NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: This article is three pages long, so I am simply quoting a few exerpts. To read the entire article, click on the title below.


Desert Graves in Northern Iraq Yield Evidence to Try Hussein (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/international/middleeast/07trial.html?th&emc=th)

By CHRISTOPHER DREW
and TRESHA MABILE
Published: June 7, 2005

A chain of evidence that investigators believe will help convict Saddam Hussein begins at a windswept grave in the desert near Hatra, in northern Iraq.

---

The burial site - a series of deep trenches that held about 2,500 bodies, many of them women and children - is one of many mass graves that dot the country. But it was the first excavated by an American investigative team working with a special Iraqi tribunal to build cases against Mr. Hussein and others in his government.

---

According to Gregory W. Kehoe, the American who set up the investigative team, what was found at Hatra shows how the Hussein leadership made a "business of killing people" - the scrape marks from the blade of the bulldozer that shoved victims into the trench, the point-blank shots to the backs of even the babies' heads, the withered body of a 3- or 4-year-old boy, still clutching a red and white ball.

---

Iraqi officials have said their main goal was to root out Kurdish militias siding with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. But Human Rights Watch, the New York-based group, has estimated that up to 100,000 Kurds, mostly civilians, were killed, and 2,000 villages destroyed, including dozens bombed with chemical weapons.

---

The bodies were stacked haphazardly in four or five layers. Nearly all had a single .22-caliber pistol shot behind one ear. Mr. Trimble said it looked as if the first people had been shot inside the trench, while the others had been killed at the lip and pushed in by a bulldozer.

---

Mr. Kehoe said the rolling field held up to a dozen other trenches, with at least 2,000 more bodies. Mr. Nivala said a second grave site, at Samawa in southern Iraq, yielded similar results; in April, investigators excavated one trench and found bodies of 114 Kurds, all but 5 women and children. Mr. Nivala said that field had 18 trenches, and 10 were filled, with at least 1,500 bodies.

---

Mr. Nivala said investigators believe they will be able to show that Mr. Hussein was aware not only of the retribution in Dujail but also of the harsh actions against the Kurds and Shiites. He said the forensics team had recently begun excavating a third grave, believed to hold some of the 150,000 Shiites killed in 1991.

Hey! I went to a lot of trouble to edit and post this thread! The least you can do is read the damned thing! :p

well done.

Now how about you do the same for the 'Wanker of Washington'?
'The Ass of America' 'The Wombat of the West'

[QUOTE=Eutrusca]

Eutrusca, You've been joined for less than a year, how in gods name do you ha ve 10,000 posts?!!

well done.

Now how about you do the same for the 'Wanker of Washington'?
'The Ass of America' 'The Wombat of the West'
And this would be ... who??? [ innocent look ]

I'm surprised at how closely these allegations resemble actions taken by American troops in the Vietnam war.

The burial site - a series of deep trenches that held about 2,500 bodies, many of them women and children - is one of many mass graves that dot the country. But it was the first excavated by an American investigative team working with a special Iraqi tribunal to build cases against Mr. Hussein and others in his government.

---

Iraqi officials have said their main goal was to root out Kurdish militias siding with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. But Human Rights Watch, the New York-based group, has estimated that up to 100,000 Kurds, mostly civilians, were killed, and 2,000 villages destroyed, including dozens bombed with chemical weapons.


Just replace a few words and SPLAT! American actions in Vietnam!

And this would be ... who??? [ innocent look ]

i like how people take something like mass murder and then change the topic to "the wombat of the west"

[QUOTE=Eutrusca]

Eutrusca, You've been joined for less than a year, how in gods name do you ha ve 10,000 posts?!!
Um ... I had a lot of time on my hands after I broke my leg? :)

I'm surprised at how closely these allegations resemble actions taken by American troops in the Vietnam war.


Just replace a few words and SPLAT! American actions in Vietnam!
Not! Don't forget, I was there, young phoole! :p

Eutrusca, You've been joined for less than a year, how in gods name do you ha ve 10,000 posts?!!
Well, they DO C&P quite a bit, so it's not too hard... ;)

Well, they DO C&P quite a bit, so it's not too hard... ;)
:eek:

i like how people take something like mass murder and then change the topic to "the wombat of the west"
All that goes to prove is that some people's children shouldn't be trusted with a keyboard! :D

I don't understand. Why the emphasis on all these minor crimes post-1991? It's just a few hundred people here and there. What about the hundreds of thousands during the 1980s when the US and UK were giving Saddam Hussein weapons, including MWD? I'd like to see a trial for those crimes. :rolleyes:

I don't understand. Why the emphasis on all these minor crimes post-1991? It's just a few hundred people here and there. What about the hundreds of thousands during the 1980s when the US and UK were giving Saddam Hussein weapons, including MWD? I'd like to see a trial for those crimes. :rolleyes:

You need to go back and read carefully.

The so-called WMD given by the US were small samples from the American Type Collection - samples so small that they could not possibly be considered "weaponized". In addition, since these were all biological samples, none of them have been traced to a use of a biological weapon by the Iraqis.

Many nations maintain such a type collection, and the US is not the only one who gave samples to Iraqi universities. It is likely that there are universities in your country which have received samples from the American Type Collection.

As for chemical weapons, not one was manufactured or purchased from the United States. Surveys conducted after the Iran-Iraq War revealed that the types of agents in use were either of Russian manufacture, or of Russian techniques of manufacturing - techniques that are NOT used by the US.

We're talking about tabun, sarin, and mustard gases that were NOT manufactured by the US, nor did we provide advice on how to make them. It looks like the Russians either provided the weapons to them, or told them how to make them.

Before you bandy about the charge that "The US provided WMD", you should check carefully.

yeah and then for mugabe and then for the 50 odd dictators in africa who have ruined the continent, moving onto north korea and iran. If bush thinks he can end the "war on terror" with iraq and iran, he has neglected the place where human life started millions there starving and dying filling those trenches at least 5 times over with the dead from a day in africa. He has started something which will end with north korea costing thousands of lives on both sides and lasting generations

yeah and then for mugabe and then for the 50 odd dictators in africa who have ruined the continent, moving onto north korea and iran. If bush thinks he can end the "war on terror" with iraq and iran, he has neglected the place where human life started millions there starving and dying filling those trenches at least 5 times over with the dead from a day in africa. He has started something which will end with north korea costing thousands of lives on both sides and lasting generations

What does "the place where human life started" have to do with anything?

We helped to make Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan a complete mess during the Cold War.

Arguably, the only part of Africa that the US could claim to have seriously interfered in is Angola.

As for the rest of Africa, that's a mess made by the European colonial powers. They should clean it up.

And North Korea is at war with the UN, not the US. Please read your history books and consult UN Resolution 90. The UN is obviously not doing anything to resolve the conflict after the armistice - and perhaps they should, instead of hoping that the US will solve the problem (nice out that - if the US solves the problem, the UN can sit back and talk shit about how the US solved it - if the US fails, the UN can sit back and talk shit about how the US failed - in either case, the UN washes its hands of its own conflict).

...
As for chemical weapons, not one was manufactured or purchased from the United States. Surveys conducted after the Iran-Iraq War revealed that the types of agents