they want us there then yea we will still be there. When they ask us to leave, we'll leave.

6. That the US has hijacked the Iraqi economy through issuance of Bremer's Orders.

*yawns* same song different verse. The new government can void it.

7. That considerable damage has been inflicted upon the infastructure of Iraq needlessly.

Its war. Make your enemy deaf, blind, and mute.

8. That the abuse, torture, and death of Iraqi prisoners, and civilians at the hands of occupation forces is a terrible atrocity, that should never have happened.

And the people who were responsible have been punished, is being punished, and will be punished.

9. That terrorism has actually increased due to the invasion of Iraq.

They are despirit! They are doing all they can. BTW: The Iraqi insurgents want an exit strategy. In other words, they don't want to fight anymore.

10. That the US has alienated some traditional allies and fostered new enemies through this invasion.

No good deed goes unpunished. Besides, what are these new enemies?

11. That the US will use their "new" Iraqi bases to enforce "democracy" in other countries in the region.

Proof please?

12. That by occupying Iraq, the US is securing the future flow of oil to drive the US economic engines.

Proof please?

13. That US corporations stand to gain the most from this travesty.

Probably accurate but welcome to a free economy.

14. That there was no WMD in Iraq and the UN inspection teams were not finding any. As long as Hussein was being co-operative, Iraq should never been attacked.

IAEA reported organized looting of their nuclear technology. Also probably of their WMD technology too.

15. That many more countries would have joined in an attack on Iraq, IF Hussein had not co-operated with the UN inspectors.

He didn't cooperate fully! Wanna try again?

16. That American/UK forces are dying needlessly, and that many more of their lives are being shattered through serious injuries, nevermind the long term emotional battles that will plague these people for a long time to come.

Dying needlessly in the cause of freedom? Sorry but I don't believe that for a second. If we pull out now, then yea you have a case but you don't. SOrry. Next?

17. That you can't force "democracy" upon people if they are not receptive.

They are receptive otherwise 60% of the people of voting age wouldn't have voted in their elections. BTW: Done under threat of terrorism I might add!

There are more but I think the salient points are there.

They aren't.

As I posted earlier, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to send the UN inspectors back into Iraq, including the much maligned France, Germany, Russia, and China.

Two of which was profiting from Oil for Food.

BTW, what is noticeably missing from Custodes Rana's list is this fact:

[i]According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:

And I was right regarding his next American Comment.

*SNIP*/QUOTE]

The rest is irrelevent because no one was disputing it. I know this will be ignored by CH but it had to be said.

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


Perceived or imagined wrongs? You'll have to hook me up with whatever weed you're on mate. Next you'll be telling me that the Holocaust and the Geoncide of the Native Americans are lies propagated by America's "liberal" Media.

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:


I'm sure the U.S. appointed interm government of Iraq would be extremely interested in deposing their benefactors. *rolls eyes* ;)

Perceived or imagined wrongs? You'll have to hook me up with whatever weed you're on mate. Next you'll be telling me that the Holocaust and the Geoncide of the Native Americans are lies propagated by America's "liberal" Media.
The same Liberal media has been telling you that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and takes great pains to give you a running total (to the minute) of casualties in Iraq (it's a war, people, and one with extremely low casualties...to match the number of deaths from Lyndon B. Johnson's folly of Vietnam, our troops would have to stay in Iraq until 2050, give or take a few years...)

Let's not even talk about Jabba the Moore's FullofLies 9/11's romantic view of pre-war Iraq...

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.


And if a bunch of kids are killed as a result, why... the more the merrier.

The same Liberal media has been telling you that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and takes great pains to give you a running total (to the minute) of casualties in Iraq (it's a war, people, and one with extremely low casualties...to match the number of deaths from Lyndon B. Johnson's folly of Vietnam, our troops would have to stay in Iraq until 2050, give or take a few years...)

Let's not even talk about Jabba the Moore's FullofLies 9/11's romantic view of pre-war Iraq...


With 10000+ Iraqi casualties I'd hate to find out what you consider high.

*Bush utterly destroyed the city of Fallujah

*snort* It's still standing, isn't it? "Utterly" means "Big Glowing Crater"

Get it right, people.

With 10000+ Iraqi casualties I'd hate to find out what you consider high.
During WWII, more than 100,000 Germans were killed during the bombing of Dresden...more than 100,000 in Hiroshima, and similar numbers in Nagasaki. Ever hear the term "to Coventrize"? It means laying utter destruction to a city...and it comes from the brutal German attacks on the city of Coventry, in England, again during WWII, with thousands of confirmed dead, unlike the totally exaggerated numbers of civilian deaths the Left claims for Iraq. Ever hear of the Rape of Nanking? Crystalnacht? The Warsaw Ghetto uprising? Civilians get hit during war...the main difference is, the US Armed Forces try very hard not to hit civilians, whereas the Nazis, the Japanese, the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, and now the Islamo-fascists, not only DO target civilians, they also mix in with the civilians, in order to hide, and failing that, to raise anti-American fervor when there is an incident.

And even if there were 10,000+ civilian deaths in Iraq, a number that is highly in doubt, that number pales in comparison with the hundreds of thousands of bodies found in mass graves throughout Iraq, courtesy of 35 years of brutal Baathist rule under Saddam Hussein and his henchmen.

Wrong answer!

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


Actually, you recall INcorrectly mate. Napalm has been banned internationally by the Geneva convention. Not that the USA is too keen on agreeing to weapons bans... like say land mines...

*snort* It's still standing, isn't it? "Utterly" means "Big Glowing Crater"

Get it right, people.
Personally, I would have turned Fallujah into a parking lot, with a sign that said, in Arabic, Korean, Chinese and Spanish, "think about it twice...this could be YOUR city...Love, the USA."

And turning Fallujah into a BGC (Big Glowing Crater) would have actually qualified as a public works project.

Actually, you recall INcorrectly mate. Napalm has been banned internationally by the Geneva convention. Not that the USA is too keen on agreeing to weapons bans... like say land mines...
<Yawn> Sources, please.

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.


Indeed if you want to wage war right, you have to kill everyone... destroy everything... set fire to those precious oil fields to boot. Only then will you know your cause is righteous.

During WWII, more than 100,000 Germans were killed during the bombing of Dresden...more than 100,000 in Hiroshima, and similar numbers in Nagasaki. Ever hear the term "to Coventrize"? It means laying utter destruction to a city...and it comes from the brutal German attacks on the city of Coventry, in England, again during WWII, with thousands of confirmed dead, unlike the totally exaggerated numbers of civilian deaths the Left claims for Iraq. Ever hear of the Rape of Nanking? Crystalnacht? The Warsaw Ghetto uprising? Civilians get hit during war...the main difference is, the US Armed Forces try very hard not to hit civilians, whereas the Nazis, the Japanese, the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, and now the Islamo-fascists, not only DO target civilians, they also mix in with the civilians, in order to hide, and failing that, to raise anti-American fervor when there is an incident.

And even if there were 10,000+ civilian deaths in Iraq, a number that is highly in doubt, that number pales in comparison with the hundreds of thousands of bodies found in mass graves throughout Iraq, courtesy of 35 years of brutal Baathist rule under Saddam Hussein and his henchmen.


So that makes it all right then eh?

So that makes it all right then eh?
A little perspective always helps. And remember, the largest number of Iraqi civilians has been killed by the Islamo-fascists that have tried, unsuccessfully, to stop the tide of democracy.

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.
While I tend to avoid answering to ad hominen attacks, I did find some amusing points in your reply that were worth responding too. :D


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.
I do believe that I understand the word invasion fairly well. The terrorists invaded the US on a smale scale with big time results. Now if they had come with thousands more people would you then consider that an invasion, or do they have to come in warships, planes, or other vehicles?

Just to help you clarify the word:

Military: attempt to conquer: a hostile entry of an armed force into a country’s territory, especially with the intention of conquering it.

The key word there is especially, but it doesn't say exclusively?

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).
Here I think you missed the point for a third time. Try re-reading it?

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.
Be honest now....have you ever read any of Bremer's Orders? They are very encompassing and I hate to inform you that they are still very much in full force and effect, and will be extremely difficult for subsequent governments to overturn them. Bremer's Order's (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations) is one of the most insidious results of this invasion of Iraq. read the ones on banking, foreign ownership, and even to the point of being forced to buy US seeds for agriculture. Enjoy!! :eek:


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.
While you are techinically correct, there is absolutely no way that the present government would ask US troops to leave, considering the destablizing effect the US invasion has created in Iraq.

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.
The majority of Iraqis want the US troops to leave.

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.
I do believe that your statement is incorrect.....please back up your statement.

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..
Here is one example (http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jan2005-daily/18-01-2005/main/main5.htm)....there are more...

Near Baquba, gunmen opened fire at a checkpoint and killed eight soldiers, a National Guard officer said. Polling stations came under fire in two other cities. A security guard was killed and guerrillas also engaged US troops protecting a school designated for voting.


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.
The difference is that the Sunnis' choose not to recognize US imposed elections, and by abstaining from voting, they can claim that the elections are not valid.

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
From the link you provided:

Nuclear proliferation is the spread from nation to nation of nuclear technology, including nuclear power plants but especially nuclear weapons.

Pakistan struck a deal with the United States to buy the nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets in the late 1980s, but the agreement was scrapped in the 1990s when Washington imposed sanctions on Islamabad over its nuclear weapons program. Since then, Islamabad, which had paid in advance for the F-16s, has been pressuring Washington to supply the rest of the planes.

The United States had signed a separate $1.3 billion arms package to Pakistan last year.


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
Ummm NK kicked out the nuclear inspectors after Bush made threats about their country....look it up. :eek:

Personally, I would have turned Fallujah into a parking lot, with a sign that said, in Arabic, Korean, Chinese and Spanish, "think about it twice...this could be YOUR city...Love, the USA."

And turning Fallujah into a BGC (Big Glowing Crater) would have actually qualified as a public works project.
I guess the lesson of 9/11 is totally lost in your hatred of people not American?

Instead of wasting your "talents" on these boards, perhaps you should sign up, and ship off to Iraq so that you can get some of those pelts first hand?

What exacly are we doing in Iraq to begin with? I thought it was finding WMD's. Woops forgot, Iraq is a terroroist.

<Yawn> Sources, please.

Not that it should matter whether it has been banned or not, but...

The 1980 Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons deals specifically with the Use of Incendiary Weapons, and their use against civilians. Though it should be noted that U.S. did not approve of this to the application of their own military affairs.

Also related:

Torture is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, both in cases of internal conflicts (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 1A), wounded combatants (Convention I, Art. 12), civilians in occupied territories (Convention IV, Art. 32), civilians in international conflicts (Protocol I, Art. 75, Sec. 2Ai) and civilians in internal conflicts (Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 2A).

Civilians have special protections under Convention IV, Protocol I, and Protocol II.

They must be treated humanely, without discrimination based on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or other similar criteria.

Violence to life and person including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited.

A grave breach of the Geneva Conventions also includes, attacking cultural objects when they’re not located near a military target or used for the war effort. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4D)

What exacly are we doing in Iraq to begin with? I thought it was finding WMD's. Woops forgot, Iraq is a terroroist.


Except for the fact that Iraq had no links to Al-Qaeda or the attack on the World Trade Center, but whatever.

Except for the fact that Iraq had no links to Al-Qaeda or the attack on the World Trade Center, but whatever.
I was being sarcastic.

I was being sarcastic.


Oh, don't I know it... ;) but I think some of our brothers at these boards are a wee bit dense, so I thought I'd help them out by elaborating on your point.

1. That Iraq was not a threat to the US.
According to US, British, and Russian intelligence, it was.

2. That the removal of Hussein by force was illegal, and immoral.
I suggest it was legal for the reasons I stated earlier. Moral is a very subjective term...I think it was moral.

3. That the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis just to get 1 madman is not worth the price.
Far more were killed by Saddam and the terrorist insurgents. Iraqis at large certainly think it was worth the price, and ~50% of Americans do as well. Look at the casualties during WWII...same thing/larger scale...I think it compares.

4. That Congress would never have approved the use of force against Iraq, just to effect regime change.
They saw the same intelligence Bush did, and thought it was a good idea. John Kerry himself said as much in 1997 on the floor of the senate. Funny how minds change when the opposition suggests a like argument.

5. That the US is building bases in Iraq because they plan on staying for a long, long, time.
Laying a concrete pad is vastly different than building long-term infrastructure. What do you expect the forces to do, build a sand castle? Most of the command and control structure is in existing buildings for the very reason that we don't intend to stay. We stay at the pleasure of the newly elected gov't. If they say get out, we go. Don't you think we would jump at that opportunity?

6. That the US has hijacked the Iraqi economy through issuance of Bremer's Orders.
We rebuilt their economy. They had virtually none but an internal economy thanks to the UN sanctions.

7. That considerable damage has been inflicted upon the infastructure of Iraq needlessly.
The outmoded infrastructure that existed under Saddam's rule was a hodgepodge of technologies, some of which existed before Saddam came to power. We have rebuilt and vastly improved most of it, and it is better now than when we invaded.

8. That the abuse, torture, and death of Iraqi prisoners, and civilians at the hands of occupation forces is a terrible atrocity, that should never have happened.
I agree completely, but I also understand that we cannot condemn all for the actions of a few.

9. That terrorism has actually increased due to the invasion of Iraq.
Inside Iraq. I'd much rather be fighting them there. I consider it an unexpected benefit to the invasion that terrorists around the world are flocking to Iraq to fight us. Now there is a front line in the war on terrorism, and we know where to find the enemy. That's great!

10. That the US has alienated some traditional allies and fostered new enemies through this invasion.
There will always be those who forget the lessons of history. If England and France had acted preemptively against Hitler, WWII may never have happened. I shudder to think what might have happened if the world would have kept the status quo in their dealings with Saddam.

11. That the US will use their "new" Iraqi bases to enforce "democracy" in other countries in the region.
I would use the term encourage, rather than force. Lybia made the decision to come clean all on their own. Heck, even Syria is coming to terms with the push for Democracy in the Middle East. I think more governments will make voluntary changes, and less action will be required, not more.

12. That by occupying Iraq, the US is securing the future flow of oil to drive the US economic engines.
I look at the price of oil and snicker at this comment. OPEC controlls oil prices, and the Iraqi government will, in all probability, join that cartel.

13. That US corporations stand to gain the most from this travesty.
That is an historical benefit to a victor in war. What do you expect us to do, not take advantage of the situation?

14. That there was no WMD in Iraq and the UN inspection teams were not finding any. As long as Hussein was being co-operative, Iraq should never been attacked.
Saddam was not being cooperative. Any objective look at the circumstances regarding inspections bears this out. Do you really think he was being a stand-up guy when it came to cooperating with the UN. He was sidestepping the oil-for-food program to buy weapons and luxury goods for chrissake! This according to the UN!!!!!

15. That many more countries would have joined in an attack on Iraq, IF Hussein had not co-operated with the UN inspectors.
Forty-nine countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, including:

Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan.

And, again, Saddam was not cooperating with inspectors. You really think he was???

16. That American/UK forces are dying needlessly, and that many more of their lives are being shattered through serious injuries, nevermind the long term emotional battles that will plague these people for a long time to come.
Mmmmmkay, 2 points:
1) Don't insult our soldiers by saying their saacrifice means nothing. 99.9% of them think it's worth it.
2) We have an all volunteer military, and these brave men and women knew what the job description was when they signed up.

17. That you can't force "democracy" upon people if they are not receptive.
Iraq had better voter tunout than most democratic countries, so don't say they aren't receptive. I agree you can't force democracy on people, but from the numbers of trained Iraqi security forces, the lines of Iraqis signing up for civil service,and the citizens taking up arms against the insurgents, I'd say they're pretty receptive to forging their own destiny.

During WWII, more than 100,000 Germans were killed during the bombing of Dresden...more than 100,000 in Hiroshima, and similar numbers in Nagasaki. Ever hear the term "to Coventrize"? It means laying utter destruction to a city...and it comes from the brutal German attacks on the city of Coventry, in England, again during WWII, with thousands of confirmed dead, unlike the totally exaggerated numbers of civilian deaths the Left claims for Iraq.

The Lancet numbers often quoted were not themselves political in nature. It's interesting to see that you're perceiving the numbers as presented by an apolitical source as being exaggerated, and at that derived from some ambiguously labelled, 'Left' - Left what? Left turn signals? Whose 'Left' are you talking about, anyway? How is information politically biased? Is it 'biased' only if it fails to paint a spotless portrait or cheerlead the current administration?

Ever hear of the Rape of Nanking?

Yes. Colourful titling, by the way.

Crystalnacht?

Not specifically, but I'd heard allusions to it previously.

The Warsaw Ghetto uprising?

Yep. Heard of that one.

Civilians get hit during war...the main difference is, the US Armed Forces try very hard not to hit civilians, whereas the Nazis, the Japanese, the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, and now the Islamo-fascists, not only DO target civilians, they also mix in with the civilians, in order to hide, and failing that, to raise anti-American fervor when there is an incident.

Now this is what I found the most interesting. If an american bomber is doing its' thing and blasting some point on a map into dust, then there's probably going to be people there, one way or another. You think there's any way, shape or form that people AREN'T going to whipped up into a fervor after having their entire world shaken upside down and blown up all around them? that is what you're euphemistically referring to when you use the term, 'incident' - like you're talking about a puppy taking a dump on the carpet - right?

You're clinging a little desperately, it seems to me, to the notion that the unspoken 'We' are by some unclear standard greater than the collective 'Them', insofar as their purported (and unsubstantiated by your detailing or lack thereof) lack of scruples in targeting civilians. How unmoved would you be if information came to light that flew in the face of your contentions? Would it be of lesser or greater inconvenience with regards to your own bias? I note with some interest that, among others, you've listed Japan here. Are you attempting to allay discussing the American bombing of both cities with very dirty nuclear explosives? That'd be funny if it weren't utterly tragic.

I met a number of little old ladies with terrible burns on their faces, and one or two with missing limbs, all of whom were Japanese, all of whom had survived either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I was still quite young, but I was the same age they had been when their world died, and they got the disfiguring wounds that they wore the day I met them. They were all prevented from entering the United States to attend a world anti-nuclear proliferation protest at the UN building in New York that spring. They were all deemed a 'security risk' and had to fly home via Canada. But I digress.

And even if there were 10,000+ civilian deaths in Iraq, a number that is highly in doubt,

In doubt by whom? Be clear. This didn't manage to persuade me. Onto the balance of your comparison:

that number pales in comparison with the hundreds of thousands of bodies found in mass graves throughout Iraq, courtesy of 35 years of brutal Baathist rule under Saddam Hussein and his henchmen.

While that certainly may be, it doesn't go anywhere near the fact that although Saddam was indeed a brutal tyrant, and through his henchmen certainly slaughtered large numbers of people, friends & familly of my own neighbours included, that Hussein was for a number of years, America's most trusted brutal tyrant in the area, after the last American owned-and-operated brutal tyrant, the Shah of Iran, was deposed in a bloody revolution.

America gave tacit approval of a brutal bloody regime in order to further its own agenda of securing middle-eastern oil resources into the 21st century. It was willing to hold its' nose and ignore the suffering of Iraqi dissidents when it suited them. If the numbers the Lancet provided are correct, should I expect some other glib statement downplaying or ignoring the incredible suffering of Iraqis during this invasion and occupation period by comparing that suffering with some other 'incident' which presumably has taken on some relatively greater significance for you, be that as it may?

I'd be careful about pointing accusing fingers in the dark. You might find yourself pointing into a mirror.

I do believe that I understand the word invasion fairly well. The terrorists invaded the US on a smale scale with big time results. Now if they had come with thousands more people would you then consider that an invasion, or do they have to come in warships, planes, or other vehicles?

if they came with the intent to conqure the United States then I would consider it an invasion .. maybe if they were even armed... weather it be 1 person or a milliion people... They did not enter the nation with the intent to conqure but to terrorise. That is the difference! perhaps you consider their box cutters as arms huh :rolleyes:

Here I think you missed the point for a third time. Try re-reading it?

*yawn* I apparently dont get your point.. because what your saying is unimportant and has no relevenace.

Be honest now....have you ever read any of Bremer's Orders? They are very encompassing and I hate to inform you that they are still very much in full force and effect, and will be extremely difficult for subsequent governments to overturn them. Bremer's Order's (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations) is one of the most insidious results of this invasion of Iraq. read the ones on banking, foreign ownership, and even to the point of being forced to buy US seeds for agriculture. Enjoy!! :eek:

erhum... read this :
What is the process for changing the Bremer rules?
Allawi and his Council of Ministers propose a change that legally supercedes one of Bremer's edicts and win the unanimous approval of the Presidential Council. However, a 100-member Iraqi National Council, due to be formed in July, can veto any Allawi decision if two-thirds of the council oppose it. Once an elected government is in place after January 2005, law-making authority will shift to a 275-member transitional assembly.

This information comes to you via the council on foregin relations a non-partisan non-profit organization. Per the existance of the newly elected national council which you say the US rushed an election for now has the power to veto any of the so called obsence rules you so incidiously attack. This essentially puts soverginty back in the hands of the Iraqis. And before this time the State of Martial law declared by Mr. Allawi essentially gave him overriding powers which may well override the Bremer edicts.


The majority of Iraqis want the US troops to leave.

I dont doubt they do.. but they realize the importance of our presence.. and so accepts us..

I do believe that your statement is incorrect.....please back up your statement.

Had you watched the news throughout each time frame.. you would clearly have seen this.
Case for immediate independence:
http://www.spectrezine.org/MiddleEast/Appeal.htm
Case for posponment:
http://www.collegenews.org/x3673.xml

Cant the international community make up their mind ?

The difference is that the Sunnis' choose not to recognize US imposed elections, and by abstaining from voting, they can claim that the elections are not valid.

they can claim whatever they like.. just as liberals claim the US election is invalid. The fact is.. they had every opprotunity to participate.. and them choosing not to simply said is their newly found "right". Weather this minority claims illegitmacy is hardly important to the greater governmental development.

Nuclear proliferation is the spread from nation to nation of nuclear technology, including nuclear power plants but especially nuclear weapons.

soooo when did we give them nukes ? last i checked those planes didn't have nukes on them

Pakistan struck a deal with the United States to buy the nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets in the late 1980s, but the agreement was scrapped in the 1990s when Washington imposed sanctions on Islamabad over its nuclear weapons program. Since then, Islamabad, which had paid in advance for the F-16s, has been pressuring Washington to supply the rest of the planes.

supplying planes which are CAPABLE of delivering a necular payload is far different from planes EQUIPT with a necular pay load... one is proliferaing necular technology (the ladder) and the other is not... thats the difference I was highlighting.. something you totally ignored. Never mind the fact that Pakistan already has necular technology and can deliver a nuclear pay load in other methods if they so choose to commit suicide

The United States had signed a separate $1.3 billion arms package to Pakistan last year.

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041118164306.mq68gq6h.html giving Pakistan an increased capability to combat terrorism is hardly the senario you portray.

Ummm NK kicked out the nuclear inspectors after Bush made threats about their country....look it up. :eek:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2487437.stm
might I highlight the paragraph:

"The original North Korean statement, broadcast on Sunday, appeared to be a response to mounting diplomatic pressure since the United States said in October that Pyongyang had admitted to having a nuclear weapons programme." This after North Korea had previously signed an agreement with the Clinton administration to hault all nuclear wepons programs

Threats though hardly baseless were well called for.

Quite frankly.. if i wanted to hear any of your viewpoints I would simply click my way to the partisan hack of www.Democracynow.com .. but personally i prefer www.freerepublic.com for my partisan hack :p

but then I would never try to pawn off my partisan dribble for factual untainted information :rolleyes:

If anyone even thinks about trying Bush and Blair as war criminals, I will assassinate Saddam Hussein. Saddam was an evil man, he killed his own people, he stockpiled WMDs numerous times even after the first gulf war. Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Clinton, and many other Democrats said, months before the evidence of WMDs were presented, that Saddam had WMDs, that he killed his own people and that we needed to take immediate action. The UN in all of it's glory, saw that Iraq had violated numerous resolutions passed after the First Gulf War, but twiddled its thumbs and decided against enforcing its own damn resolutions. Instead of waiting for the UN pussies, we decided to take action first, after all, it was mostly us who won the first gulf war, so we should be able to enforce the resolutions just as much as UN should (or shouldn't anymore, because UN sucks). What is not justified about this war? It was voted on, Congress allowed it, there was evidence of WMDs, there was genocide. Iraq got what it deserved.

I still believe Iraq has WMDs, they don't just dissapear, and in 1995, UN Weapons inspectors found enough anthrax to kill 2,000,000,000 people. 5,000 tons of it. They also found sarin, and vx nerve gas. What makes you think they wouldn't breach the resolutions again, if they already did it mulitple times. And look at this.... an Iraqi jet, why is it buried?
http://www.wibbler.com/archives/foundiniraq.php
Not to mention Iraq was not allowed to have an airforce.

Oh and let's not forget the Al-Samoud missiles that clearly exceeded the range of the UN resolutions. Yes they destroyed 4 of those missiles, but I have a friend who was in Iraq, and he said that they found even more, his unit alone found 120 of them. 4 out of 120 is just not going to cut it.

Oh, and lets see, in 1998, ALL Un Weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country, and for 6 years were not allowed back in. We knew Iraq had WMDs beforethey WI's were kicked out, but 6 years later, which gives plenty of time to hide all the WMDs under the vast amounts of desert in Iraq, the UN weapons inspectors are let back in. If the UN had it's head on straight, it would have told Iraq "Let us back in the country, or face military action." And there you go, there would be no war in Iraq today, no would there?

Iraq has WMDs, we will find them, Saddam committed many, many war crimes, he will be charged, why is this war unjustified?

I now Saddam has been a criminal that has t be judged

But Bush is a criminal too.

Think in abu-grail, or think in Guantanamo, all the people that were arrested after 11-S without right or charges. Many criminal acts has been allowed in Irak ( the first criminal act was the war by economical interest )

We need a international tribunal that can judge criminals again humanity.

And as none country is alowed to be claimed the judge of the world, we need a real UN that can judge bush and blair ( and many others )


Say saddam was evil don´t justify or made bush good

Both has to go to a international tribunal

I now Saddam has been a criminal that has t be judged

But Bush is a criminal too.

Think in abu-grail, or think in Guantanamo, all the people that were arrested after 11-S without right or charges. Many criminal acts has been allowed in Irak ( the first criminal act was the war by economical interest )

We need a international tribunal that can judge criminals again humanity.

And as none country is alowed to be claimed the judge of the world, we need a real UN that can judge bush and blair ( and many others )


Say saddam was evil don´t justify or made bush good

Both has to go to a international tribunal

For one, Bush had nothing to do with Abu Gharib, and that was nothing, making some Iraqis stand together naked is not "torture." It is nowhere as bad as our civilians getting beheaded on camera, or our PMC's being hung from bridges after being charred but the savage insurgents.

I think its almost as bad - and same counter arguement - their crimes do not absolve US forces and high ranking officials of their crimes

"Bush had nothing to do with Abu Gharib, and that was nothing, making some Iraqis stand together naked is not "torture.""


That´s the same that say Hitler had nothing to do with Auswitch.
Bush, as president, agree or at least did nothing again this acts

In Guantanamo there has been using sensorial privation : that´s a mental ( and physical ) torture

Hundred people in USA after 11-s wee arrested for 3 years without charges and no right

In Abu-grain there were much more than some people naked.


It´s a pity that people can´t see the bad acts of the people they call " their people "

You can see the bad acts of saddam ( me too ). But justify even the torture made by americans

I NEVER justify torture


There weren´t masive weapons in Irak as was said by UN inspectors in asmbley, but Bush and others didn´t want listen because there were economical interest


USA help Saddam again Iran. Now Iran is a criminal ... ummm... perhaps the USA presidents that helped Saddam are criminals too ?????

I personally don't see the problem with killing the people who are killing us.

I'm sure you do realise this is exactly what a lot of terrorist groups say and do... ;-)

Hope they are found guilty guilty guilty.

Your comments are funny. :D

Sorry, you are joking, right. I mean you cant really belive this.

Ok just in case,
"If anyone even thinks about trying Bush and Blair as war criminals, I will assassinate Saddam Hussein. Saddam was an evil man, he killed his own people, he stockpiled WMDs numerous times even after the first gulf war"
How did we ever catch him, if we still can't find several stockpiles of them?

"Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Clinton, and many other Democrats said, months before the evidence of WMDs were presented, that Saddam had WMDs, that he killed his own people and that we needed to take immediate action." this was based i intelligence reports that have been proved false, repeatedly, there has also been suggestions that the reports were deliberatly falsified to suit political agenda.

"And look at this.... an Iraqi jet, why is it buried?
http://www.wibbler.com/archives/foundiniraq.php
Not to mention Iraq was not allowed to have an airforce."
Doesn't this answer your own question?

"Oh, and lets see, in 1998, ALL Un Weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country, and for 6 years were not allowed back in. We knew Iraq had WMDs beforethey WI's were kicked out, but 6 years later, which gives plenty of time to hide all the WMDs under the vast amounts of desert in Iraq, the UN weapons inspectors are let back in. If the UN had it's head on straight, it would have told Iraq "Let us back in the country, or face military action." And there you go, there would be no war in Iraq today, no would there?"
So, the inspectors were not allowed back, then they were? this is a contradiction, As is if we had gone to war 6 years ago we would not be at war now.

Yes Saddam was bad, so when are you going into Zimbabwe, well 20% of Africa and others?

If you really think this is the answer, why havent you gone into N.Korea?

If you are claiming the war was on principals, stick to them. Where I'm sitting it looked like oil was the driving factor to go after Saddam. (i'm not going into details as they have been covered in every way and better than I can)

Yes Saddam was bad, so when are you going into Zimbabwe, well 20% of Africa and others?

If you really think this is the answer, why havent you gone into N.Korea?

If you are claiming the war was on principals, stick to them. Where I'm sitting it looked like oil was the driving factor to go after Saddam. (i'm not going into details as they have been covered in every way and better than I can)

Well maybe the US wants to clean up her own messes, and have other people clean up their's? In essence - Europe goes into Africa and fixes things up (Something I'd wholeheartedly approve of.). But that doesn't suit the palate, now does it?

Also, you appear to think the USA has limitless manpower and material resources. Yes, they're extremely powerful but no, not enough to be handling a number of different countries at the same time. Especially without European help.

**yawn**

Well maybe the US wants to clean up her own messes, and have other people clean up their's? In essence - Europe goes into Africa and fixes things up (Something I'd wholeheartedly approve of.). But that doesn't suit the palate, now does it?

Also, you appear to think the USA has limitless manpower and material resources. Yes, they're extremely powerful but no, not enough to be handling a number of different countries at the same time. Especially without European help.

You were in Iraq before? or is Iraq now part of the US?
(and why aren't you in N.Korea? thats far more your mess than Iraq)

Oh yeah, Don't the UK and other forces count? I know the numbers are a lot fewer but theres only 60million people in the whole UK, and we have other commitments too.

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

So, in essence, you are saying that the word of your president (who signs treaties) and of your parliament (which ratifies them) is worthless.

Good to know.

:-)

"Bush had nothing to do with Abu Gharib, and that was nothing, making some Iraqis stand together naked is not "torture.""


That´s the same that say Hitler had nothing to do with Auswitch.
Bush, as president, agree or at least did nothing again this acts

In Guantanamo there has been using sensorial privation : that´s a mental ( and physical ) torture

Hundred people in USA after 11-s wee arrested for 3 years without charges and no right

In Abu-grain there were much more than some people naked.


It´s a pity that people can´t see the bad acts of the people they call " their people "

You can see the bad acts of saddam ( me too ). But justify even the torture made by americans

I NEVER justify torture


There weren´t masive weapons in Irak as was said by UN inspectors in asmbley, but Bush and others didn´t want listen because there were economical interest


USA help Saddam again Iran. Now Iran is a criminal ... ummm... perhaps the USA presidents that helped Saddam are criminals too ?????


Hitler's Final Solution was official policy. The torture at Abu Gharaib was not. You'll notice that people who did the abuse in Iraq were arrested, tried, and convicted.

If you expect a country's soldiers to NEVER abuse prisoners, you'll have to search carefully through history for an example - because in nearly every war, nearly every country's soldiers have abused prisoners - even if it is not official policy. If you knew something about small group dynamics (which was a science discovered by the UK during WW II), you would know why these things happen - no matter how much the leaders of a country may want to avoid it. No system has ever been devised that stops the abuse from occurring.

As for the Guantanamo detainees, there are a lot of allegations - but no proof. Allegations are NOT facts.

Perhaps you could have some reason, BUT :


"Hitler's Final Solution was official policy. The torture at Abu Gharaib was not. You'll notice that people who did the abuse in Iraq were arrested, tried, and convicted."


How many high range militaries has been arrested and tried by the crimen of accept this kind of facts ( none could believe the didn´t know )

HAs been investigated if it´s true or not ( by a not arbitrarie organization ) that the order of this subjects came from the top of military chain ?




"If you expect a country's soldiers to NEVER abuse prisoners, you'll have to search carefully through history for an example - because in nearly every war, nearly every country's soldiers have abused prisoners - even if it is not official policy. If you knew something about small group dynamics (which was a science discovered by the UK during WW II), you would know why these things happen - no matter how much the leaders of a country may want to avoid it. No system has ever been devised that stops the abuse from occurring."


I know this things happen, the question is Which is the answer that the goberment give to this things ?

And example : In Somalia, soldiers of differents countries made sexual abuse again childs. They wnet back to their countries and never were judges ( ¿?¿?¿?¿? it´s ... )


USA didn´t accept the check of ONG in Abu-grail and others. MAny humans right violations has been accused.... what do Bush goverment do ?



"As for the Guantanamo detainees, there are a lot of allegations - but no proof. Allegations are NOT facts. "



je je je many people say there are not proof about hitler mascre

How can people proof Guantanamo facts ?.
They have been there without right, lawyers, ...

Have started a serious investigation of the allegations in Guantanamo ?


Do you know there have been many people arrested for years without a know motive ?


For me is very clear that bush goverment has started a war by their own interes ( Saddam didn´t hade anything with 11-s, and haven´t contacts with Al-queda, Nor have massive weapons as declared UN boss investigators - But USA have : could others countries attack USA if they are afraid ? )

USA has create, maintein, pay and support many dictatorial goverments in all the world for many years - USA supported Saddam and EVEN supported Bin Laden when he was fighting again URSS



WHICH is the right of USA to attack others in the moment they want ?

Perhaps the best is create a international penal tribunal : but USA always block it. CAn you explain why ?

I just had this image of Skap sitting up all night popping caffine pills and pushing the 'refresh' button on Democracynow, muttering about aliens.

OF course, in reality he is most likely laughing his ass off at you people.
Im with him.

<snip typical anti-American rant>?

There are multiple investigations at Guantanamo. Your lack of knowledge of them reveals your complete and utter ignorance of the subject.
There were multiple convictions of the abusers at Abu Gharaib - and multiple investigations that showed that there was no involvement from higher command. You seem to believe that such abuse could NEVER take place without orders - but historically, it is the case that NEARLY ALL abuse takes place without orders from on high.

We hold ourselves accountable - and we investigate. Prosecute. Convict. Punish.

If we were as evil as you believe, you would never have known that there was anyone captured, much less where they ended up.

We're not held accountable because the international community doesn't hold anyone else accountable - much less the US. I don't see you in Darfur. I didn't see you in Rwanda. I didn't see you stopping Saddam from executing 300,000 Shias. I didn't see you stopping the Taliban from shooting women for listening to music, or shooting children for flying kites. And you aren't holding anyone, anyone, anyone accountable for anything.

If the US and UK had not captured Serbs and kidnapped them and taken them to the Hague, they would still be killing today, and smoking and drinking and laughing at you so hard they wouldn't be able to stand up.

So, in essence, you are saying that the word of your president (who signs treaties) and of your parliament (which ratifies them) is worthless.

Good to know.

:-)

Its called Congress, not parliment. Samething but we're not Europe.

And yes, the president can break a treaty if he so desires but can you point to a treaty that we broke?

Last time I checked, there isn't a treaty that forced us to give up our right to wage war.

"There are multiple investigations at Guantanamo. Your lack of knowledge of them reveals your complete and utter ignorance of the subject."


I talked about investigations by international independent organizations ( red cross, international amnesty, .... )





"There were multiple convictions of the abusers at Abu Gharaib - and multiple investigations that showed that there was no involvement from higher command. You seem to believe that such abuse could NEVER take place without orders - but historically, it is the case that NEARLY ALL abuse takes place without orders from on high."


Military investigations or investigation made by the accused goverments .... pse.
Many abuse takes places without orders, YES. Many others have been ordered. Much more are accepted by military high ranks



"If we were as evil as you believe, you would never have known that there was anyone captured, much less where they ended up."


You have a mistake if you think i hate USA or believe all USA people are bad
I think there are good americans and bad americans. As there are good europenas, chinesse or Iraquesess in the same way that there are bad people in all countries

I talk about goverments not people

Why so many americans believe people hate them when they talk again their goverments ?

I can say bad things again my goverment and i don´t hate my neightbourght

Many ( not all, just some ) americans believe "or you love me and accept all i do or you hate me "



"We're not held accountable because the international community doesn't hold anyone else accountable - much less the US. I don't see you in Darfur. I didn't see you in Rwanda. I didn't see you stopping Saddam from executing 300,000 Shias. I didn't see you stopping the Taliban from shooting women for listening to music, or shooting children for flying kites. And you aren't holding anyone, anyone, anyone accountable for anything."



Why you talk about me if you doný know me ?????


After 11-s many americans claim for war
After 11-m in Madrid ( i live in Madrid, near the place the bombs where placed ) we claim for peace and justice


American goverment attacked 2 countries ( Irak have nothing in 11-s, but bush lie telling saddam did it - after said time before it that was bin laden - )

In spain some people know that a group of terrorist don´t made a bigger comunity evil ( islam is not al-queda - many people talk about war of civilizations ??????? terrible idea. Islam could be as good or as evil than christians or judaism - people are evil or good, man by man, one by one, not a so big comunity )


Why Saddam wasn´t stopped when USA supported him in the war again Iran, Why Bin Laden was supported again URSS ?


Usa is not the evil, but usa goverments has made some bad acts and n the same way that could be trail dictators from poor countries, why no the politicians of rich countries ??



"If the US and UK had not captured Serbs and kidnapped them and taken them to the Hague, they would still be killing today, and smoking and drinking and laughing at you so hard they wouldn't be able to stand up. "


Yes, yes, yes...... and the war beetween Utus and Tutsis was stopped too ?
And the war in Congo ?
And the war in Sudan ?


USA and UK and others don´t act by their moral good actitude, they act by their own interest


Do you know how many wars have been participated, supported, maintein, allowed and accepted, How many violent acts again democratic goverments by dictators .... by usa and uk from WW2 ??



Do you think war is the only way to stop others ?
I can give you others ideas : stop sell arms to dictatorials countries, block them instead block just countries which goverments you don´t like, judge in the same way all criminals and not only thous you don´t call friend ( irak, israel.. ) ....many more ideas

Its called Congress, not parliment. Samething but we're not Europe.

Parliament is a generic term for all the legislative bodies of all countries.
Each country's parliament has a specific name, which is Congress in the US and something else in other countries...

And yes, the president can break a treaty if he so desires but can you point to a treaty that we broke?

Ok, so you confirm my position.
If you are free to break any treaty you signed and ratified, then your signature and ratification are worthless words.
Don't be surprised if more and more people don't believe them any more.

(and, by the way, Guantanamo is definitely breaking the Geneva convention)

Last time I checked, there isn't a treaty that forced us to give up our right to wage war.

Did you ever read the charter of the UN, which the USA helped to write, then later signed and ratified?
:-)

Parliament is a generic term for all the legislative bodies of all countries.
Each country's parliament has a specific name, which is Congress in the US and something else in other countries...

Ok, I'll concede this point!

Ok, so you confirm my position.
If you are free to break any treaty you signed and ratified, then your signature and ratification are worthless words.
Don't be surprised if more and more people don't believe them any more.

Tell that to the Soviet Union that broke treaties all the time :rolleyes: Tell that to North Korea! Tell that to Iran! Tell that to China! To Sudan! To Rwanda! To Russia! To every other country that has broken a treaty.

(and, by the way, Guantanamo is definitely breaking the Geneva convention)

How?

Did you ever read the charter of the UN, which the USA helped to write, then later signed and ratified?
:-)

Problem is the UN Charter didn't tell us we can't wage war on another country. Care to point to one that states that we can't wage war on another country?

[QUOTE=Center of the UniverseDo you think war is the only way to stop others ?
I can give you others ideas : stop sell arms to dictatorials countries, block them instead block just countries which goverments you don´t like, judge in the same way all criminals and not only thous you don´t call friend ( irak, israel.. ) ....many more ideas[/QUOTE]

Sometimes war is the only thing that will work effectively. Embargos historically do not work. Treating every country as moral equivalents doesn't work (and is a stupid idea, BTW).

Stopping Saddam was the US responsibility because we put him there and allowed him to run wild. Osama is our responsibility because we created him and allowed him to run wild.

In order to prevent terrorism, instability, and other bad things, we went to Afghanistan and Iraq to clean up our mess. Our mess. To make sure that these things don't happen again. And we'll stay until the mess is cleaned up.

I don't see you criticizing the French for doing EXACTLY the same thing in their former colonies - invading, making war unilaterally without any allies, acting in force without ANY UN PERMISSION EVER.

I also don't see most other countries taking ANY responsibility for their own messes that were created by decades of colonialism and decades of the Cold War.

Our invading Iraq and Afghanistan is ADMITTING that in the past we made big mistakes - by financing dictators and by financing guerilla groups. A lot of other nations have done THE SAME THING over and over again - including destabilizing governments. But it looks like only the US and France have taken the initiative in this regard - and the UK seems willing to help. But everyone else would rather just let the mistakes accumulate and rot.

Did you ever read the charter of the UN, which the USA helped to write, then later signed and ratified?
:-)
The problem some people have Aquilona, is that they can read but they don't understand, or that want to interpret the Charter their way. Unfortunately for them, they are wrong and they will not accept that they are indeed wrong.

When the US signed the UN Charter, it became entrenched in the US Constitution:

Amendment VI, cl.2 reads: This Constitution . . . and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.

I found this site (http://www.righttohealthcare.org/Docs/DocumentsA.htm) interesting in detailing how the Charter also applies to other applications of US law.

Good post. :)

The problem some people have Aquilona, is that they can read but they don't understand, or that want to interpret the Charter their way. Unfortunately for them, they are wrong and they will not accept that they are indeed wrong.

How am I wrong? I could give you an email address if you have any questions. Actually 2! Both of whom know more about international law than anyone of us.

When the US signed the UN Charter, it became entrenched in the US Constitution:

Amendment VI, cl.2 reads: This Constitution . . . and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.

Nice quote. Care to point to the treaty in which we gave up our soveriegn right to wage war?

found this site (http://www.righttohealthcare.org/Docs/DocumentsA.htm) interesting in detailing how the Charter also applies to other applications of US law.

Good post. :)

Right to healthcare? The hospitals are required to give aide even if the people can't afford it. Doctors are required to treat people if the patients want help.

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

if you don't like america or the leadesr of such i suggest you get the f#$& out and go live in england or something...and see how much you still don't like america :)

*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


I see they're still getting their news from:
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

The problem some people have Aquilona, is that they can read but they don't understand, or that want to interpret the Charter their way. Unfortunately for them, they are wrong and they will not accept that they are indeed wrong.

When the US signed the UN Charter, it became entrenched in the US Constitution:

Amendment VI, cl.2 reads: This Constitution . . . and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.

I found this site (http://www.righttohealthcare.org/Docs/DocumentsA.htm) interesting in detailing how the Charter also applies to other applications of US law.

Good post. :)

It would be more interesting for you to make this comment if the UN actually enforced anything. Not only does it not enforce anything against the US, it doesn't enforce anything else, either. The Hague is laughable - the only people who arrest, kidnap, and bring anyone to the Hague are the US and the UK - when they dragged Serbs there.

Every other nation on Earth is composed of moral cowards who write laws and then wring their hands when the words are proven meaningless.

It would be more interesting for you to make this comment if the UN actually enforced anything. Not only does it not enforce anything against the US, it doesn't enforce anything else, either. The Hague is laughable - the only people who arrest, kidnap, and bring anyone to the Hague are the US and the UK - when they dragged Serbs there.

Every other nation on Earth is composed of moral cowards who write laws and then wring their hands when the words are proven meaningless.
In a perfect world, everyone would live up to their end of the deal. It has been unfortunate that many countries including the US have shirked their responsibilities. While the US has technically violated the UN Charter by invading Iraq, the problem is that there are too many paper shufflers who would rather hold their nose and do nothing rather than taking the US to task.

The biggest obstacle is the abusive use of the veto, and in recent years that has been mostly the US. The veto priveleges need to be re-engineered to allow the UN to do a more effective job.

In a perfect world, everyone would live up to their end of the deal. It has been unfortunate that many countries including the US have shirked their responsibilities. While the US has technically violated the UN Charter by invading Iraq, the problem is that there are too many paper shufflers who would rather hold their nose and do nothing rather than taking the US to task.

The biggest obstacle is the abusive use of the veto, and in recent years that has been mostly the US. The veto priveleges need to be re-engineered to allow the UN to do a more effective job.

Blaming everything on the US is moral cowardice, especially when I can point to the UN not wanting to do anything about Kosovo. While the US and NATO went in and got the job done.

If you'll care to notice, the UN isn't holding ANY OTHER NATION to task, either.

I'll tell you what, when all of the leaders and governments are made responsible for the crimes they committed during the Oil for Food scandal, then the US should consider allowing someone other than the US investigate it's own military. As long as the international community is so clearly biased against giving the US the benefit of the doubt, I think US's responsibility to its people is to not allow the international community any say in how we punish our criminals.

Blaming everything on the US is moral cowardice, especially when I can point to the UN not wanting to do anything about Kosovo. While the US and NATO went in and got the job done.

If you'll care to notice, the UN isn't holding ANY OTHER NATION to task, either.

Continue to make points Whispering Legs and Canaukheaven will place you on his iggy list like he's done me.

Well said too WL!

Blaming everything on the US is moral cowardice, especially when I can point to the UN not wanting to do anything about Kosovo. While the US and NATO went in and got the job done.

If you'll care to notice, the UN isn't holding ANY OTHER NATION to task, either.

Bravo :)

My points were and always have been:

-snip-

Serious caca no?

And a goodnight to you too!!!
I do not dispute the arguments against the war which you just listed.

My argument is that our correction of our mistake (supporting Saddam Hussein) is NOT a valid argument against the war. You have repeatedly failed to convince me otherwise. I am satisfied that I am right about this.



SADDAM HUSSEIN is to CO-OPERATIVE as ROTTWEILER is to CUDDLY

Previous arguments clearly state that the biological samples the US lent or sent to Iraq were just that: EDUCATIONAL samples not fit for weaponized use.

Until you prove that we sent them chemical weapons or plans for chemical weapons, my word is as good as yours.

Actually, you recall INcorrectly mate. Napalm has been banned internationally by the Geneva convention. Not that the USA is too keen on agreeing to weapons bans... like say land mines...
Wrong. The use of incendiary weapons AGAINST CIVILIANS is banned internationally by the treaty in the 1980s.

I'm not sure they had Napalm at the time of the geneva convention. Did they?

Wrong treaty, misinterpreted anyway.

So that makes it all right then eh?
Nothing can 'make it alright' when civilian deaths occur. It sure helps that we're not trying to kill them, and being a hell of alot more successful in that endeavor than in every previous war.

The insurgents/terrorists on the other hand are targeting the population with suicide bombs. Go figure.

If Blair and Bush got accused of ANYTHING and found guilty, I would be so happy and relieved, I would go into a trance for three months. I would strip off all of my clothes and streak down the street throwing confetti. I would probably die from the combined shock and ecstacy.

Its called Congress, not parliment. Samething but we're not Europe.

And yes, the president can break a treaty if he so desires but can you point to a treaty that we broke?

Last time I checked, there isn't a treaty that forced us to give up our right to wage war.

We actually have broken treaties before (the ABM treaty for one). But then again, so has everyone else. Treaty breaking is nothing new in this world; they are simply agreements between two or more parties, when one side breaks a treaty, it can make the others mad, but there is no international authority that can dish out punishments and have the muscle to back them up, at least where the US is concerned.

unintelligable babble
Please... I appreciate your interest and participation, but stop posting on this thread. I'm starting to feel sick.

I doubt if the US has used any banned weapons in Iraq, but if they did, it was for good reason. When u go to war, this is WAR we are talking about, u have to WIN. Civilian casualties are unfortunately inevitable. Thats not to say we should kill everything at any cost, but if napalm is available to win the battle quicker.... well, i dont know.

Dont get me wrong tho. Bush should have been impeached for even going in there. WMD my ass. We have WMD. We (the US) are the only ones who have actually USED the goddamn things! Yet we think its okay to declare war and invade countries who may (or may not!) be developing them before we do away with our own.

Saddam was a bastard, but the tens of thousands of people who died were not worth the price. Even the men who fought against us. These Iraqi rebels (not terrorists- there is a differece) have mothers and wives and children too. We do what we have too to protect our country, but I hardly doubt a completely aggressive invasion against a nation that represented about as much threat as an onion was just.

No, sadly, Bush will never go to court. Because in a universe where he would, there would actually be justice.

PS... i am so sick of hearing all this b/s about the supposed "bleeding heart liberals." Im sorry, not everyone can remain coldly indifferent to the plight of 99% of the world's population.

We actually have broken treaties before (the ABM treaty for one). But then again, so has everyone else. Treaty breaking is nothing new in this world; they are simply agreements between two or more parties, when one side breaks a treaty, it can make the others mad, but there is no international authority that can dish out punishments and have the muscle to back them up, at least where the US is concerned.

Actually we pulled out of the ABM so in reality we didn't break it.

As for everthing else. Correct but I still want to know what treaty forced us to give up our right to wage war!

Actually we pulled out of the ABM so in reality we didn't break it.

As for everthing else. Correct but I still want to know what treaty forced us to give up our right to wage war!

Pulling out is just a formal way of breaking a treaty.

Funny thing though, I can't seem to find that treaty that bans war either...

I doubt if the US has used any banned weapons in Iraq, but if they did, it was for good reason. When u go to war, this is WAR we are talking about, u have to WIN. Civilian casualties are unfortunately inevitable. Thats not to say we should kill everything at any cost, but if napalm is available to win the battle quicker.... well, i dont know.

I can agree with this in part but using banned weapons to win a battle? Sorry! Anyway, no banned weapons were used so whats the point of arguing?

Dont get me wrong tho. Bush should have been impeached for even going in there. WMD my ass. We have WMD. We (the US) are the only ones who have actually USED the goddamn things! Yet we think its okay to declare war and invade countries who may (or may not!) be developing them before we do away with our own.

What laws did Bush break to require impeachment? We weren't the only nation to use WMD either. The only ones to use nukes yes but wmd? no! Germany, Britain, France, Italy (twice), Japan (experiments), Iraq (on Iran and his own people).

Saddam was a bastard, but the tens of thousands of people who died were not worth the price. Even the men who fought against us. These Iraqi rebels (not terrorists- there is a differece) have mothers and wives and children too. We do what we have too to protect our country, but I hardly doubt a completely aggressive invasion against a nation that represented about as much threat as an onion was just.

What about an invasion against a nation that has defied 17 UN Resolutions and a UN Cease-fire? Breaking a cease-fire is grounds enough to wage war.

No, sadly, Bush will never go to court. Because in a universe where he would, there would actually be justice.

*Yawns* What crime did Bush commit?

Pulling out is just a formal way of breaking a treaty.

Funny thing though, I can't seem to find that treaty that bans war either...

I'll concede the first point :)

Amazing isn't it? Not even the UN Charters does that. They try to use that alot on here.

The UN Charter doesn't say that a nation can't wage war. If it did, then Britain would be in violation of it as would most other nations.

PS... i am so sick of hearing all this b/s about the supposed "bleeding heart liberals." Im sorry, not everyone can remain coldly indifferent to the plight of 99% of the world's population.

I'm sorry that I can't make myself care about people dying. Especially ones who deserve to. Maybe if I stab myself through the heart and whine like a liberal....

I'll concede the first point :)

Amazing isn't it? Not even the UN Charters does that. They try to use that alot on here.

The UN Charter doesn't say that a nation can't wage war. If it did, then Britain would be in violation of it as would most other nations.

Lets just play a hypothetical game here for a moment, and say that the charter does ban us from making war.

If we then chose not to go to war because the UN told us we couldn't, we would be lending credibility to the organization. I have made the point before, but just to reiterate: the UN is a semi-defunct anachronistic organization that is striving to make itself significant in the grand scheme of things. Its like a group of alzheimers patients who get together in a room and contribute to each others delusions; every time one of them chimes in, it makes the delusion more real for the others. They all talk about meaningless things and make ridiculous statements, then pat each other on the back for a job well done before heading back to their rooms to talk with people who don't exist. Having had a grandfather who suffered from alzheimers (a damned good argument for euthanasia), I have witnessed this phenomenon - its not pretty.

No one allows an alzheimers patient to make important decisions, why should we allow the UN to make ours?[/hypothetical scenario]

I doubt if the US has used any banned weapons in Iraq, but if they did, it was for good reason. When u go to war, this is WAR we are talking about, u have to WIN. Civilian casualties are unfortunately inevitable. Thats not to say we should kill everything at any cost, but if napalm is available to win the battle quicker.... well, i dont know.

Dont get me wrong tho. Bush should have been impeached for even going in there. WMD my ass. We have WMD. We (the US) are the only ones who have actually USED the goddamn things! Yet we think its okay to declare war and invade countries who may (or may not!) be developing them before we do away with our own.

Saddam was a bastard, but the tens of thousands of people who died were not worth the price. Even the men who fought against us. These Iraqi rebels (not terrorists- there is a differece) have mothers and wives and children too. We do what we have too to protect our country, but I hardly doubt a completely aggressive invasion against a nation that represented about as much threat as an onion was just.

No, sadly, Bush will never go to court. Because in a universe where he would, there would actually be justice.

PS... i am so sick of hearing all this b/s about the supposed "bleeding heart liberals." Im sorry, not everyone can remain coldly indifferent to the plight of 99% of the world's population.

TWITCH

The USSR made extensive use of WMD, far outstripping US production.

The Iran-Iraq War was overflowing with mustard gas and Tabun nerve agent, among others. Not to mention suppression of the Kurds and Shia after the Persian Gulf.

In WWI the Germans used gas, and plenty of it.

US = two nukes. Scary to think that we actually used them. But that is an argument for a different thread.

When u go to war, this is WAR we are talking about, u have to WIN. Civilian casualties are unfortunately inevitable.

Bravo! Bravo! Round of applause for the man!

Dont get me wrong tho. Bush should have been impeached for even going in there. WMD my ass. We have WMD. We (the US) are the only ones who have actually USED the goddamn things! Yet we think its okay to declare war and invade countries who may (or may not!) be developing them before we do away with our own.

1. Impeached? On what grounds?
2. Unfortunately I can't WMD your ass
3. Yep, we've got em.
4. Nope. Thats just plain wrong. We are the only nation to offensively detonate nuclear bombs, but nuclear bombs are only *one* type of "WMD"
5. We currently have a nuclear arsenal to deter any nations who stand to lose something from initiating a nuclear war (ie, MAD). I don't fear nations with thousands of warheads; I fear the guy who only needs one.
6. Would you then advocate that all the other nations with WMD's dismantle them? If so, why don't you put pressure on them? Russia has more than twice our nuclear arsenal IIRC, and with the state of that country it surprises me greatly that every Tom, Dick, and Harry Q. Terrorist doesn't have a nuke already.

Saddam was a bastard, but the tens of thousands of people who died were not worth the price. Even the men who fought against us. These Iraqi rebels (not terrorists- there is a differece) have mothers and wives and children too. We do what we have too to protect our country, but I hardly doubt a completely aggressive invasion against a nation that represented about as much threat as an onion was just.

1. Not worth the price? Was it too small for you? I seem to recall that every other war in recent history has cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives, and some were fought over less than weapons and oil. Saddam would have killed more than that had he been kept in power, so forgive me if your bleeding heart evokes no sympathy.

2. If they're not terrorists, are they freedom fighters? I think not. I suppose you could make that argument if they only targeted US forces, but they don't. Maybe it would hold if they stopped the violence if/when the US leaves, but I doubt it. Their purpose is to scare the population into chaos, so one of them can take power in the resulting mess. Sorry to ruin your day pal, but that sounds like terrorism to me.

3. The victims of the terrorists (I refuse to give any credence to your "rebel" theory) also have mothers, wives, and children. They have fathers, husbands, brothers, and sisters too. What is your point?

4. Justified or not, the invasion was in our national interest. Lets just say that the whole, sole, only reason we went in was for the oil. That would put this war on par with just about every other war in history - its all about economics, one side has something the other side wants. Traditionally, when the agressor is percieved to be in the wrong by the greater community, they step in and defend the wronged (not just whine and complain) - just look at WWI, WWII, and the Gulf War. Did anyone step in to defend Saddam? Nope. Not one nation. Thats all the justification I need to say we were right.

5. Onions make your eyes water and sting, when this happens, what do you do? You eat or cook the onion. Since Iraq represented an annoyance on the same level as singy, watery eyes, accept your analogy, and stand by my support for the war.

Impressive 7 page list and all, but you got it from a weblog?

Part of the problem you are having probably stems from you thinking that everyone is pointing a finger solely at the US for supplying Saddam with military, and chemical weapons? I am well aware that Saddam was armed by a multitude of nations but the US involvement is far more insidious than that.
Insidious, def; Working or spreading harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner


Who removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations? Ronald Reagan
Hardly "insidious"...

It was "our" list, no one else's. Since the USSR and various other countries were already selling weapons and chemicals(WMDS!!) before 1979! Does that make what these other countries have done "insidious" as well??

One company alone, Thyssen Rheinstahl Technik, had constructed Iraq’s extensive chemicals weapons program, upgraded Iraq’s Scud missiles, and constructed an elaborate bunker system to protect Iraq’s military control centres and political leadership. Within hours of Iraq’s Scud missiles falling on Tel Aviv, Israel sought compensation directly from Germany, famously telling Chancellor Helmut Kohl, “Mr Chancellor, three concepts can never be linked with one another: Jews, Germans and poison gas”.Kohl made an immediate commitment of DM250 million for reconstruction, and later raised it to DM1 billion.
1980
The Iraqi government contracts with the West German firm, Thyssen Rheinstahl Technik, for the construction of a biological research laboratory near al-Salman Pak. Another contract with the same company and for the same purpose is signed in 1981. The laboratory is completed in 1983 and becomes the focus of Iraq's biological weapons research and development efforts. The complex is highly secured.



AND
In 1983, the State Department removed Iraq from this list after Iraq expelled the Abu Nidal Black June terrorist group.


Who established diplomatic relations with Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War? Ronald Reagan via Donald Rumsfeld
I just don't see much stealth in this....:rolleyes:

Which country was legitimizing supplying weapons to Iraq? The US

Vague question. Iraq was recieving weapons from the USSR as early as 1972! The US had something to do with that? Source?
In 1974, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Paris to negotiate the purchase of a reactor similar to the French Osiris reactor. Then Vice-President Saddam Hussein would personally visit Paris a year later to "sweeten" the deal for the French with promises of cheap Iraqi oil. By 1976, a $300 million deal had been completed for two reactors—one a 40MW(th) reactor that the French dubbed "Osirak," and an 800kW(th) reactor called Isis. WMDs!!!
Iraq admits that in the 1980's it bought more than 3,000 chemical-ready aerial bombs from Spain, more than 8,000 chemical-ready artillery shells from Italy and Spain, and more than 12,000 chemical-ready rocket warheads from Italy and Egypt.
In fact, just before the Gulf War, Germany was selling complete, ready-to-operate poison gas plants to Iraq and Libya at the same time.


This is most important (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm):

Rumsfeld’s December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed “topics of mutual interest,” according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. “[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world,” Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. “It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.”

Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States “in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be ‘contrary to U.S. interests’ and has made several moves to prevent that result.”

In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.”

In the 1980's, the German firm Karl Kolb and the French firm Protec combined to furnish millions of dollars' worth of sensitive equipment to six separate plants for making mustard gas and nerve agents, with a capacity of hundreds of tons of nerve agent per year.
February 1984
U.S. Customs at New York's Kennedy Airport stop an order addressed to the Iraqi State Enterprise for Pesticide Production for 74 drums of potassium fluoride, a chemical used in the production of Sarin. The order was places by Al-Haddad Enterprises Incorporates, owned by an individual named Sahib al-Haddad.
March 1984
Reports surface accusing Italian and French firms of aiding Iraq with its chemical weapons technology. The firms deny the accusations.
26 March 1984
The U.N. issues it first report on the investigation of possible chemical weapons use.
30 March 1984
The U.S. bans export of five chemicals suitable for weapons to Iraq and Iran.
November 1984 -January 1985
Dutch authorities obtain evidence that between November 1984 and January 1985 the Dutch company Melchemie BV had legally exported over 1200 tons of chloroethyl, dimethylamine, thiodiglycol, and 20,000 kg of phosphorous trichloride, all of which are used for the manufacture of chemical weapons.
February 1985
British authorities receive a request for insurance support for a British subsidiary of a West German company to design, build and commission a "Chlorine-Alkali-Electrolysis" plant in Iraq. The British government is not able to find substantial justification to block the contract
Mid-1980s
East German specialists (from the now-disbanded Volksarmee) install a large chemical warfare training center in Iraq. The facility was set up to train the Iraqi army in effective delivery of CW.
3 August 1987
The United States expands its chemical exports embargo against Iraq in response to the continued procurement efforts by Iraq and its neighbors. The eight additional chemicals in this new extension are: n- diisoprpylaminoethane-2-thiol, n- diisopropylaminoethyl-2-chloride, dimethyl phosphate (DMP), 3-hydroxy-1-methylpiperdine, phosphorus trichloride, 3-quinuclidinol, thionyl chloride, trimethyl phosphate (TMP). The four chemicals already embargoed and now subject to worldwide export licensing are: dimethyl methylphosphonate (DMMP), methylphosphonyl dichloride (DC), methylphosphonyl diflouride (DF), phosphorous oxychloride.
Late 1987
According to General Wafiq al-Sammarai, former head of Iraqi Military Intelligence, Iraqi engineers aided by German scientists succeeded in producing VX in late 1987.
1988. 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.
1984
Iraq acquires eight mobile laboratories from the German firm Iveco Magirus AG.
1986
The Iraqi government purchases samples of four trichothecene mycotoxins, ostensibly for "laboratory analyses." According to Der Spiegel the deal is brokered by Kosef Kuhn, the head of a West German export firm and a suspected Iraqi agent. He purchases the toxins from Sigma-Chemie in Munich
1987
Iraq imports 2.7 grams of mycotoxins from a German firm.
1988
An order of almost 40 tons of non-specified growth media is delivered by the Oxoid firm in Bedford, England, and the Swiss firm Fluka Chemie
1988
Iraq orders 1,325-gallon fermenter to grow culture from the Swiss company Chemap and arranges to buy several more. The U.S. and its allies persuade Switzerland to drop the sale.
1989
Iraq buys standard spray dryers (which turn germ-laden slurries into dry powder) from the Niro Atomiser Company of Denmark. Later Iraq admits that one dryer was installed at al-Hakam in 1992. The other was found in 1997 at a warehouse at a town in northern Iraq.


The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. “Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists,” the U.N. report said. “The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun.”

Prior to the release of the UN report, the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying “available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons.”

Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, “We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular.”

Compared with the rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick’s reaction was hardly a call to action.

Insidious?? no.

Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department “evidence.” On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.”

A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld’s aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld’s achievements helping to “reopen U.S. relations with Iraq.” The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.

Insidious?? no.

Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan’s Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:

“First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved.”

Frantically?? I don't think so.
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
1978-1990. 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.
1980-1984. Italy sells Iraq (2) A-109 Hirundo Light helicopters; (6) S-61 Helicopters For VIP transport; 1 Stromboli Class Support ship.
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
1981-1989. 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.
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.
1985. Jordan sells Iraq (2) S-76 Spirit Helicopters (Ex-Jordanian Air Force).
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. WMDS!!!! :rolleyes:
1990, Spring. Iraq purchases 40 top-of-the-line aerosol generators capable, of disseminating 800 gallons of liquid an hour, from Italy. They are compact enough to fit in the back of a pickup truck, small boat, or single-engined aircraft.

In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department—in the name of “increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market”—pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam “transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.”

Good thing Saddam never bought any helicopters from any other country!! :rolleyes:


In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.”

Don't dare mention that Mig-21's were used!! You know Mig-21s are made in the USA!! :rolleyes:

In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

Twisting facts?? You? Never.
30 March 1984
The U.S. bans export of five chemicals suitable for weapons to Iraq and Iran.
3 August 1987
The United States expands its chemical exports embargo against Iraq in response to the continued procurement efforts by Iraq and its neighbors. The eight additional chemicals in this new extension are: n- diisoprpylaminoethane-2-thiol, n- diisopropylaminoethyl-2-chloride, dimethyl phosphate (DMP), 3-hydroxy-1-methylpiperdine, phosphorus trichloride, 3-quinuclidinol, thionyl chloride, trimethyl phosphate (TMP). The four chemicals already embargoed and now subject to worldwide export licensing are: dimethyl methylphosphonate (DMMP), methylphosphonyl dichloride (DC), methylphosphonyl diflouride (DF), phosphorous oxychloride.


Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq’s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.

Hey, I'm glad there's always some "senior officials" to make anonymous annoucements!!

The US placed the goodhousekeeping seal of approval on the Iraq regime and the weapons flowed DESPITE the Iraq use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. The US bears a huge responsibility for the successes of Saddam Hussein, and the truly sad part about ALL of this, is that through Hussein, the US was getting revenge for the hostage taking incident in Iran in 1979.

Twice I listed the US embargo on chemicals to Iraq.
Sold chemicals/supplied technicians to Iraq:
West Germany
East Germany
Melchemie
Karl Kolb
KBS Holland BV
Quast Company
Pressaug
Fluka Chemie(Swiss)
Hoechst(French)
Thyssen Rheinsstahl Technick
Iveco Magirus AG
(need more?)


Now you can either ignore the US's complicity in this matter, and go on posting endless lists...

Which I'll continue to do as long as you continue to ignore other countries "complicities" in this matter. :D


or you can finally accept that which has been offered here?

Can you remove your tunnel vision?

Okay. How's this sound:

The world as a whole, rather than individual nations, is responsible for giving Saddam tons of wholeheartedly undeserved support.

Okay. How's this sound:

The world as a whole, rather than individual nations, is responsible for giving Saddam tons of wholeheartedly undeserved support.

I second the motion.

I second the motion.

Thirded.

Okay. How's this sound:

The world as a whole, rather than individual nations, is responsible for giving Saddam tons of wholeheartedly undeserved support.Too bad this won't end most arguments.

Blaming everything on the US is moral cowardice, especially when I can point to the UN not wanting to do anything about Kosovo. While the US and NATO went in and got the job done.

If you'll care to notice, the UN isn't holding ANY OTHER NATION to task, either.
"Moral cowardice", come on now. So many times I have seen Americans on this board complain about how ineffective that the UN is and call for it to be disbanded. Way too often, the US has subverted the will of the UN to make the world a safer place, by overuse of their veto powers.

The UN can't act, because the US won't let it? If the UN had passed most of these Resolutions, then the world would be on notice that the organization meant business. I honestly believe that the world would have been a much safer place, that the Israeli situation would have been resolved peacefully, that poliferation of weapons would have been curtailed, etc., etc.....

30 Years Of U.S. UN Vetoes (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm).

Here are some of the more interesting vetoes by the US:

1972

Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.

1979

Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.

Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

1980

Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.

1981

Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.

1982

Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.

Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.

1987

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

Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.

Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.

Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.

1989

Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.

Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.

2001

To set up the International Criminal Court.

There are countless Resolutions against Israel vetoed by the US.

I also note that the majority of these vetoes occur during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

You accuse me of "moral cowardice", when in reality, it is the US that abdicated her "moral" responsibilities to this.....the Preamble of the UN Charter:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)

- to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

- to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

- to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

- to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

- to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

- to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

- to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

- to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Is the US totally to blame? Of course not, but as a world super power, the US could have done a lot more good and a lot less harm.

Insidious, def; Working or spreading harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner

Try this definition for "insidious", as it better describes the message that I was trying to convey:

gradual and harmful: slowly and subtly harmful or destructive

Yes....the US support of Saddam was far more insidious than all those that sold Iraq weapons and chemical agents.

The very fact that the US removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations was mistake number one. The fact that the US continued to support Iraq long AFTER Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran is mistake number two. The fact that the US supported Iraq to get revenge against Iran was mistake number three.

The US gave Saddam validation for selfish reasons, and was willing to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Iraq.

I don't care if a thousand countries sold weapons to Iraq, the undeniable fact that since the US "recognized" Iraq, it was much easier for Iraq to obtain what she needed?

Why didn't the US break off diplomatic relations with Iraq after discovering that Iraq was in violation of international laws and conventions? Why did the US continue to support this tyrant?

Try this definition for "insidious", as it better describes the message that I was trying to convey:

gradual and harmful: slowly and subtly harmful or destructive

Yes....the US support of Saddam was far more insidious than all those that sold Iraq weapons and chemical agents.

The very fact that the US removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations was mistake number one. The fact that the US continued to support Iraq long AFTER Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran is mistake number two. The fact that the US supported Iraq to get revenge against Iran was mistake number three.

The US gave Saddam validation for selfish reasons, and was willing to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Iraq.

I don't care if a thousand countries sold weapons to Iraq, the undeniable fact that since the US "recognized" Iraq, it was much easier for Iraq to obtain what she needed?

Why didn't the US break off diplomatic relations with Iraq after discovering that Iraq was in violation of international laws and conventions? Why did the US continue to support this tyrant?

Thats very presomtious of you.. so because the US identified a nation as a nation it suddenly has validation ? so why isn't Tawian given this type of validation today ? Countries like France and Russia didn't sell weapons to Iraq becuase the US took it off its own list of terrorist nations.. they did it because they saw war and war is good for buisness. The US supported Iraq because it was supporting what it saw as the lesser of two evils.. just as the Soviet Union supported Iran. You make all these malious connections so as to over represent the role the United States held. The US is as much to blame as every other country in the events in Iraqi history leading up to today.. no more... no less. And all of your opinions and interpretations of facts will not change this in anyone elses eyes but yours .

As far as I know.. the US made no active roles directly preventing the UN to take action against Iraq for using WMD.. but it was because the US turned a blind eye that the UN was powerless ? this is why americas say the UN is irrelevant... did the US abuse its veto power stopping the UN from acting in Rwanda, or Bosnia, or Kosov, or Shri Lanka, or today in Sudan ? No.. . but if the US doesn't go in guns blazing full force.. the UN is powerless. THIS is why Americans say the UN needs to be disbanded. The rest of the world says the US controls the UN.. but the US sees the UN as nothing more then a burden on its shoulders.. if everyone feels this way.. there is no reason why we shouldn't do away with the antiquated organization

Why didn't the US break off diplomatic relations with Iraq after discovering that Iraq was in violation of international laws and conventions? Why did the US continue to support this tyrant?

If the US was in violation of International Law, why didn't the world break of diplomatic relationships with us?

However, since apparently I'm being ignored by you, I don't expect an answer. If you do answer, I'll be surprised but I do look forward to hearing it.

Try this definition for "insidious", as it better describes the message that I was trying to convey:

gradual and harmful: slowly and subtly harmful or destructive

Yes....the US support of Saddam was far more insidious than all those that sold Iraq weapons and chemical agents.
All because you say it's so! :rolleyes:

The very fact that the US removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations was mistake number one.
The fact that the US continued to support Iraq long AFTER Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran is mistake number two.
Which you ignored,(three times now!) the unimportant fact that the US placed an embargo on any chemicals that Iraq could use to make WMDs!


The fact that the US supported Iraq to get revenge against Iran was mistake number three.

whine

The US gave Saddam validation for selfish reasons, and was willing to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Iraq.

Yeah, those French,Swiss,German,Russian, and Chinese were just making the world a safer place!:rolleyes:

I don't care if a thousand countries sold weapons to Iraq

Yes, your hypocrisy is getting really old.


, the undeniable fact that since the US "recognized" Iraq, it was much easier for Iraq to obtain what she needed?
Your opinion, and based on the facts I've posted incorrect! Which you completely ignored, yet again!!


Why didn't the US break off diplomatic relations with Iraq after discovering that Iraq was in violation of international laws and conventions? Why did the US continue to support this tyrant?

Why didn't Germany,France,USSR,Italy,Spain,China or any of the other countries listed as selling weapons and or chemicals to Iraq??

Why didn't Germany,France,USSR,Italy,Spain,China or any of the other countries listed as selling weapons and or chemicals to Iraq??

HaHa.. because obviously in the mind of ChanuckHeaven the US was the world.. if it supported Iraq so the world followed like blind idiots.. and everything the US did superceeded everything the world could have done but didn't or did do but was just as bad as the US (or worse)

Lancamore :

"stop posting on this thread. I'm starting to feel sick" :-(

Perhaps my english is not good enought for you or my opinion is not good enought to receive a little respect from you ( you can ignore me if you want )

But at least my education is enought to respect others opinion and capabilities


If you want we can talk in spanish and i will express myself in a much better way

If you don´t like my post, simple ignore them

But the bad education is worst that bad way to write or bad opinions

"Stopping Saddam was the US responsibility because we put him there and allowed him to run wild. Osama is our responsibility because we created him and allowed him to run wild."


I have to think about it .....

You allowd and create killers. You leave them killing ( if they kill not american ).

But if they kill americans ( bin laden ) or you want the oil ( saddam ) you are allowed to kill and masacre civil people, start 2 wars, and destroy 2 countries



¿?¿?¿?¿? Who allowed you to do that ??


"I don't see you criticizing the French for doing EXACTLY the same thing in their former colonies - invading, making war unilaterally without any allies, acting in force without ANY UN PERMISSION EVER."

I apologize for my error. I thought we were talking about bush/blair and iraq war

Whenever you want we can talk about masacres that were did by france, germany, spain ( my country ) ....... in Africa, or whenever you want

One of the biggest problems of Africa came from colonial politics made by european countries.
The have done many criminals acts there.

Many countries support criminals dictators, sell arms to killers countries ....

Does it made Bush criminal actions in Iraq less important ?????????


"I also don't see most other countries taking ANY responsibility for their own messes that were created by decades of colonialism and decades of the Cold War."


Well, if - taking responsabilities - mean kill more people, i´m not sure i want them do that


I would be glad if usa, france, uk, rusia ( many things to say about rusia ) ...... don´t made more mistakes

AND KILL PEOPLE IN IRAQ IS A MISTAKE

A mistake don´t solve another mistake

"Stopping Saddam was the US responsibility because we put him there and allowed him to run wild. Osama is our responsibility because we created him and allowed him to run wild."


I have to think about it .....

You allowd and create killers. You leave them killing ( if they kill not american ).

But if they kill americans ( bin laden ) or you want the oil ( saddam ) you are allowed to kill and masacre civil people, start 2 wars, and destroy 2 countries



¿?¿?¿?¿? Who allowed you to do that ??


"I don't see you criticizing the French for doing EXACTLY the same thing in their former colonies - invading, making war unilaterally without any allies, acting in force without ANY UN PERMISSION EVER."

I apologize for my error. I thought we were talking about bush/blair and iraq war

Whenever you want we can talk about masacres that were did by france, germany, spain ( my country ) ....... in Africa, or whenever you want

One of the biggest problems of Africa came from colonial politics made by european countries.
The have done many criminals acts there.

Many countries support criminals dictators, sell arms to killers countries ....

Does it made Bush criminal actions in Iraq less important ?????????


"I also don't see most other countries taking ANY responsibility for their own messes that were created by decades of colonialism and decades of the Cold War."


Well, if - taking responsabilities - mean kill more people, i´m not sure i want them do that


I would be glad if usa, france, uk, rusia ( many things to say about rusia ) ...... don´t made more mistakes

AND KILL PEOPLE IN IRAQ IS A MISTAKE

A mistake don´t solve another mistake

I yern for the day Iraq becomes a stable democracy and a pillar in the arab world again before the time of war and strife... then foolish opinions like these will be reguarded as fallious ideologies, and the world will realize the importance and genious of Bush as his vision is not 2 or 5 years on the horizion.. but 50-100 years.. so far few can comprehend it.

America is only killing terrorists in Iraq.. and each Iraqi life and america life lost is worth the prospect of a prosperous Iraq in 5 10 even 50 years from now.. how many more will have opprotunties their ansestors (people 5 years ago) would have only dreamt of

"then foolish opinions like these will be reguarded as fallious ideologies"


Ok, now i see

You are a visionary that know the way for the heaven and will kill all necesary people to achieve your goal


American soldiers have kill much more than terrorist ( you don´t read papers ? What about the little child that were taking wood and ws killed ? What about all child, womens .... killed ? Were all terrorist ??



But now i understand the truth

You have see a wonderfull word created by yourself and all people that don´t see it or don´t want it will be killed in the name of "THE TRUTH "


It´s pity see that you think in the same way that terrorist that attacked america 11-s or attacked us 11-m

I HAVE THE TRUTH AND I WILL DO ALL NECESRY TO GIVE OTHERS MY TRUTH ( disidents will be killed )


I´m afraid of terrorist and i´m afraid of americans fanaticals ( NOT ALL AMERICANS ARE FANATICALS - just thous that think the live of childs, babies, women, .... will not stop them to create a world they want. Will you see your error after 50 years and start more wars to solve it again ??? )




psd : USA produce and sell the 46% of the total army market ( perhaps wars are interest and not ideology )




foolish : perhaps i´m worng but you don´t need insult. I feel about your opinion the sme that you feel about mine. If you are a little more polite that´s not bad, please don´t try be offensive

( but perhaps you that don´t cre about killing don´t care about insult )

One question more :

When you say :

"each Iraqi life and america life lost is worth the prospect of a prosperous Iraq in 5 10 even 50 years from now"

Have you ask to the fathers of the dead babies if the prosperous Iraq worth the live of their babies ?

Do you agree that your sons, pathers and friends will be killed if they made a prosperous Iraq ?


Excuse me but i feel you don´t know what you say.

Blaming everything on the US is moral cowardice, especially when I can point to the UN not wanting to do anything about Kosovo. While the US and NATO went in and got the job done.

And what the end result of going to Kosovo was?

Many more deaths than before.

Growing insecurity for all ethnic groups.

The eventual implementation of strict ethnic cleansing.

If the US and NATO hadn't done the "job", Kosovo would have been a safer place :-(

One question more :

When you say :

"each Iraqi life and america life lost is worth the prospect of a prosperous Iraq in 5 10 even 50 years from now"

Have you ask to the fathers of the dead babies if the prosperous Iraq worth the live of their babies ?

Most of them would say yes if they know anything about Saddam Hussein. BTW: My father is in the service and I know for a fact that my grandfather supports him 100%. My dad feels this operationis a good thing. And my grandfather understands it.

Do you agree that your sons, pathers and friends will be killed if they made a prosperous Iraq ?

:confused: You do need to learn to right better. HOw would they be killed if Iraq is prosperous?

Excuse me but i feel you don´t know what you say.

I know what I am saying! Maybe its because I'm a son in a military family!

No one allows an alzheimers patient to make important decisions

Ronald Reagan comes to mind ;-)

Ronald Reagan comes to mind ;-)

As I said before, you are welcome to put him on trial >;o)

One question more :

When you say :

"each Iraqi life and america life lost is worth the prospect of a prosperous Iraq in 5 10 even 50 years from now"

Have you ask to the fathers of the dead babies if the prosperous Iraq worth the live of their babies ?

Do you agree that your sons, pathers and friends will be killed if they made a prosperous Iraq ?


Excuse me but i feel you don´t know what you say.


I have a brother who is graduating from National Guard training in May, and he is hoping to recieve orders to ship out to Iraq. He's not going because he wants oil, or wants to kill some a-rabs; he is going because he truly believes that a secure future for Iraq is better than letting Saddam run free like he was. He is willing to risk his life to protect the citizens of a nation not his own. If he dies, I won't like it, but I understand the sacrifice he will have made. So please, don't assume that we don't know what we're saying when we talk about making Iraq a better place.

We weren't the only nation to use WMD either. The only ones to use nukes yes but wmd? no! Germany, Britain, France, Italy (twice), Japan (experiments), Iraq (on Iran and his own people).

Just out of curiosity, which two instances of WMD use are you counting for Italy? I know of two, too, but I suspect I missed some.

What about an invasion against a nation that has defied 17 UN Resolutions and a UN Cease-fire? Breaking a cease-fire is grounds enough to wage war.

I don't know about any cease fires, but there's at least one close US ally who broke at least as many US resolutions... should the US invade it, too, then?

Well, if - taking responsabilities - mean kill more people, i´m not sure i want them do that


I would be glad if usa, france, uk, rusia ( many things to say about rusia ) ...... don´t made more mistakes

AND KILL PEOPLE IN IRAQ IS A MISTAKE

A mistake don´t solve another mistake

I think there is a fundamental divide in philosophy here. Since I obviously place less value on human life than you do (I'm serious, no sarcasm intended), I tend to view the deaths of people in terms of their significance in the grand scheme of things, rather than sympathize with them on principal. I believe that the end result is worth the cost of the war, so to me, the deaths are justified.

As far as why I place so little value on human life, I could write an encyclopedia size book on it and not even scratch the surface, but if you're itching to know, search around the forums here, I think I left a good diatribe on it (maybe in Conservatives vs Liberals?)

( but perhaps you that don´t cre about killing don´t care about insult )
Yes you are right....they don't seem to care about the killing, and the insults flow freely. I am sure some of them don't want to think that their government can make huge mistakes?

Treaty breaking is nothing new in this world; they are simply agreements between two or more parties, when one side breaks a treaty, it can make the others mad, but there is no international authority that can dish out punishments and have the muscle to back them up, at least where the US is concerned.

When two people or two companies make an agreement, if one party refuses to act on it, the other party can bring him in court.

It has long been agreed that it's better to have a framework (the judiciary power) which is "stronger" than anyone else, and can enforce the rules we all agree on.

You are right that there is no such entity on an international level, strong enough to enforce treaties.

This is only one more argument in favour of a stronger UN ;-)

I have to say that these lawyers obviously have no gratatude. They've been saved from a brutal regime soliders are risking their lives for them and they decide to try to put the ones that initiated their freedom on trial. Whats the world coming to?

You act as though the US were the only impediment to a stronger UN. If that were true, the other countries could go off and form their own worldwide organization with all the powers that Canuck would like.

What, no mad stampede to do this? Don't blame the US for that.

Don't blame the US for the moral cowardice of the world. Don't blame the US for most European countries not wanting to bring Serbs to the Hague.

And don't blame us for unenforced UN resolutions. The rest of the world could have easily gotten together and formed their own organization and done what it wanted, veto or not.

theyre the top rated lawyers of Iraq

So the top-rate and most likely 500 an hour lawyers of iraq were hired by the majority of poor people in iraq. Maybe they were hired by the all the terrorists and the billionaires who support anit-american everything
hmmmmm

Most of them would say yes if they know anything about Saddam Hussein. BTW: My father is in the service and I know for a fact that my grandfather supports him 100%. My dad feels this operationis a good thing. And my grandfather understands it.



:confused: You do need to learn to right better. HOw would they be killed if Iraq is prosperous?



I know what I am saying! Maybe its because I'm a son in a military family!

r u in the military??? just wondering cuz u seem to know a "lot" for just being a "son" in a military family

"Do you agree that your sons, pathers and friends will be killed if they made a prosperous Iraq ?

You do need to learn to right better. HOw would they be killed if Iraq is prosperous?"


I read well, but i speak bad.
I wanted ask if you agree that your sons, pathers and friends will be killed if their sacrifice could help iraq to be a prosperous country




"I know what I am saying! Maybe its because I'm a son in a military family! "

Perhaps the point is that you don´t know what you say because you have not loose a son

I don't know about any cease fires, but there's at least one close US ally who broke at least as many US resolutions... should the US invade it, too, then?
The US would never invade Israel, despite the numerous UN Resolutions against her. :eek:

When two people or two companies make an agreement, if one party refuses to act on it, the other party can bring him in court.

It has long been agreed that it's better to have a framework (the judiciary power) which is "stronger" than anyone else, and can enforce the rules we all agree on.

You are right that there is no such entity on an international level, strong enough to enforce treaties.

This is only one more argument in favour of a stronger UN ;-)
Yes!! A stronger UN means a better world, less corruption, less war, less killing, and healthier lives.

"Since I obviously place less value on human life than you do (I'm serious, no sarcasm intended), I tend to view the deaths of people in terms of their significance in the grand scheme of things, rather than sympathize with them on principal. I believe that the end result is worth the cost of the war, so to me, the deaths are justified."


Perhaps another difference is that i don´t believe in "grand scheme of things"

I don´t like people that kill other because "grand scheme of things" will be better in future

It doesn´t matter if he is named bush or bin laden, there are people that don´t give any value to others lives because they "know" their cause is the truth

I feel fanatism is a word used for some of this people


I know that people live is nothing in the line of time, universe will continue even if all humans disapears in this moment

But at the same time that we are nothing, we are all we have
If you kill someone, you don´t stop the world or made time stop. But you destroy all this man have ( live, ilusion, future, happiness, .... )

I will not accept other could kill me ( named saddan or blair ... ) because they have see a better future. I think we ( the world ) don´t need dictators, killers, saddams, bin laden or bush

5 millions babies die every year of hunger and many people don´careabout it.
But they claim they have the RIGHT to have car or ear more money


If live is nothing ( or if live have no value ) then, there doesn´t exist rights and we could end living in a terrible jungle were the strenght is the only law


And the idea that end justify method is very old and many, many, many people hate this idea

I don´t like people that kill other because "grand scheme of things" will be better in future


Then I suppose that the Allies were wrong in killing Germans and German soldiers and losing their own soldiers in order to stop Hitler.

We should have given Hitler a big party, and celebrated his great works, instead of killing so that he would be stopped.

:confused: You do need to learn to right better.
You do realize that this person is Spanish and is trying to communicate with you in YOUR language? Perhaps a little tolerance will help?

BTW, you misspelt 'write". :eek:
I know what I am saying! Maybe its because I'm a son in a military family!
Yeah and we all believe everything you say. :rolleyes:

You do realize that this person is Spanish and is trying to communicate with you in YOUR language? Perhaps a little tolerance will help?

BTW, you misspelt 'write". :eek:

Yeah and we all believe everything you say. :rolleyes:

Canuck, I really do believe that the threads on this sort of subject are a complete waste of time. Even if Iraq works out perfectly, and the Iraqi people all got up and said how happy they were that we came and overthrew Saddam, you'll still say that before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowering meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

Just out of curiosity, which two instances of WMD use are you counting for Italy? I know of two, too, but I suspect I missed some.

They actually used Chemical Weapons on Ethiopia in the 1930s.

I don't know about any cease fires, but there's at least one close US ally who broke at least as many US resolutions... should the US invade it, too, then?

And which ally would that be? Israel? No! Israel is defending itself and they haven't used WMD to do it. Besides that, they have legally ceased territory and is now in the process of giving some of it back. Also, the terrorists are hiding among civilians and Israel has done its best to minimize civilian casualties. Can't say the same for the terrorists though.

r u in the military??? just wondering cuz u seem to know a "lot" for just being a "son" in a military family

Hmm because my dad has taught me? My dad and my mom intilled it into me from birth.

Duty, Honor, Country.

As for being in the military, no I'm not but I am in the auxillary of the USAF and have to abide by regulations.

"Do you agree that your sons, pathers and friends will be killed if they made a prosperous Iraq ?

You do need to learn to right better. HOw would they be killed if Iraq is prosperous?"


I read well, but i speak bad.
I wanted ask if you agree that your sons, pathers and friends will be killed if their sacrifice could help iraq to be a prosperous country

Yes I would agree with it. I live with that possibility everytime a family member goes overseas to help them become prosperous.


"I know what I am saying! Maybe its because I'm a son in a military family! "

Perhaps the point is that you don´t know what you say because you have not loose a son

I may not have lost a relative but my father has lost friends in the 1st Iraq War. Though it pains him to lose them, he knows they died in a cause to bring liberty to Kuwait. Here, people who lose family members are losing them to bring freedom to the Iraqis who have been oppressed by a tyrannical regime.

Yes!! A stronger UN means a better world, less corruption, less war, less killing, and healthier lives.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Less corruption? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They can't even call Durfar a genocide and you expect them to be a stronger organization? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

You do realize that this person is Spanish and is trying to communicate with you in YOUR language? Perhaps a little tolerance will help?

Yes I do know that he is spanish. All I said is that he needs to learn to write it better. I should've added that he does type it well though.

BTW, you misspelt 'write". :eek:

You be in a rush and see how well you type!

Yeah and we all believe everything you say. :rolleyes:

Just like we believe everything you say :rolleyes:

You act as though the US were the only impediment to a stronger UN. If that were true, the other countries could go off and form their own worldwide organization with all the powers that Canuck would like.

I didn't say the US is the only impediment (though it IS an impediment).

However, such an organization must be built on consensus.
US presidents in the 40s and 50s had the vision to build the consensus to create the UN in its current form.
It's a pity the later US presidents (both parties) lacked the courage to go further, but chose instead to fight it.

Don't blame the US for the moral cowardice of the world. Don't blame the US for most European countries not wanting to bring Serbs to the Hague.

Most serbs have already been delivered to the Hague, it's the croats. bosniacs and kosovars who are pulling their legs.

Though I applaud the kosovar prime minister who stepped down some days ago and consigned himself to the tribunal.


And don't blame us for unenforced UN resolutions. The rest of the world could have easily gotten together and formed their own organization and done what it wanted, veto or not.

What would have happened if the rest of the world had done so to enforce UN resolutions against Israel?
I don't know, but I'm sure the Middle East didn't need yet another bloody war...

Most serbs have already been delivered to the Hague, it's the croats. bosniacs and kosovars who are pulling their legs.

Though I applaud the kosovar prime minister who stepped down some days ago and consigned himself to the tribunal.


Other than being delivered by the bosnians and kosovars, the only nations that have captured and delivered Serbs to the Hague are...

The UK SAS and the US Special Forces...

Other European nations have specifically declined to act in such a manner - arresting war criminals and bringing them to the Hague.

Other European nations have specifically declined to act in such a manner - arresting war criminals and bringing them to the Hague.


Sounds like they're the one's being insidious!!

A fuel-air explosion is not napalm, just a cheap way af flattening a large area

Yes the US used the atom bombs on Japan, simply becase we got them first, all sides in WW2 were trying to make them and there is no doubt in anyones mind (at least anyone that uses theirs) that the Japanese would have used atomic weapons on US cities if they had beat the US in making them

everyone denounces the US for using those weapons 60 years ago during a war but no one ever denounces the Japanese for what they did to every country they occupied

and if you read any news, you would see that the Iragi civilians are shooting the insurgents themselves now, they are tired of being targeted by the outsiders who control the insurgents

Canuck, I really do believe that the threads on this sort of subject are a complete waste of time. Even if Iraq works out perfectly, and the Iraqi people all got up and said how happy they were that we came and overthrew Saddam, you'll still say that before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowering meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.
I have never attempted to suggest that Iraq was a land of milk and honey before the US invaded, nor do I believe that they were in the best of hands under Saddam.

However, I do wonder what kind of country Iraq would be today, IF the US had never backed Saddam, and IF the US had never given Iraq military weapons or "intelligence".

Why did the US befriend Iraq?

Why did the US supply military arms and intelligence to Iraq?

Why did the US tell the world that they felt threatened by Iraq and had no choice but to invade them?

Why is the US establishing "enduring" bases in Iraq?

Why is the US hijacking the Iraqi economy through use of Bremer's Orders?

WILL the US accept an Iraqi government that is based on Islamic theology IF they so choose?

Now, only if we could have some honest answers to these questions..........

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Less corruption? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They can't even call Durfar a genocide and you expect them to be a stronger organization? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Mind if I join in with the hilarity here? Because that was one of the funniest posts I've seen from CH.

Canuck, I really do believe that the threads on this sort of subject are a complete waste of time. Even if Iraq works out perfectly, and the Iraqi people all got up and said how happy they were that we came and overthrew Saddam, you'll still say that before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowering meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

I daresay you're right, and as the reality is that Iraq isn't going to be any more perfect than any other nation, apparently the transition from fascism to democracy isn't worth any lives. Wonder what he makes of WW2, actually, because our fight to liberate France cost a hell of a lot of lives...

I've already explained this to you.

The US (and other nations) made a lot of bad foreign policy choices during the period of colonialism (Europeans doing bad) and the Cold War (The US and USSR doing bad).

We propped Saddam up until the end of the Cold War - because the policy of the US (as the policy of the USSR was) "prop up anyone who does mostly what we say".

Hence the mess in Afghanistan. Hence Iraq. And a lot of other messes (Angola, for instance).

So now, we're cleaning up our messes, because those messes end up causing problems later - and we know that now.

It's a poor sort of analyst who says, "why didn't we do the right thing 25 years ago". It's an excellent analyst who says, "we did the wrong thing 25 years ago, and now we need to fix it"

It's an immoral person who says, "you did a horrible thing 25 years ago, and look what the end result is - but don't you dare try to undo it now."

I've already explained this to you.

The US (and other nations) made a lot of bad foreign policy choices during the period of colonialism (Europeans doing bad) and the Cold War (The US and USSR doing bad).

We propped Saddam up until the end of the Cold War - because the policy of the US (as the policy of the USSR was) "prop up anyone who does mostly what we say".

Hence the mess in Afghanistan. Hence Iraq. And a lot of other messes (Angola, for instance).

So now, we're cleaning up our messes, because those messes end up causing problems later - and we know that now.

It's a poor sort of analyst who says, "why didn't we do the right thing 25 years ago". It's an excellent analyst who says, "we did the wrong thing 25 years ago, and now we need to fix it"

It's an immoral person who says, "you did a horrible thing 25 years ago, and look what the end result is - but don't you dare try to undo it now."

I have never attempted to suggest that Iraq was a land of milk and honey before the US invaded, nor do I believe that they were in the best of hands under Saddam.

However, I do wonder what kind of country Iraq would be today, IF the US had never backed Saddam, and IF the US had never given Iraq military weapons or "intelligence".

I wonder you're happy to hypothesise these things, but never anything which shows the US in a positive light. Not even a hypothetical good USA. To me, that says a great deal.

Why did the US befriend Iraq?

That would be the whole 'Cold War' thing we had going on for 55 ish years. *Edit; Apologies, miscounted. 45ish years.

Why did the US supply military arms and intelligence to Iraq?

Because Stalin's Russia left tens of millions of dead, countless more in labor and concentration camps, and because he made Hitler look like a fairly nice guy by comparison.

Why did the US tell the world that they felt threatened by Iraq and had no choice but to invade them?

Actually, that's much better addressed to Blair, who's sole reason for attacking was WMDs, whilst Bush had several, of which this was just one. Personally, I think freeing 25 million people from the rule of an insane tyrant and his two sons is good enough for me.

Why is the US establishing "enduring" bases in Iraq?

Why is it the only possible interpretation of that word is 'long-term', and not 'good at withstanding attacks'? Also, why not? Apparently, the democratically elected Iraqi government feel the coalition presence is a necessity to peace and stability, or else they would have asked them to leave.

Why is the US hijacking the Iraqi economy through use of Bremer's Orders?

Why can't you read? They can be overturned by the Iraqi government.

WILL the US accept an Iraqi government that is based on Islamic theology IF they so choose?

Yes, unless said government goes back to oppression and terrorism. In which case, I'd hope we'd go back in and kick some more ass, but your whiny friends and yourself would likely make it too unpopular a prospect for whoever is in charge at the time.

Now, only if we could have some honest answers to these questions..........

Now, if only you could pay attention to facts once in awhile, instead of whatever fabrications and exaggerations help you tar America.........

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.

These are a few lawyers trying to make names for themselves. The majority of the Iraqi people are now enjoying the freedom that most countries are enjoying - Democracy- A lot of countries had to fight for their freedom including America, so actually Bush, Blair and the coalition should be commended for freeing the Iraqi people from an oppressive government.

*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

what kind of banned weapons.

so actually Bush, Blair and the coalition should be commended for freeing the Iraqi people from an oppressive government.

The Iraqi economy is doing far better now than it was. The Oil for Food was a sham meant to enrich a few people while Saddam's people starved. Saddam was a brutal despot who cared for nothing more than his own power. Removing him was a good idea, and the only reason far too many nations and the UN did not support war was because of the oil $ coming in to the upper echelons' bank accounts. However, it is costly, and this is the only real problem I have given the precarious fiscal situation of the government.

what kind of banned weapons.

None, and I'd like to see this report.

what kind of banned weapons.

There are some people from left-leaning organizations who claim that napalm was used on Fallujah, because they found some burned bodies.

First, using napalm against armed combatants is not illegal.

Second, napalm was not used. If you read the After Action Report, you will note that one of the standard methods used to remove armed insurgents from a building was to throw in (by hand) a white phosphorus mortar shell primed with a bit of C-4 and a short fuse. The standard procedure was to ask them to surrender. Once they refuse, light it, and throw it in. In a few seconds, they burn to death - and the shell is small so it doesn't blow anything up, and since the buildings are stone, only the room the insurgents are in gets burned.

I have never attempted to suggest that Iraq was a land of milk and honey before the US invaded, nor do I believe that they were in the best of hands under Saddam.

However, I do wonder what kind of country Iraq would be today, IF the US had never backed Saddam, and IF the US had never given Iraq military weapons or "intelligence".

Why did the US befriend Iraq?

Why did the US supply military arms and intelligence to Iraq?

Why did the US tell the world that they felt threatened by Iraq and had no choice but to invade them?

Why is the US establishing "enduring" bases in Iraq?

Why is the US hijacking the Iraqi economy through use of Bremer's Orders?

WILL the US accept an Iraqi government that is based on Islamic theology IF they so choose?

Now, only if we could have some honest answers to these questions..........

Honest answers........ LMAO

This is just too funny. Canuck Heaven thinks he has the right to "sit on high" and demand answers as to the actions of the US while at the same time blatantly ignoring any and all actions of the rest of the world.


Why did Germany continue to sell chemicals to Iraq, after knowing full well they were being used as WMDs??

Why did East Germany send specialists to train the Iraqis in the use of Chemical Warfare?

Why did France sell Iraq Mirage F-1C, which were used in chemical attacks?

Why did Italy and Spain sell chemical-ready aerial bombs and artillery shells to Iraq?

Why did Thyssen Rheinstahl Technik build Iraq a biological research laboratory?

Why did the Dutch company Melchemie BV sell 1200 tons of chloroethyl, dimethylamine, thiodiglycol, and 20,000 kg of phosphorous trichloride, all of which are used for the manufacture of chemical weapons, to Iraq?

Why did West Germany sell Iraq eight mobile chemical laboratories?

Why did a German firm sell Iraq 2.7 grams of mycotoxins?

Why, in 1990, did Italy sell Iraq 40 top-of-the-line aerosol generators?


Now, only if we could have some honest answers to these questions....

:rolleyes:

Mind if I join in with the hilarity here? Because that was one of the funniest posts I've seen from CH.

Yep. Come on and join the hilarity of it. It has been one of his funniest posts. I might even add it to my signature! :D

I have never attempted to suggest that Iraq was a land of milk and honey before the US invaded, nor do I believe that they were in the best of hands under Saddam.

However, I do wonder what kind of country Iraq would be today, IF the US had never backed Saddam, and IF the US had never given Iraq military weapons or "intelligence".

We will never know, but I suspect it would be similar to other nations in the area, like Syria or Iran. Read the history of the region, things have been screwed up there ever since the end of WWI.

Why did the US befriend Iraq?

This has been explained ad nauseum, and IIRC, your own explaination was sufficient.

Why did the US supply military arms and intelligence to Iraq?

Because of the previous point.

Why did the US tell the world that they felt threatened by Iraq and had no choice but to invade them?

Because he did represent a threat to our forces, national interests, and our allies in the region. He was a warmonger; it was only a matter of time before he tried again.

Why is the US establishing "enduring" bases in Iraq?

To promote peace and prosperity in the region for generations to come. And to serve as forward bases if/when we go into Iran and/or Syria. Everybody wave to your friendly neighborhood US military base! We're not going to leave anytime soon, get used to it.

Why is the US hijacking the Iraqi economy through use of Bremer's Orders?

Bremer's orders can be rescinded by the Iraqi government anytime they wish. Hey Iraqi government! Yeah, you! You want to rescind Bremer's Orders? No? You sure? Alright.

WILL the US accept an Iraqi government that is based on Islamic theology IF they so choose?

We will likely discourage it, but if thats what they chose, then thats what will happen. If things start to go back to Saddam-era status, we might have to crack a few skulls though.

Now, only if we could have some honest answers to these questions..........

Honest answers given (again). Care to actually read them this time?

........ LMAO

This is just too funny. Canuck Heaven thinks he has the right to "sit on high" and demand answers as to the actions of the US while at the same time blatantly ignoring any and all actions of the rest of the world.
I am just looking for some honest answers....I am demanding nothing, and as far as people sitting on high, it would be those that suggest that the US has to answer to no one because of their perceived invincibility as a super power.

Why did Germany ......Why did France.....Why did Italy and Spain......Why did the Dutch company......~~SNIP~~?
:rolleyes:
What relevance do any of these questions have to do with the US invasion of Iraq?

I am just looking for some honest answers....I am demanding nothing, and as far as people sitting on high, it would be those that suggest that the US has to answer to no one because of their perceived invincibility as a super power.

Here's your honest answer.

One of the first things the U.N. did was sit down in Geneva, Switzerland, and try to find a kinder, gentler way to wage war. What better place than Switzerland? (To quote Harry Lime (played by Orson Welles) in The Third Man: "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock!")

In December 1948, the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide passed the first article of what would be known as the Geneva Conventions. Genocide was defined as murder "committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Taking a page from the Nuremberg Trials, the convention drew up a list of punishable crimes "genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide; attempt to commit genocide; [and] complicity in genocide."

The initial statement on genocide was followed up by subsequent conventions dealing with various related and unrelated aspects of war, including prisoners of war and the treatment of civilians. Three more articles were adopted in 1949, and the Conventions were updated and expanded in 1977.

The Rules
In very broad strokes, here are the major points mandated in the tens of thousands of words and hundreds of rules known as the Geneva Conventions, as identified by the International Red Cross:

Prisoners of war should be "respected and protected" without regard to gender, race, politics or creed.
Prisoners may not be murdered, tortured or subjected to scientific experiments.
War combatants are obligated to search for, collect and care for the wounded and sick after a battle, and they are required to report these activities (as well as the names of prisoners) to the Red Cross.
Combatants may not capture independent parties attempting to provide humanitarian aid or perform search-and-rescue missions.
Hospital facilities may not be used for military purposes.
Prisoners must be allowed to communicate with their families. They must not be subjected to "violence, insults and public curiousity."
POWs are only obligated to provide their captors with their name, rank, serial number and date of birth.
POWs must be provided with reasonable and hyginic shelter, including food, clothing and medical care. They can't be used as human shields. If they are forced to work, they must be compensated and provided with reasonable workplace conditions.
POWs may be tried by their captors in a fair and impartial manner, and they are entitled to competent representation.
At the end of a war, all POWs must be returned to their home countries.
The Red Cross must be permitted to visit privately with POWs, to examine the conditions of their confinement and to distribute humanitarian supplies.
Civilians unfortunate enough to be living in the middle of a war must be allowed to "lead normal lives."
Occupiers of a land must honor the safety, dignity, religious beliefs and cultural mores of the people there.
Civilians are entitled to all the protections accorded to POWs (above), as well as protection from collective punishment or deportation.
Civilians cannot be forced to do military work for an occupying force.
Occupying powers are obliged to support the health and safety of the population with food and medical supplies (or by allowing humanitarian shipments of the same).
"Indiscriminate" attacks on civilians targets are forbidden.
Dams, dikes, nuclear plants, places of worship, cultural landmarks and "objects indispensible to civilian survival" (such as crops or drinking water supplies) may not be specifically targeted.
Soldiers must be over the age of 15.
Weapons which cause inordinate environmental damage, "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" are prohibited.
Using a protected emblem (like the Red Cross) to hide military activity or personnel is a war crime.
Breaking the Rules
Needless to say, once the civilized world agreed on the basic principles of decency and honor, those principles were promptly discarded in favor of expediency and sadism.
Given the fact these rules were largely instituted as a response to Nazi atrocities during WWII, it's ironic that Israel is considered one of the worst offenders, racking up dozens of clear Geneva Conventions violations and hundreds more rumored or suspected violations, mostly concerning the Palestinians.

A 2002 U.N. resolution condemning Israel's treatment of the Palestianians laid out a number of violations, including "the siege of Yasser Arafat’s Headquarters in Ramallah, by the Occupying Power in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Those include annexation and settlement, the reoccupation of Palestinian cities and blocking of roads between them; expulsions and targeted assassination of scores of Palestinians; attacks on ambulances and medical personnel; house demolitions; destruction of water storage facilities; uprooting of thousands of fruit and olive trees; 24-hour curfews; almost permanent closures of towns, villages and cities; and excessive use of force, including weapons of war such as F-16 bombers and helicopter gunships used against apartment houses, refugee camps and other civilian targets, causing the deaths of numerous Palestinians."

In addition, Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad, is one of the most notorious and practiced practitioners of interrogative torture in the world.

The use of War Crimes tribunals in relation to the Geneva Conventions has mostly been reserved for a) Third World countries with little power to defend themselves and b) regimes which have collapsed so thoroughly that no one cares what happens to their former leaders. This includes countries like Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the great "successes" in international war crime prosecution.

Other countries pretty much do what they want, and no one tries to stop them. Among these nations, the United States stands out as the "Untouchable." U.S. forces and policy-makers have been involved in a number of high-profile incidents over the years, which is one reason the U.S. has opted out of the International Criminal Court initiative.

The best known violations came during the Vietnam War, such as the high-profile My Lai Massacre, and countless proven and alleged incidents involving the destruction of civilian villages, mass defoliation with Agent Orange, the execution of prisoners (civilian and military) and the use of napalm and poison gas.

Former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey served on a U.S. death squad operating under orders to kill Vietnamese civilians in the Mekong Delta village of Thanh Phong. He said he was sorry (and he's not from Rwanda), so apparently he doesn't get a war crimes tribunal. And public outcry regularly wells up in calls for a Henry Kissinger tribunal every eight months or so.

After September 11, the U.S. stopped even giving lip service to the rules of war, by declaring al Qaeda operatives and allies "unlawful combatants," which American policy makers took to mean "non-entities." As part of its terrorism-inspired attack on Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, the U.S. joined forces with the Northern Alliance, a faction known for its roving rape gangs and frequent execution of prisoners.

Hundreds of prisoners from that invasion were unceremoniously shipped to detention camps in Afghanistan and Cuba where some were imprisoned in the rough equivalent of barbed-wire straightjackets — cells in which they were restrained in a standing position with no range of movement. Several al Qaeda members, from the top echelon leadership to mentally challenged footsoldiers have been shipped to undisclosed locations where they are carefully tortured with an eye toward legalistic loopholes (i.e., probably no rubber hoses or electrodes taped to genitals).

Other highlights of U.S. historical practices include feeding radioactive waste to retarded children during the 1950s and decades of active research into biological and chemical weapons, including anthrax and smallpox. During the 1980s, the fruits of this research were shared with beloved U.S. allies like Iraq.

Speaking of Iraq, the 2003 U.S. invasion looks to be a promising source of war crimes to entertain the jaded public for months to come. Although there appeared to be scores of Iraqi civilians killed as "collateral damage" by U.S. attacks within days of the war's start and hundreds (or perhaps thousands) more dying as a result of the coalition's failure to provide legally required support and humanitarian aid to civilians in occupied areas, Saddam Hussein's fighting forces have really been going the extra mile to take the heat off of whatever piddling crimes the Americans manage to muster.

It's almost as if Uday Hussein sat down with the Geneva Conventions handbook and drafted a set of orders designed specifically break every single rule listed therein. Within just the first two weeks, the Iraqis televised humiliating pictures of POWs, apparently executed some prisoners, tortured others and possibly dismembered still others. The Iraqi leadership dressed soldiers in civilian clothing and distributed them among the population, posted armed forces in hospital facilities, launched suicide attacks using soldiers dressed as civilians, and used fake surrenders for sneak attacks. About the only atrocity the Iraqis hadn't pulled off by the end of week two was the deployment of the alleged chemical weapons that provided the pretext for launching the war in the first place.

Needless to say, it's manifestly unfair to single out the U.S. and Iraq for violations of the Geneva Conventions. Not when you can compile similar lists for China (torture, mass executions, biological and chemical weapons), the former Soviet Union (torture, mass executions, genocide, civilian massacres, assassination, biological and chemical weapons), the current Russia (torture, biological and chemical weapons, trafficking in nuclear weapons), North Korea (torture, executions, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons), Turkey (torture, detention camps, ethnic repression), Pakistan (torture, mass executions, assassination, supporting terrorism, military attacks on civilians, nuclear weapons), Saudi Arabia (torture, supporting terrorism, gender-based oppression), Kuwait (ethnically-based slavery), Chile (torture, mass executions), the Philippines (torture and assassination), Iran (mass executions, religious and ethnic repression, chemical and nuclear weapons), Thailand (torture, child sex trade), Singapore (torture), Malaysia (torture, execution, illegal detentions), Sudan (torture, supporting terrorism, mass executions), the Congo (ethnic cleansing, torture, rape gangs, civilian massacres), South Africa (apartheid, torture, assassinations, civilian massacres), Kenya (gender-based persecution, torture, massacres), Uganda (slavery, child abduction, massacres, rape, child sex trade), Cuba (mass detention, assassinations), Colombia (assassinations, mass executions, civilian massacres, drug trade)...

But this is getting tedious, and unfortunately, it could easily go on for pages and pages. The long and the short of it is this: The Geneva Conventions are great fodder for politicians attacking countries they don't like, but if you feel you have been the victim of a violation, you might as well take it to Judge Judy, because you aren't getting a tribunal unless you happen to live in Rwanda, or possibly (at some point in the distant future) Iraq. Have a nice day.

I have never attempted to suggest that Iraq was a land of milk and honey before the US invaded, nor do I believe that they were in the best of hands under Saddam.

However, I do wonder what kind of country Iraq would be today, IF the US had never backed Saddam, and IF the US had never given Iraq military weapons or "intelligence".

Why did the US befriend Iraq?

Why did the US supply military arms and intelligence to Iraq?

Why did the US tell the world that they felt threatened by Iraq and had no choice but to invade them?

Why is the US establishing "enduring" bases in Iraq?

Why is the US hijacking the Iraqi economy through use of Bremer's Orders?

WILL the US accept an Iraqi government that is based on Islamic theology IF they so choose?

Now, only if we could have some honest answers to these questions..........

The US befriended Iraq and supported Saddam because he represented the lesser of two evils (the other being Iran). We supplied them with arms (as did most of the rest of the world) to aid them in their fight against Iran. Something about 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'...

When we realized that Saddam was not quite the ally we thought he might be due to our support, and when we saw his use of WMD's on the Iranians and Kurds, we denounced this action.

When he invaded Kuwait, we at the behest of the UN, acted to liberate the occupied country. Saddam should have been dealt with then, and George H. W. Bush intended to, but without the support of the UN and the rest of the arab world, we decided against it (being assured that the terms of the cease-fire agreement would serve to disarm Iraq and lead to more Middle East security).

Given the years of non-compliance with the terms of the cease fire, and the intelligence which indicated a continuing stockpile of WMD's, the UN passed yet another resolution demanding that Saddam comply with the disarmament he'd agreed to.

In addition to the noncompliance, we had every reason to believe that Saddam was willing to give or sell WMD's to terrorists who could then use them against the citizens of the world. Having been reassured by the UN that "serious consequences" would result if Saddam remained in non-compliance, the US waited for one last chance for Saddam to comply.

Witnessing further non-compliance, the UN, per the resolution 1441, reconvened to determing what "serious consequences" would be applied to Iraq.

In its infinite wisdom, the UN voted to continue on the same path that had yielded no results in the disarmament of Iraq, and the US, UK, and numerous other coalition partnets determined that Saddam should be dealt with once and for all -- and it didn't look like the UN was going to do anything, so....you know....WTF?!?!?!

The semi-permanant componds constructed by the coalition are superior to the tents they had been using, and were necessary given the enduring insurgency. Most command and control functions are carried out utilizing existing structures, not newly built ones. Hardly permanant digs if you ask me.

We're not 'hijacking' the Iraqi economy, as you put it. We're creating it, as none but an internal economy has existed per the terms of the cease-fire agreement. Iraq was not allowed to export or import anything during that period, if you'll recall - except for the oil-for-food program.

The Iraqi people will get the government they want, whatever that might be. We are there at their request now...if they ask us to leave, we will. If they want to elect Saddam....well, he's in their custody. Likewise, if they try and convict Saddam, and impose the death penalty...you know what, we'll have to let them carry out the sentence.

Now...if only I could get an objective response to these points... :rolleyes:

What relevance do any of these questions have to do with the US invasion of Iraq?

Complicity?


I'll make it simple for you.

They sold them arms and chemicals(to make WMDs). So that makes them equally as guilty as you make the US out to be. So while you're making a cross to crucify the US, you better start making a few more! :rolleyes:

It would appear that our canuck has ignored me )o;> Either that, or my blatant admission of evil ulterior motives has shocked him into silence.



But...but...but...That can't be true! It was said by an american, ergo it is a lie! But then if it was a lie, that would imply that the americans don't have an ulterior motive for going into Iraq, and that the war was justified, and I've been wrong all along.

*Red Alert* *Read Alert* *Brain Core Breach Imminent* *Evacuation of Mental Processes Commencing* *BOOM*

Okay. How's this sound:

The world as a whole, rather than individual nations, is responsible for giving Saddam tons of wholeheartedly undeserved support.
CANUCK!!!! Before you abandon this thread... please respond to this!

Also, I give my wholehearted appology to Center of the Universe. I did not properly understand his linguistic situation, and would not have made fun of his posts had I known that English was not his native language.

I wonder you're happy to hypothesise these things, but never anything which shows the US in a positive light. Not even a hypothetical good USA. To me, that says a great deal.
You obviously haven’t been around long, or you missed many other posts that have clearly stated that I have visited the US many times and always enjoyed my stays. I don’t hate Americans….I have some good American friends. I don’t hate Bush but then again I don’t like his or his administrations policies or politics.

That would be the whole 'Cold War' thing we had going on for 55 ish years. *Edit; Apologies, miscounted. 45ish years.
I can’t buy that as an answer and neither can millions of others, including many Americans.

Because Stalin's Russia left tens of millions of dead, countless more in labor and concentration camps, and because he made Hitler look like a fairly nice guy by comparison.
See above.

Actually, that's much better addressed to Blair, who's sole reason for attacking was WMDs, whilst Bush had several, of which this was just one. Personally, I think freeing 25 million people from the rule of an insane tyrant and his two sons is good enough for me.
A threat to the US or UK? I don’t really think so, especially when there are hundreds of UN inspectors looking all over Hell’s half acre for WMD, and cutting up slightly illegal rockets. The deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children to get rid of one madman with no guarantees than another will take his place. Since the invasion of Iraq, terrorism has actually increased.

Why is it the only possible interpretation of that word is 'long-term', and not 'good at withstanding attacks'? Also, why not? Apparently, the democratically elected Iraqi government feel the coalition presence is a necessity to peace and stability, or else they would have asked them to leave.
Iraq was somewhat peaceful before the US invasion, now it is a battlefield everywhere….of course the present Iraqi government is not going to ask the US troops to leave….YET!!

Why can't you read? They can be overturned by the Iraqi government.
I can read very well……have you read Bremer’s Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations) or news on them?

iOfficially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition [Iraq ] from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi — a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn (http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-8175.html).

Yes, unless said government goes back to oppression and terrorism. In which case, I'd hope we'd go back in and kick some more ass, but your whiny friends and yourself would likely make it too unpopular a prospect for whoever is in charge at the time.
In other words, you offer nothing but a shallow promise of “democracy”? Who will determine what is “oppression” and/or “terrorism”? Does the world trust the US to do the right thing? What happened when the US helped the Taliban? What happened when the US helped Iraq? What happened when the US trained Bin Laden? What happened when Bush trusted the FBI, and the CIA (a red herring I might add)? What happened when the US propped up Pol Pot? What happened when the US propped up General Suharto, etc…..ad nauseum?

Now, if only you could pay attention to facts once in awhile, instead of whatever fabrications and exaggerations help you tar America.........
I only seek the truth, as do countless others. Who is to blame if America’s image is tarnished? Certainly the invasion of Iraq has heightened the attention of people all around the world, and the saber rattling with Iran and North Korea intensifies that attention even more.

CANUCK!!!! Before you abandon this thread... please respond to this!

Also, I give my wholehearted appology to Center of the Universe. I did not properly understand his linguistic situation, and would not have made fun of his posts had I known that English was not his native language.
I admire your honesty and sense of resolve!! :cool:

Complicity?


I'll make it simple for you.

They sold them arms and chemicals(to make WMDs). So that makes them equally as guilty as you make the US out to be. So while you're making a cross to crucify the US, you better start making a few more! :rolleyes:
I will make it equally simple for you....France, Germany, and Russia, etc. did not invade Iraq. I don't think invading Iraq was the proper solution, nor did my country, nor did many other countries. Millions protested worldwide and rightly so.

Here's your honest answer.

One of the first things the U.N. did was sit down in Geneva, Switzerland, and try to find a kinder, gentler way to wage war. What better place than Switzerland? (To quote Harry Lime (played by Orson Welles) in The Third Man: "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock!")

In December 1948, the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide passed the first article of what would be known as the Geneva Conventions. Genocide was defined as murder "committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Taking a page from the Nuremberg Trials, the convention drew up a list of punishable crimes "genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide; attempt to commit genocide; [and] complicity in genocide."

The initial statement on genocide was followed up by subsequent conventions dealing with various related and unrelated aspects of war, including prisoners of war and the treatment of civilians. Three more articles were adopted in 1949, and the Conventions were updated and expanded in 1977.

The Rules
In very broad strokes, here are the major points mandated in the tens of thousands of words and hundreds of rules known as the Geneva Conventions, as identified by the International Red Cross:

Prisoners of war should be "respected and protected" without regard to gender, race, politics or creed.
Prisoners may not be murdered, tortured or subjected to scientific experiments.
War combatants are obligated to search for, collect and care for the wounded and sick after a battle, and they are required to report these activities (as well as the names of prisoners) to the Red Cross.
Combatants may not capture independent parties attempting to provide humanitarian aid or perform search-and-rescue missions.
Hospital facilities may not be used for military purposes.
Prisoners must be allowed to communicate with their families. They must not be subjected to "violence, insults and public curiousity."
POWs are only obligated to provide their captors with their name, rank, serial number and date of birth.
POWs must be provided with reasonable and hyginic shelter, including food, clothing and medical care. They can't be used as human shields. If they are forced to work, they must be compensated and provided with reasonable workplace conditions.
POWs may be tried by their captors in a fair and impartial manner, and they are entitled to competent representation.
At the end of a war, all POWs must be returned to their home countries.
The Red Cross must be permitted to visit privately with POWs, to examine the conditions of their confinement and to distribute humanitarian supplies.
Civilians unfortunate enough to be living in the middle of a war must be allowed to "lead normal lives."
Occupiers of a land must honor the safety, dignity, religious beliefs and cultural mores of the people there.
Civilians are entitled to all the protections accorded to POWs (above), as well as protection from collective punishment or deportation.
Civilians cannot be forced to do military work for an occupying force.
Occupying powers are obliged to support the health and safety of the population with food and medical supplies (or by allowing humanitarian shipments of the same).
"Indiscriminate" attacks on civilians targets are forbidden.
Dams, dikes, nuclear plants, places of worship, cultural landmarks and "objects indispensible to civilian survival" (such as crops or drinking water supplies) may not be specifically targeted.
Soldiers must be over the age of 15.
Weapons which cause inordinate environmental damage, "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" are prohibited.
Using a protected emblem (like the Red Cross) to hide military activity or personnel is a war crime.
Breaking the Rules
Needless to say, once the civilized world agreed on the basic principles of decency and honor, those principles were promptly discarded in favor of expediency and sadism.
Given the fact these rules were largely instituted as a response to Nazi atrocities during WWII, it's ironic that Israel is considered one of the worst offenders, racking up dozens of clear Geneva Conventions violations and hundreds more rumored or suspected violations, mostly concerning the Palestinians.

A 2002 U.N. resolution condemning Israel's treatment of the Palestianians laid out a number of violations, including "the siege of Yasser Arafat’s Headquarters in Ramallah, by the Occupying Power in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Those include annexation and settlement, the reoccupation of Palestinian cities and blocking of roads between them; expulsions and targeted assassination of scores of Palestinians; attacks on ambulances and medical personnel; house demolitions; destruction of water storage facilities; uprooting of thousands of fruit and olive trees; 24-hour curfews; almost permanent closures of towns, villages and cities; and excessive use of force, including weapons of war such as F-16 bombers and helicopter gunships used against apartment houses, refugee camps and other civilian targets, causing the deaths of numerous Palestinians."

In addition, Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad, is one of the most notorious and practiced practitioners of interrogative torture in the world.

The use of War Crimes tribunals in relation to the Geneva Conventions has mostly been reserved for a) Third World countries with little power to defend themselves and b) regimes which have collapsed so thoroughly that no one cares what happens to their former leaders. This includes countries like Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the great "successes" in international war crime prosecution.

Other countries pretty much do what they want, and no one tries to stop them. Among these nations, the United States stands out as the "Untouchable." U.S. forces and policy-makers have been involved in a number of high-profile incidents over the years, which is one reason the U.S. has opted out of the International Criminal Court initiative.

The best known violations came during the Vietnam War, such as the high-profile My Lai Massacre, and countless proven and alleged incidents involving the destruction of civilian villages, mass defoliation with Agent Orange, the execution of prisoners (civilian and military) and the use of napalm and poison gas.

Former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey served on a U.S. death squad operating under orders to kill Vietnamese civilians in the Mekong Delta village of Thanh Phong. He said he was sorry (and he's not from Rwanda), so apparently he doesn't get a war crimes tribunal. And public outcry regularly wells up in calls for a Henry Kissinger tribunal every eight months or so.

After September 11, the U.S. stopped even giving lip service to the rules of war, by declaring al Qaeda operatives and allies "unlawful combatants," which American policy makers took to mean "non-entities." As part of its terrorism-inspired attack on Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, the U.S. joined forces with the Northern Alliance, a faction known for its roving rape gangs and frequent execution of prisoners.

Hundreds of prisoners from that invasion were unceremoniously shipped to detention camps in Afghanistan and Cuba where some were imprisoned in the rough equivalent of barbed-wire straightjackets — cells in which they were restrained in a standing position with no range of movement. Several al Qaeda members, from the top echelon leadership to mentally challenged footsoldiers have been shipped to undisclosed locations where they are carefully tortured with an eye toward legalistic loopholes (i.e., probably no rubber hoses or electrodes taped to genitals).

Other highlights of U.S. historical practices include feeding radioactive waste to retarded children during the 1950s and decades of active research into biological and chemical weapons, including anthrax and smallpox. During the 1980s, the fruits of this research were shared with beloved U.S. allies like Iraq.

Speaking of Iraq, the 2003 U.S. invasion looks to be a promising source of war crimes to entertain the jaded public for months to come. Although there appeared to be scores of Iraqi civilians killed as "collateral damage" by U.S. attacks within days of the war's start and hundreds (or perhaps thousands) more dying as a result of the coalition's failure to provide legally required support and humanitarian aid to civilians in occupied areas, Saddam Hussein's fighting forces have really been going the extra mile to take the heat off of whatever piddling crimes the Americans manage to muster.

It's almost as if Uday Hussein sat down with the Geneva Conventions handbook and drafted a set of orders designed specifically break every single rule listed therein. Within just the first two weeks, the Iraqis televised humiliating pictures of POWs, apparently executed some prisoners, tortured others and possibly dismembered still others. The Iraqi leadership dressed soldiers in civilian clothing and distributed them among the population, posted armed forces in hospital facilities, launched suicide attacks using soldiers dressed as civilians, and used fake surrenders for sneak attacks. About the only atrocity the Iraqis hadn't pulled off by the end of week two was the deployment of the alleged chemical weapons that provided the pretext for launching the war in the first place.

Needless to say, it's manifestly unfair to single out the U.S. and Iraq for violations of the Geneva Conventions. Not when you can compile similar lists for China (torture, mass executions, biological and chemical weapons), the former Soviet Union (torture, mass executions, genocide, civilian massacres, assassination, biological and chemical weapons), the current Russia (torture, biological and chemical weapons, trafficking in nuclear weapons), North Korea (torture, executions, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons), Turkey (torture, detention camps, ethnic repression), Pakistan (torture, mass executions, assassination, supporting terrorism, military attacks on civilians, nuclear weapons), Saudi Arabia (torture, supporting terrorism, gender-based oppression), Kuwait (ethnically-based slavery), Chile (torture, mass executions), the Philippines (torture and assassination), Iran (mass executions, religious and ethnic repression, chemical and nuclear weapons), Thailand (torture, child sex trade), Singapore (torture), Malaysia (torture, execution, illegal detentions), Sudan (torture, supporting terrorism, mass executions), the Congo (ethnic cleansing, torture, rape gangs, civilian massacres), South Africa (apartheid, torture, assassinations, civilian massacres), Kenya (gender-based persecution, torture, massacres), Uganda (slavery, child abduction, massacres, rape, child sex trade), Cuba (mass detention, assassinations), Colombia (assassinations, mass executions, civilian massacres, drug trade)...

But this is getting tedious, and unfortunately, it could easily go on for pages and pages. The long and the short of it is this: The Geneva Conventions are great fodder for politicians attacking countries they don't like, but if you feel you have been the victim of a violation, you might as well take it to Judge Judy, because you aren't getting a tribunal unless you happen to live in Rwanda, or possibly (at some point in the distant future) Iraq. Have a nice day.
I appreciate your honest answer and admission that the US and countless other countries have made many mistakes. However, I think that the invasion of Iraq is a continuation down that road and it appears that the stakes keep getting higher with the possibility of armed conflict with Iran and/or North Korea.

Call me naive or a dreamer but I honestly believe that an America working with the UN can make the world a far better place. How many more wars have to be fought? How many more people have to die before we get it right?

You obviously haven’t been around long, or you missed many other posts that have clearly stated that I have visited the US many times and always enjoyed my stays. I don’t hate Americans….I have some good American friends. I don’t hate Bush but then again I don’t like his or his administrations policies or politics.

I don't like some of Bush's policies either! I do like his foreign policy though. Gotta admire someone who actually has the balls to enforce UN resolutions.

I can’t buy that as an answer and neither can millions of others, including many Americans.

You speak for millions of people? Wow! Didn't know you were that popular! :rolleyes:

See above.

Ditto

A threat to the US or UK? I don’t really think so, especially when there are hundreds of UN inspectors looking all over Hell’s half acre for WMD, and cutting up slightly illegal rockets. The deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children to get rid of one madman with no guarantees than another will take his place. Since the invasion of Iraq, terrorism has actually increased.

Slightly illegal? They were still illegal under UN Resolutions! Oops! There's that word again. What about the deaths of men, women and children that were killed under Saddam? What about justice for them? Oops! I guess you don't really care then. As for terrorism, did you know that the Sunnis want peace?

Iraq was somewhat peaceful before the US invasion, now it is a battlefield everywhere….of course the present Iraqi government is not going to ask the US troops to leave….YET!!

Hence the word yet. When they say leave we will.

I can read very well……have you read Bremer’s Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations) or news on them?

Did you know that the new government can change all of that if they want too?

iOfficially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

Read above!

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

Wanna place bets? BTW: Did you know that the Iraqi economy is actually better? Did you know that they can fix whatever orders Bremer made? Its called S-O-V-E-R-I-E-G-N-T-Y!!!!

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition [Iraq ] from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Again. The Iraqi Government can change all of this! Next arguement?

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi — a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

And whom the Iraqis wanted to be the Interim Prime Minister. He wasn't the choice of the UN NOR the USA!

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn (http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-8175.html).

Nothing is impossible my friend.

In other words, you offer nothing but a shallow promise of “democracy”? Who will determine what is “oppression” and/or “terrorism”? Does the world trust the US to do the right thing? What happened when the US helped the Taliban? What happened when the US helped Iraq? What happened when the US trained Bin Laden? What happened when Bush trusted the FBI, and the CIA (a red herring I might add)? What happened when the US propped up Pol Pot? What happened when the US propped up General Suharto, etc…..ad nauseum?

*Yawns*

1)no! 2)The Iraqi people have already decided! 3)No but alwell. 4) We never helped the Taliban 5) Kept it from being taken over by Iran then decided to take out Saddam Hussein. 6) We didn't train Bin Laden and I have the report to prove it. 7) They trusted Israel and Iraqi dissidents and thus got us into Iraq. BTW: it was only O-N-E of many reasons why we are in there. 8) People died! 9) What has Canada done for the world? What has France done for the world? What has Russia done for the world? What has Germany done for the world?

I only seek the truth, as do countless others. Who is to blame if America’s image is tarnished? Certainly the invasion of Iraq has heightened the attention of people all around the world, and the saber rattling with Iran and North Korea intensifies that attention even more.

Good! Maybe now they know that we shouldn't be messed with. Don't Tred On Me!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Less corruption? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They can't even call Durfar a genocide and you expect them to be a stronger organization? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
And you wonder why I don't bother responding to your posts? However, if it makes you feel good, carry on. :D

BTW, the country is Darfur.

I appreciate your honest answer and admission that the US and countless other countries have made many mistakes. However, I think that the invasion of Iraq is a continuation down that road and it appears that the stakes keep getting higher with the possibility of armed conflict with Iran and/or North Korea.

I'm worried about an armed conflict with Iran or North Korea. Frankly, we'll have allies in regard to North Korea since most of the planet is still legally at war with them. Iran is a different animal!

Call me naive or a dreamer but I honestly believe that an America working with the UN can make the world a far better place. How many more wars have to be fought? How many more people have to die before we get it right?

Your naive! We have tried working through the UN for Bosnia (stonewalled by China) and Iraq (17 unenforced UN resolutions, Oil-For-Food Scandal, and stonewalled by France and Russia) Why is it that the US has to work with the UN and no one else?

And you wonder why I don't bother responding to your posts? However, if it makes you feel good, carry on. :D

BTW, the country is Darfur.

The Region is Darfur! The Country is Sudan! Learn your geography.

I think there is a fundamental divide in philosophy here. Since I obviously place less value on human life than you do (I'm serious, no sarcasm intended), I tend to view the deaths of people in terms of their significance in the grand scheme of things, rather than sympathize with them on principal. I believe that the end result is worth the cost of the war, so to me, the deaths are justified.
So you want to play God huh? Good luck!!

The Region is Darfur! The Country is Sudan! Learn your geography.
Country doesn't require a capital, and from Encarta:

country (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=country)

region with special character: a region that is distinguished by particular characteristics or is associated with a particular activity, person, or group of people

I do know my geography fairly well and I am not bad on my English either. There are many definitions for the word country. :eek:

Country doesn't require a capital, and from Encarta:

country (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=country)

region with special character: a region that is distinguished by particular characteristics or is associated with a particular activity, person, or group of people

I do know my geography fairly well and I am not bad on my English either. There are many definitions for the word country. :eek:
"Bad on my English" is bad English.

"Bad on my English" is bad English.
I didn't say I was great either. :rolleyes:

I didn't say I was great either. :rolleyes:
It's ok, I probably couldn't speak Canadian that well, eh? *runs off to do whatever it is ignorant Americans do. Oh right, download massive amounts of goat porn. And vote Republican.

Country doesn't require a capital, and from Encarta:

country (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=country)

region with special character: a region that is distinguished by particular characteristics or is associated with a particular activity, person, or group of people

I do know my geography fairly well and I am not bad on my English either. There are many definitions for the word country. :eek:

Darfur is in Sudan! Sudan is arresting people in connection with the Darfur Genocide. So with this in mind, how can Darfur be a country?

I appreciate your honest answer and admission that the US and countless other countries have made many mistakes. However, I think that the invasion of Iraq is a continuation down that road and it appears that the stakes keep getting higher with the possibility of armed conflict with Iran and/or North Korea.

Call me naive or a dreamer but I honestly believe that an America working with the UN can make the world a far better place. How many more wars have to be fought? How many more people have to die before we get it right?

Violating the Geneva Convention has never raised the chance of war.

We're following the UN on North Korea, so stop whining. We're not doing bilateral talks because that would be a violation of Resolution 90 - North Korea wants the US to guarantee that we will never attack them - even if they attack South Korea or Japan. We can't agree to that, so we're referring them to their neighbors, the UN, and saying out loud that "we have no plans to attack them". The useless IAEA is also involved. What else would you have us do in North Korea?

We're also doing the IAEA and UN thing in Iran. I don't see us invading right now, do you?

As for getting it right, if the US took over the world, there would be a peace.

"Lancamore

Also, I give my wholehearted appology to Center of the Universe. I did not properly understand his linguistic situation, and would not have made fun of his posts had I known that English was not his native language."


Nothing bad between us. It has been just a mistake.

I hope this mistake will start a friendly reletion between us


( and thanks for your words and public apologize, not necesary after your private one but that i believe it dignifies you - make you greater to my eyes )


Now, try to answer many other things that has been said :

"Then I suppose that the Allies were wrong in killing Germans and German soldiers and losing their own soldiers in order to stop Hitler"

Germany attacked many countries ( polony, belgium ... ).
But i think this time Irak did not attacked other ( i talk about this time, not in first golf war ).

And if you say it was a preventive action .... What could happen if one day China is stronger than USA and believe USA is bad and evil and attack in a preventive action ??

Or china attack japon in prevention .... ??

Preventive action is just a false way to call a invasion


"Yes the US used the atom bombs on Japan, simply becase we got them first, all sides in WW2 were trying to make them and there is no doubt in anyones mind (at least anyone that uses theirs) that the Japanese would have used atomic weapons on US cities if they had beat the US in making them"

Did you know that Japan claim for rendition ( Japan what surrender ) before 1 bomb ( Japan claim for conditional surrender )

After 1 bomb Japam claim for surrender with just 1 condition ( the emperor image ) and USA send the 2 bomb

The bomb was send no to end a war, was send to send a message to URSS ( allied in this moment but was starting the cold war )


"I daresay you're right, and as the reality is that Iraq isn't going to be any more perfect than any other nation, apparently the transition from fascism to democracy isn't worth any lives"

How can you set the price of this transition if you supported the fascist dictator. And do you really believe they are democratic country now

And there has been several countries that have go from fascism to democracy WITHOUT a war ( Spain, Chile, Argentina ) ... some fascism goverment supported by USA


"Wonder what he makes of WW2, actually, because our fight to liberate France cost a hell of a lot of lives"

I would like that ww2 never happen ( Germany never attack .... )
And I think that none as acuse USA for the WW2

To each his responsibility - and USA has not the guilty of the WW2


"The Iraqi economy is doing far better now than it was"

People in Irq now has a economy of survival
Perhaps the macroeconomy now is better ( iraq has a conomical block before - the comparation is a trick - tramp :-) )


"The US befriended Iraq and supported Saddam because he represented the lesser of two evils (the other being Iran). We supplied them with arms (as did most of the rest of the world) to aid them in their fight against Iran. Something about 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'..."

This mean : USA can support dictators and killer or attack them doing a war with just his own opinion

Is USA the boss of the world ????????


"When we realized that Saddam was not quite the ally we thought he might be due to our support, and when we saw his use of WMD's on the Iranians and Kurds, we denounced this action"

Perhaps you donñt know, but the use of this arms is know from a long time

USA didn´t attack because "sudenly discover" it.

USA attack for other reason but not for humanitary reason ( i can accept the idea of kill by humanitary reason )



TWO LAST IMPORTANTS THINGS :


I want to clarify that I ( or some of us ) don´t hate americans

We can talk about the things that we believe the USA goverment do in a wrong way and it does mean we hate americans

I can talk about the things my own goverment do in a woorng way

In fact, Aznar was the president of sapin and was in the famous meeting in Azores island and i were in manifestation again hin ( and I don´t hate spanish people )

See and recognize the mistakes af a country ( goverment ) is a good sign of demecracy and no fanatism


I can understand why some ( not all ) americans think the people that talk again the actions of their goverments hate them


And last thing :

As it has been some comments about the way i read and write english ...

I´m spanish native
I read and write spanish in a way i will call ..... good ( I´m university graduate - 5 years in university, i thing you call graduate or undergraduate. no sure - in physic )

But i have a lack in my english.
I can read english in a decent way - better the technical english and terrible the slag - street english -

I write very bad my ideas for my lack of english, and some time i will look a idiot because is difficult for me express my ideas

I apologize for all my mistakes and i will try to improve ( write with you increase my skills )

If some one want we can talk in spanish

Prometo que se me da mucho mejor expresarme en español, Tanto en lectura comprensiva, expresion escrita como en gramatica tengo un nivel aceptable :-)

Just out of curiosity, which two instances of WMD use are you counting for Italy? I know of two, too, but I suspect I missed some.
They actually used Chemical Weapons on Ethiopia in the 1930s.

Some people here in Italy still claim that it is false.
Unfortunately, the evidence is overwhelming... (I say unfortunately because I wish we never had the fascist regime, its wars, and its atrocities such as this one)

Anyway, you said there were two instances.

The second episode I know of is still unknown/denied here, so I don't know if it's the same one you had in mind.

The first episode dates back to when we had a dictatorship.
The second episode, however, is in more recent times... with a democratically elected government, and a totally complacent opposition who supported it on this issue.

I don't know about any cease fires, but there's at least one close US ally who broke at least as many US resolutions... should the US invade it, too, then?
And which ally would that be? Israel? No! Israel is defending itself and they haven't used WMD to do it. Besides that, they have legally ceased territory and is now in the process of giving some of it back. Also, the terrorists are hiding among civilians and Israel has done its best to minimize civilian casualties. Can't say the same for the terrorists though.

Yes, Israel too defied more than 15 UN resolutions (I don't recall the exact number), maybe more than the 17 you said Iraq violated.

I don't dispute Israel's right to defend from its warmongering neighbours or from terrorist groups. No UN resolution denied this right.

But I dispute that the Israeli are "minimizing" civilian casualties.
They are doing more civilian casualties "defending" from terrorists than the terrorists themselves are doing (despite the fact that usually terrorists are actively targeting civilians).

Other than being delivered by the bosnians and kosovars, the only nations that have captured and delivered Serbs to the Hague are...

The UK SAS and the US Special Forces...

I hope they'll be as prompt and active when it comes to arresting people wanted by the international criminal court.

I hope they'll be as prompt and active when it comes to arresting people wanted by the international criminal court.

My point is that every other nation is sitting on their collective asses and whining, instead of doing something. It's classic "diplomatic" behavior.

My point is that every other nation is sitting on their collective asses and whining, instead of doing something. It's classic "diplomatic" behavior.

Sounds like what they did before WWII broke out.

My point is that every other nation is sitting on their collective asses and whining, instead of doing something. It's classic "diplomatic" behavior.

Actually, I was being sarcastic.

On the International Criminal Court, Europe is acting and the USA are whining.

:-)

Actually, I was being sarcastic.

On the International Criminal Court, Europe is acting and the USA are whining.

:-)

Oh, so soldiers from European countries have actually gone into other sovereign nations and arrested people, and dragged them before the ICC?

Not!

Or has only the US and UK dragged people before the Hague (with the exception of people sent there by their own countries)?

Some people here in Italy still claim that it is false.
Unfortunately, the evidence is overwhelming... (I say unfortunately because I wish we never had the fascist regime, its wars, and its atrocities such as this one)

Its been proven that they did so yea, Italy used it.

Anyway, you said there were two instances.

The second episode I know of is still unknown/denied here, so I don't know if it's the same one you had in mind.

The first episode dates back to when we had a dictatorship.
The second episode, however, is in more recent times... with a democratically elected government, and a totally complacent opposition who supported it on this issue.

Ok so maybe it was only once! Don't know if they used any in World War One or not.

Yes, Israel too defied more than 15 UN resolutions (I don't recall the exact number), maybe more than the 17 you said Iraq violated.

Care to take alook at what half of those resolutions stated? Most of them are for counter attacks they did when they were attacked by various nations. Also, they dated back to when they ceased territory during the Arab-Israeli Wars.

I don't dispute Israel's right to defend from its warmongering neighbours or from terrorist groups. No UN resolution denied this right.

Then why isn't there a resolution condemning the terrorist actions done by groups belonging to Iran and Syria?

But I dispute that the Israeli are "minimizing" civilian casualties.
They are doing more civilian casualties "defending" from terrorists than the terrorists themselves are doing (despite the fact that usually terrorists are actively targeting civilians).

Don't you think because the terrorists are hiding among the civilians? Take alook at the number of Israelis killed compared to that of the citizens that the terrorists hide among. More Israelis have died in a terror attack than citizens in an Israeli counter attack.

Sounds like what they did before WWII broke out.

What would have happened if UK and France had gone to war against Hitler, say, in 1937?

Probably France would have fallen in 1937.
By 1938 most of the Balkans, and not just Albania, would have been under italian-german control.

Germany would have had enough time to settle its things in Europe, maybe forcing the UK to a separate peace, and then would have attacked the soviet union much earlier.

Given less preparation on the part of the soviet union, the german army would have arrived much deeper in its territory.

I don't think they would have won, but.. who knows. Anyways, the war would have lasted much longer.

So, "appeasing" Hitler wasn't necessarily a bad thing to do.


Obviously, we can't know what would have really happened. This is an hypotesis only.

But I think it's a good point to ponder. And it removes the smug complacency of all the whiners who complain of the european policy in the '30s

:-)

What would have happened if UK and France had gone to war against Hitler, say, in 1937?

Hitler would've gotten his ass kicked because there wasn't anything he could do.

*snip*

So, "appeasing" Hitler wasn't necessarily a bad thing to do.

Tell that to the people that the Germans persecuted prior to the break out of WWII, especially the Checzs.

Obviously, we can't know what would have really happened. This is an hypotesis only.

I'll agree there but appeasement is always a bad strategy!

But I think it's a good point to ponder. And it removes the smug complacency of all the whiners who complain of the european policy in the '30s

:-)

It was bad policy and a heavy price was paid for that policy.

Hitler would've gotten his ass kicked because there wasn't anything he could do.


Doubtful. Read Haffner's "The Meaning of Hitler". The Germans WANTED the war sooner rather than later, as the Allies would have time to catch up. Recall that all German arms of 1937-1940 were tested in the Spanish Civil War and they had *lots* of them. Indeed, the Battle of Britian would never have made it 6 months earlier.

Tell that to the people that the Germans persecuted prior to the break out of WWII, especially the Checzs.

Czechs. True.

Doubtful. Read Haffner's "The Meaning of Hitler". The Germans WANTED the war sooner rather than later, as the Allies would have time to catch up. Recall that all German arms of 1937-1940 were tested in the Spanish Civil War and they had *lots* of them. Indeed, the Battle of Britian would never have made it 6 months earlier.

Tested yes but if they were being tested in the Soviet Union and Spain, they wouldn't be in Germany. Appeasement doesn't work and we all know it.

Czechs. True.

Thank You.

Actually, I was being sarcastic.

On the International Criminal Court, Europe is acting and the USA are whining.

:-)
Has the ICC done anything useful since its inception?

Has the ICC done anything useful since its inception?

Nothing that I know of!

Nothing that I know of!
At least one other can see my point ;)

Tested yes but if they were being tested in the Soviet Union and Spain, they wouldn't be in Germany. Appeasement doesn't work and we all know it.

:confused:
I didn't say appeasement worked. I'm saying that Germany would have preferred war in 1938 instead of late 1939.

I don't understand what you mean about the testing in the USSR/Spain not being in Germany. The Condor, the early Panzers, the Webbelnerfer (sp?) and many other weapons were first tried out and perfected during the Spanish Civil War. They were made in Germany, and their (improved) versions were made in Germany during WW2...

:confused:
I didn't say appeasement worked. I'm saying that Germany would have preferred war in 1938 instead of late 1939.

Actually they prefered war in the 1940s!

I don't understand what you mean about the testing in the USSR/Spain not being in Germany. The Condor, the early Panzers, the Webbelnerfer (sp?) and many other weapons were first tried out and perfected during the Spanish Civil War. They were made in Germany, and their (improved) versions were made in Germany during WW2...

They also test weapons inside the USSR with the USSR's permission. Yes, they did get work out in the Spanish Civil War but so did the soldiers. The soldiers got battle experience during the said civil war. That was the primary reason why Germans were fighting there.

Nazi's make me giggle... they never preferred war, they just fell for a compasionate leader who stood for something in a time that noone knew what to do, the same reason Hitler came into power, the same reason the Germans got as far as they did in the war itself... War is barely ever about the training or weapons tested in the USSR, blahblahblah... its about PASSION. The Germans were feuled by Hitler and his ideology, just as the USA and President Coke Nose's Ideology.

I appreciate your honest answer and admission that the US and countless other countries have made many mistakes. However, I think that the invasion of Iraq is a continuation down that road and it appears that the stakes keep getting higher with the possibility of armed conflict with Iran and/or North Korea.

Call me naive or a dreamer but I honestly believe that an America working with the UN can make the world a far better place. How many more wars have to be fought? How many more people have to die before we get it right?
How many roads must a man walk down....

CanuckHeaven, what do you think of this? Please respond if you're still following this thread:

Okay. How's this sound:

The world as a whole, rather than individual nations, is responsible for giving Saddam tons of wholeheartedly undeserved support.

Yes, Israel too defied more than 15 UN resolutions (I don't recall the exact number), maybe more than the 17 you said Iraq violated.

I don't dispute Israel's right to defend from its warmongering neighbours or from terrorist groups. No UN resolution denied this right.

But I dispute that the Israeli are "minimizing" civilian casualties.
They are doing more civilian casualties "defending" from terrorists than the terrorists themselves are doing (despite the fact that usually terrorists are actively targeting civilians).
I count approximately 40 Resolutions blocked by the US in regards to Israel over the years.

This is interesting to note as well from Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde150162005):

The spiraling violence and killings in Israel and the Occupied Territories in the past four and a half years has brought untold suffering to the Palestinian and Israeli civilian populations. More then 3,200 Palestinians, including more than 600 children and more than 150 women have been killed by Israeli forces, and more than 1,000 Israelis, including more than 100 children and some 200 women were killed by Palestinian armed groups. Most of the victims were unarmed civilians who were not taking part in any armed confrontations. Thousands more have been injured, many of them maimed for life. Amnesty International has repeatedly condemned and campaigned against the killings of civilians by both sides.

Yet the newspapers try to paint a different picture? (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/merc2/report.html)

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/title.gif

CanuckHeaven, what do you think of this? Please respond if you're still following this thread:
I don't think that you can blame the whole world, but certainly numerous countries supported Saddam with weapons during the Iran/Iraq War.

However, the US took the support to a higher level by removing Iraq from the US designated list of countries that support terrorism, and by continuing to back him even after Iraq used chemical weapons against the Iranians.

Even worse, the US voted against a UN Resolution condemning Iraq for chemical weapon usage, and the Reagan administration refused to endorse a condemnation of Iraq that was passed by Congress, allowing the measure to die at the end of the session.

I don't think that you can blame the whole world, but certainly numerous countries supported Saddam with weapons during the Iran/Iraq War.

However, the US took the support to a higher level by removing Iraq from the US designated list of countries that support terrorism, and by continuing to back him even after Iraq used chemical weapons against the Iranians.

Even worse, the US voted against a UN Resolution condemning Iraq for chemical weapon usage, and the Reagan administration refused to endorse a condemnation of Iraq that was passed by Congress, allowing the measure to die at the end of the session.
Sigh...

Just because the US is the one of the only countries that gets global scrutiny of it's government and foreign policy doesn't mean it was the only country to support Saddam diplomatically. I encourage you to search for diplomatic support from other nations as well as evidence incriminating the US. We screwed up, but we weren't alone and we don't deserve to be singled out as the main purpetrator.

Sigh...

Just because the US is the one of the only countries that gets global scrutiny of it's government and foreign policy doesn't mean it was the only country to support Saddam diplomatically. I encourage you to search for diplomatic support from other nations as well as evidence incriminating the US. We screwed up, but we weren't alone and we don't deserve to be singled out as the main purpetrator.

In CH's mind we do.

He claims to have friends in the US but apparently he likes to attack the US at every opportunity.

I don't think that you can blame the whole world, but certainly numerous countries supported Saddam with weapons during the Iran/Iraq War.

An admission that someone other than the US supplied Saddam? I'm in shock!

However, the US took the support to a higher level by removing Iraq from the US designated list of countries that support terrorism, and by continuing to back him even after Iraq used chemical weapons against the Iranians.

The US's removal of Iraq off the list of countries supporting terrorism had NO effect on any other countries military or chemical sales to Iraq. Considering that most of those sales occured before 1980!!
How else did Saddam have weapons and chemicals ready to attack the Iranians??

An unimportant fact:
France became the major source of Iraq's high-tech weaponry, in no small part to protect its financial stake in that country. The Soviet Union was Iraq's largest weapon's supplier, while jockeying for influence in both capitals. Israel provided arms to Iran, hoping to bleed the combatants by prolonging the war. And at least ten nations sold arms to both of the warring sides.

Now I'm sure France was just sitting on it's hands waiting in anticipation for the US to take Iraq of it's list of nations that support terrorism! :rolleyes:



Even worse, the US voted against a UN Resolution condemning Iraq for chemical weapon usage, and the Reagan administration refused to endorse a condemnation of Iraq that was passed by Congress, allowing the measure to die at the end of the session.

Instead the US had banned certain chemicals from being sold to Iraq. Granted this isn't the same thing, but at least the US didn't continue to sell chemicals, chemical-ready bombs, chemical-ready artillery shells and the like well after 1984!!!

30 March 1984
The U.S. bans export of five chemicals suitable for weapons to Iraq and Iran.

3 August 1987
The United States expands its chemical exports embargo against Iraq in response to the continued procurement efforts by Iraq and its neighbors. The eight additional chemicals in this new extension are: n- diisoprpylaminoethane-2-thiol, n- diisopropylaminoethyl-2-chloride, dimethyl phosphate (DMP), 3-hydroxy-1-methylpiperdine, phosphorus trichloride, 3-quinuclidinol, thionyl chloride, trimethyl phosphate (TMP). The four chemicals already embargoed and now subject to worldwide export licensing are: dimethyl methylphosphonate (DMMP), methylphosphonyl dichloride (DC), methylphosphonyl diflouride (DF), phosphorous oxychloride.

.

In CH's mind we do.

He claims to have friends in the US but apparently he likes to attack the US at every opportunity.
I'm sure he has friends in the US, and one must not mistake his posts for hatred or even dislike of the American people.

He is having a HELL of a time letting go of the idea that the US is the worst offender in regards to supporting Saddam.

Unless of course he is mad because we are a LEADER OF THE WORLD and dissapointed because we have so much INFLUENCE and set a bad example to all those countries who LOOK UP to us... but somehow I doubt that.

~snip~

Oh, cool! So now the statistics of a single newspaper's reporting of an issue is reflective of the entire nation, or even the entire West?! WOW! I can screw them over so bad now...

I'm thinking the US defends Israel because of the Arabic theft and occupation of their land (And a tiny plot of land compared to the vast tracts the Muslims possess.), and because the Israelis at least use a real defense force, whilst the Palestinians send 12 year olds strapped to bombs in to do the work.

I'm thinking the US defends Israel because of the Arabic theft and occupation of their land (And a tiny plot of land compared to the vast tracts the Muslims possess.), and because the Israelis at least use a real defense force, whilst the Palestinians send 12 year olds strapped to bombs in to do the work.
One could just as easily argue that Israel stole and occupied Arabic land in Gaza and the West Bank.

People on this forum like to take one side or the other. I don't take a side. Both Israelis and Palestinians have done horrible things, and both need to compromise if negotiations will get anywhere. It doesn't matter who started it. 50 years of argument and conflict over who started it has gotten us nowhere. Only through negotiation and compromise can we achieve anything. Both sides deserve an independent state and peace.

I'm sure he has friends in the US, and one must not mistake his posts for hatred or even dislike of the American people.
I have stated this many times....I do have good friends in the US....I don't hate Americans....I have enjoyed many wonderful holidays in the US....but I severely dislike the Bush administration. I also dislike some of the posters on this forum that have suggested turning Iraq into glass. Those people are full of hatred and are no better than the people that they would annihilate.

He is having a HELL of a time letting go of the idea that the US is the worst offender in regards to supporting Saddam.
This is absolutely true and my gut feeling is that the invasion of Iraq was for the wrong reasons and will cause nothing but more misery for the world in general and for Americans specifically.

Unless of course he is mad because we are a LEADER OF THE WORLD and dissapointed because we have so much INFLUENCE and set a bad example to all those countries who LOOK UP to us... but somehow I doubt that.
The world is full of good leaders, but some have more toys than others and Bush is one of them. I honestly believe that Bush has taken all the goodwill that was offered to America post 9/11 and has squandered it by invading Iraq. The UN has been weakened as a result, local support is declining, and even support from the original coalition members is being withdrawn or being reduced severely. I believe the world is less safe than it was before the invasion of Iraq.

America is not the best country in the world and her image as one of the better ones is being tarnished by her present foreign policies. Power can be used to benefit mankind or destroy it. I will pray the the US will eventually opt for the former.

One could just as easily argue that Israel stole and occupied Arabic land in Gaza and the West Bank.

People on this forum like to take one side or the other. I don't take a side. Both Israelis and Palestinians have done horrible things, and both need to compromise if negotiations will get anywhere. It doesn't matter who started it. 50 years of argument and conflict over who started it has gotten us nowhere. Only through negotiation and compromise can we achieve anything. Both sides deserve an independent state and peace.

Mmm, good point (Though it was the Brits who put Israel there.). Doesn't matter who did what, because until we get to negotiations, nnothing gets fixed. Problen is, the Israelis have offered great compromises, but nothing short of everything is good enough for the Palestinians. Hopefully with Arafat dead we might see some progress...

One could just as easily argue that Israel stole and occupied Arabic land in Gaza and the West Bank.

People on this forum like to take one side or the other. I don't take a side. Both Israelis and Palestinians have done horrible things, and both need to compromise if negotiations will get anywhere. It doesn't matter who started it. 50 years of argument and conflict over who started it has gotten us nowhere. Only through negotiation and compromise can we achieve anything. Both sides deserve an independent state and peace.
I agree totally and there is a solution. War upon war, killing upon killing is not the solution. I do believe that Bill Clinton was oh so close to finding that solution. If it hadn't been for the thorny issue regarding Jerusalem, I do believe that a peace accord could have been achieved.

I do believe that a Palestinian/Israeli peace accord will go a long ways towards stabilizing the whole region. I think that it would be awesome if Bush was the man to make this happen, but I think his ulterior agenda will keep him from this noble goal.

I agree totally and there is a solution. War upon war, killing upon killing is not the solution. I do believe that Bill Clinton was oh so close to finding that solution. If it hadn't been for the thorny issue regarding Jerusalem, I do believe that a peace accord could have been achieved.

I do believe that a Palestinian/Israeli peace accord will go a long ways towards stabilizing the whole region. I think that it would be awesome if Bush was the man to make this happen, but I think his ulterior agenda will keep him from this noble goal.
Jerusalem is the sticking point. IMO, it should be an international city run by the UN. Neither side likes that idea, but it's fair :D. And.. if the UN does a good job, it will restore TONS of credibility. Israel/Palestine was one of the first problems to be put before the UN, and as you may have noticed, it has not been solved yet after 56 years. Fixing it would be a huge boost to the UN.

Speaking of huge boosts, I don't think any president would have any reservations to ending this conflict. Imagine the immense respect and glory which would be awarded to the (wo)man who does it. For example, if he pulled it off, Bush's popularity rates would skyrocket and he would be remembered as a good president by a very increased number of people. It fits right in with his freedom-democracy-peace speeches too.

I think Abbas is the best chance we have had in a long time. What IS kindof scary is that Sharon and Abbas are going to be the last leaders from their generation. The younger generation is more radical and militant on both sides. Let's hope they can solve it before less moderate people get into office.

I agree totally and there is a solution. War upon war, killing upon killing is not the solution. I do believe that Bill Clinton was oh so close to finding that solution. If it hadn't been for the thorny issue regarding Jerusalem, I do believe that a peace accord could have been achieved.

I do believe that a Palestinian/Israeli peace accord will go a long ways towards stabilizing the whole region. I think that it would be awesome if Bush was the man to make this happen, but I think his ulterior agenda will keep him from this noble goal.

Clinton was never close to finding a solution, for one reason and one reason only....Yasser Arafat. Since Arafat's death, even an old hard-liner like Sharon has found a way to deal honestly with the Palestinian leadership. Abbas is the key to peace in the Middle East precisely because he's not Arafat, and isn't intimidated by the militant groups. It wouldn't have mattered if a Dem or Rep was in the White House, as soon as Arafat was out of the picture, there was nowhere to go but up.

So you want to play God huh? Good luck!!

Play God? Not exactly, though I suppose I can't fault you for thinking that. I do tend to take a ... unique ... point of view when it comes to human life. Taken as a given that bad things have happened in the past, are happening now, and will almost certainly continue to happen in the future, I weigh cost of war, and the rewards reaped, against the cost of not going to war. In my opinion, the number of lives lost in Iraq since the beginning of the war is smaller than what would have been lost in the long term under Saddam's rule, and the civil war that likely would have followed his death. Quality of life is likely to improve for those who survive as economic conditions improve through the rebuilding effort (I once again point to Germany and Japan for evidence). Hence my justification.

Though it may not seem like it, I opposed the war when Bush first started batting around the idea (I was actually in favor of assasinating Hussein, and then going into the country with a peacekeeping force when it errupts into civil war - which you could argue is just a matter of semantics), but once the decision was made to go in, I chose to reevaluate my position to look for the positive aspects of our actions.


Also, I would like to make an apology to you, CanuckHeaven. I reread my posts over the past few days, and it would seem that I was a bit insulting at times. Degrading and derougatory comments are not my normal mode of discussion (though I will often times use sarcasm, which is not intended as insult); I have been through a tremendous amount of stress recently, and while that does not excuse rudeness, I ask forgiveness for any insult I may have inflicted.

Jerusalem is the sticking point. IMO, it should be an international city run by the UN. Neither side likes that idea, but it's fair :D. And.. if the UN does a good job, it will restore TONS of credibility. Israel/Palestine was one of the first problems to be put before the UN, and as you may have noticed, it has not been solved yet after 56 years. Fixing it would be a huge boost to the UN.

Initially, it was an international city, similar to the Vatican. Israel took it over during one of their numerous wars. Unfortunately no one chose to intervene and do something about it.

Initially, it was an international city, similar to the Vatican. Israel took it over during one of their numerous wars. Unfortunately no one chose to intervene and do something about it.
I knew that the UN originally wanted to have it an international city, but I didn't know they actually did it! I was under the impression that it was split roughly in half between the Israelis and Palestinians, then Israel annexed East Jerusalem in one of the wars.

Play God? Not exactly, though I suppose I can't fault you for thinking that. I do tend to take a ... unique ... point of view when it comes to human life. Taken as a given that bad things have happened in the past, are happening now, and will almost certainly continue to happen in the future, I weigh cost of war, and the rewards reaped, against the cost of not going to war. In my opinion, the number of lives lost in Iraq since the beginning of the war is smaller than what would have been lost in the long term under Saddam's rule, and the civil war that likely would have followed his death. Quality of life is likely to improve for those who survive as economic conditions improve through the rebuilding effort (I once again point to Germany and Japan for evidence). Hence my justification.

Though it may not seem like it, I opposed the war when Bush first started batting around the idea (I was actually in favor of assasinating Hussein, and then going into the country with a peacekeeping force when it errupts into civil war - which you could argue is just a matter of semantics), but once the decision was made to go in, I chose to reevaluate my position to look for the positive aspects of our actions.


Also, I would like to make an apology to you, CanuckHeaven. I reread my posts over the past few days, and it would seem that I was a bit insulting at times. Degrading and derougatory comments are not my normal mode of discussion (though I will often times use sarcasm, which is not intended as insult); I have been through a tremendous amount of stress recently, and while that does not excuse rudeness, I ask forgiveness for any insult I may have inflicted.
Some people here view an apology as a sign of weakness, whereas I view it as a sign of strength. It takes a lot of courage to admit ones mistakes and God knows that we all make them. I admire your courage and forgive your trespass. :cool:

Quite awhile ago, in a moment of weakness, I allowed a couple of posters to get to me and I was less than subtle in my rebuke, so I started a thread to apologize to those that I had offended. Although I received a few shots, my resolve was strong and I felt much better after making restitution.

As far as stress goes, all people experience it every once in awhile, and sometimes it does make us do and say things that we shouldn't. Often we can rectify that wrongdoing by asking for forgiveness and if the person who has been harmed cannot accept the apology then that would be their problem not ours. Recognizing our mistakes and asking forgiveness gives us freedom.

I agree. When I apologise, I always feel better about myself. It takes more strength than sarcasm and retorts.

Now, if only our government could apologise for past mistakes without suffering political consequenses....

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.
I knew there was something fishy in this post!!

Look at that... DemocracyNow.org cited the "Iraqi Health Ministry" stunt as legitimate!

Usually (I assume) their stuff is one-sided or biased but not outright wrong. That ^^ was outright wrong.

I knew there was something fishy in this post!!

Look at that... DemocracyNow.org cited the "Iraqi Health Ministry" stunt as legitimate!
Simple rule of thumb...if it's

a. posted by Skapedroe,
b. a posting from DemagogueryNow,
c. all of the above,

the odds are well over 99.44% that it's a steaming load of crap. Just remember this rule, and you'll be ok.

Initially, it was an international city, similar to the Vatican. Israel took it over during one of their numerous wars. Unfortunately no one chose to intervene and do something about it.

Er, the Vatican is most assuredly *not* an International city. It's the last piece of the Papal States controlled by the Catholic Church.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/vt.html

"...resolved in 1929 by three Lateran Treaties, which established the independent state of Vatican City"

Some people here view an apology as a sign of weakness, whereas I view it as a sign of strength. It takes a lot of courage to admit ones mistakes and God knows that we all make them. I admire your courage and forgive your trespass. :cool:

Quite awhile ago, in a moment of weakness, I allowed a couple of posters to get to me and I was less than subtle in my rebuke, so I started a thread to apologize to those that I had offended. Although I received a few shots, my resolve was strong and I felt much better after making restitution.

As far as stress goes, all people experience it every once in awhile, and sometimes it does make us do and say things that we shouldn't. Often we can rectify that wrongdoing by asking for forgiveness and if the person who has been harmed cannot accept the apology then that would be their problem not ours. Recognizing our mistakes and asking forgiveness gives us freedom.


You're a good man (and/or woman? its hard to tell over the internet). I would be proud to debate with or against you in the future, if you'll have me >;o)

(I'll try to keep any comments about bleeding hearts to a minimum)

Er, the Vatican is most assuredly *not* an International city. It's the last piece of the Papal States controlled by the Catholic Church.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/vt.html

"...resolved in 1929 by three Lateran Treaties, which established the independent state of Vatican City"

Perhaps my choice of terms was incorrect, but the principle is similar; a better term might be city-state. IIRC, Jerusalem was to be controlled by a trilateral commission consisting of christians, jews, and moslems, each with equal powers and rights. I could be wrong though, it has been several years since I last read up on it.

Perhaps my choice of terms was incorrect, but the principle is similar; a better term might be city-state. IIRC, Jerusalem was to be controlled by a trilateral commission consisting of christians, jews, and moslems, each with equal powers and rights. I could be wrong though, it has been several years since I last read up on it.

That makes a lot more sense. Thanks. :)

I agree totally and there is a solution. War upon war, killing upon killing is not the solution. I do believe that Bill Clinton was oh so close to finding that solution. If it hadn't been for the thorny issue regarding Jerusalem, I do believe that a peace accord could have been achieved.

I do believe that a Palestinian/Israeli peace accord will go a long ways towards stabilizing the whole region. I think that it would be awesome if Bush was the man to make this happen, but I think his ulterior agenda will keep him from this noble goal.

The major stumbling block to peace in Palestine was Arafat. You can't make a deal with someone so disingenuous. You'll notice that as soon as he died, progress was made.

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.


I don't care who the US attacks. If any country decides to not trade with them it is at their own peril. Other, 2nd and 3rd world countries, would go to great lenghts to attract American buiness.

theyre the top rated lawyers of Iraq
That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? :p
I didn't need to waste any more time on this thread after reading that post.

Did you realize what you were typing there? :D

You're a good man (and/or woman? its hard to tell over the internet). I would be proud to debate with or against you in the future, if you'll have me >;o)

(I'll try to keep any comments about bleeding hearts to a minimum)
Thank you. :) This guy (just to clarify any confusion) also looks forward to future debates with you. :cool:

I had typed a more lengthy reply, but unfortunatelty it got lost in cyberspace, so this will have to suffice.

I will make it equally simple for you....France, Germany, and Russia, etc. did not invade Iraq.

Of course they didn't, they were making money off the blood of starving Iraqis. I guess that makes them humanitarians....:rolleyes:

Oh! That's right. It's ok for Germany,France and Russia to be "dealing" with Saddam, just not the US!!


I don't think invading Iraq was the proper solution, nor did my country, nor did many other countries. Millions protested worldwide and rightly so.


I don't think UN "peace-keepers" should be allowed to murder civilians(Ivory Coast and Burundi, et al)!! I don't think the Rwanda massacre should be swept under the rug(since France was involved)!
But all this doesn't matter, why?
Because it can't be pinned on the US!
So the atrocities will continue!

Thank you. :) This guy (just to clarify any confusion) also looks forward to future debates with you. :cool:

I had typed a more lengthy reply, but unfortunatelty it got lost in cyberspace, so this will have to suffice.

Damn that cyberspace...its always eating up posts >;o)

Yes they are Criminals!

Yes they are Criminals!

How?

Of course they didn't, they were making money off the blood of starving Iraqis. I guess that makes them humanitarians....:rolleyes:

Oh! That's right. It's ok for Germany,France and Russia to be "dealing" with Saddam, just not the US!!
Ummm some US businesses also earned some Iraqi blood money. Germany, France, and Russia did not, repeat did not invade Iraq. Besides the US gameplan for Iraq is far more involved than a few dollars for weapons.

I don't think UN "peace-keepers" should be allowed to murder civilians(Ivory Coast and Burundi, et al)!! I don't think the Rwanda massacre should be swept under the rug(since France was involved)!
But all this doesn't matter, why? Because it can't be pinned on the US!
So the atrocities will continue!
UN "peace-keepers" have done far more good than harm in this world. Get out your calculator and start adding up all of the deaths that have resulted due to misguided US intervention, then we can talk?

The major stumbling block to peace in Palestine was Arafat. You can't make a deal with someone so disingenuous. You'll notice that as soon as he died, progress was made.
I would have to agree with you on this one. Barak seemed to want to get a deal done as did Clinton, but I do think the stumbling point was a divided Jerusalem. I do like the suggestion that was made that Jersualem become a UN protected city.

Ummm some US businesses also earned some Iraqi blood money. Germany, France, and Russia did not, repeat did not invade Iraq. Besides the US gameplan for Iraq is far more involved than a few dollars for weapons.
Yes. A few US businesses did. They are just as much in the wrong as the many more German, French and Russian companies that did the same. I hope all are punished severely.


UN "peace-keepers" have done far more good than harm in this world. Get out your calculator and start adding up all of the deaths that have resulted due to misguided US intervention, then we can talk?
I'll start doing that when you start calculating the millions of people around the world saved by US military power.

Ummm some US businesses also earned some Iraqi blood money. Germany, France, and Russia did not, repeat did not invade Iraq. Besides the US gameplan for Iraq is far more involved than a few dollars for weapons.
Well it would appear that the US stopped dealing with Iraq after the first persian gulf war at the very latest. Don't know if I can say the same for Germany, France, and Russia though....


My new favorite example of non-US true imperialist oppression and widespread death: the French war supressing Algerian independence. It's got it all! Bombardment of villages with the intent of destroying them, concentration camps, displacement of 2 million people from their homes, and about 1 million dead. All in 8 years. 1954-1962, this is even a fairly recent war too!
source: http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/fax/france/falgeria1954.htm

Well it would appear that the US stopped dealing with Iraq after the first persian gulf war at the very latest. Don't know if I can say the same for Germany, France, and Russia though....

Did Iraq ever get their money back for those GPS jammers the Russians sold them to protect the buildings that were destroyed by GPS guided bombs?

Well it would appear that the US stopped dealing with Iraq after the first persian gulf war at the very latest. Don't know if I can say the same for Germany, France, and Russia though....
That makes two of us....

My new favorite example of non-US true imperialist oppression and widespread death: the French war supressing Algerian independence. It's got it all! Bombardment of villages with the intent of destroying them, concentration camps, displacement of 2 million people from their homes, and about 1 million dead. All in 8 years. 1954-1962, this is even a fairly recent war too!
source: http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/fax/france/falgeria1954.htm
While I am not extremely conversant regarding Algeria, I did read the article, as well as another (http://www3.baylor.edu/~Elijah_Beaver/algeria.htm) and I find the situation with Iraq & the US is totally disimilar to the Algeria/France situation. France had a long time relationship with Algeria, over 100 years of history, including colonization. The situation in Algeria is more along the lines of that of civil war.

BTW, I am not trying to make excuses for France, as any time that civilians are targeted in war is criminal as far as I am concerned. Also, while you may be trying to deflect attention away from the US action against Iraq, the fact remains that two wrongs do not make a right?

I did find this of interest in the second article and perhaps should stand out as a huge possible foreshadowing of what the US can expect in Iraq:

The future for the nation of Algeria does not look entirely promising. Secular and Islamic forces continue to fight with one another, causing death and property destruction across the nation. The violence stifles economic and social growth and stigmatizes Algeria in the international political field. It also stalemates political expansion within Algeria itself. If leaders are concerned with the physical safety of the nation, they have little time for other important matters of state.......

And despite getting independence in 1962.....

In 1990, representatives of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) were elected to office across the nation, with the goal of transforming the nation into an Islamic state. Military and secular elite halted the FIS rise to power by suspending the government and forcing Benjedid to resign. They reestablished government under Mohammed Boudiaff, and in retaliation FIS groups began a massive terrorism campaign. The terrorist activity spread to foreign countries and has isolated Algeria from most of the world community.

Hmmmmm

Yeah, I wasn't trying to distract from Iraq. Just late-night musings on the irony of France's prior actions.

As far as I know, the violence following the military takeover has ended and the proper government has been restored.

Has the ICC done anything useful since its inception?

Keep in mind that it started operating just some time ago. Give it some time...

There are two investigations currently under way (about Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo), and it is going to investigate some more cases (Central African Republic and Darfur)

You can find more information here:

http://www.icc-cpi.int

Anyway, you said there were two instances.

The second episode I know of is still unknown/denied here, so I don't know if it's the same one you had in mind.

The first episode dates back to when we had a dictatorship.
The second episode, however, is in more recent times... with a democratically elected government, and a totally complacent opposition who supported it on this issue.
Ok so maybe it was only once! Don't know if they used any in World War One or not.

No, no, you were right the first time.
Our air force used nerve gas on Yugoslavia in the late 90s. So that's the second time (at least) Italy used WMD in its history.

Not a bright spot in our history... :-(


Yes, Israel too defied more than 15 UN resolutions (I don't recall the exact number), maybe more than the 17 you said Iraq violated.
Care to take alook at what half of those resolutions stated? Most of them are for counter attacks they did when they were attacked by various nations. Also, they dated back to when they ceased territory during the Arab-Israeli Wars.
So, there are good resolutions and bad resolutions? If you accept this principle (I don't), then even Saddam Hussein might have been right in breaking UN resolutions.

Also, you have to consider that all those resolutions were accepted by the USA who could have vetoed them (as it did in many other instances), so they weren't excessively demanding on Israel.

Last but not least, Israel never returned all the territories it occupied in the various wars.

It returned Sinai, it will probably return all of Gaza and most of the West Bank to the PNA, it won't talk about returning Golan.
So, many of them are still current...

I don't dispute Israel's right to defend from its warmongering neighbours or from terrorist groups. No UN resolution denied this right.
Then why isn't there a resolution condemning the terrorist actions done by groups belonging to Iran and Syria?
I don't know about Iran, but there certainly have been resolutions condemning Syria.

But I dispute that the Israeli are "minimizing" civilian casualties.
They are doing more civilian casualties "defending" from terrorists than the terrorists themselves are doing (despite the fact that usually terrorists are actively targeting civilians).
Don't you think because the terrorists are hiding among the civilians? Take alook at the number of Israelis killed compared to that of the citizens that the terrorists hide among. More Israelis have died in a terror attack than citizens in an Israeli counter attack.
Unfortunately, it isn't so.

To show you that figures prove you wrong, I looked for some pro-israeli source.
Do you know about the ICT (International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism)?
Here is an interesting study they did:
http://www.ict.org.il/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm
and a more in-depth analisys is here:
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=440

Keep in mind that this is a pro-israeli source. If there is some bias in its analisys, it will almost certainly be in favour of Israel.

If you look at deaths between 27 September 2000 and 1 May 2004 you'll see 2806 palestinians dead versus 921 israelis.
That's more than 3 to 1!!

ICT however says that you should only take into account those who are non combatants. However, even taking their calculations on who is a non combatant and who is a combatant, you will still have 985 civilian palestinians killed versus 715 israelis.

Again, this is a pro-israeli source. The real numbers are probably worse...

Also, look at the number of children below 12 killed: 80 palestinians vs 36 israelis.

Anyways, you can't say that the israelis have been very effective in sparing civilians.

Moreover, each civilian accidentally killed means a lot of palestinians who will be likely to see terrorism as their only recourse.

So, in the end, these deaths end up causing even more damage to the israeli cause!!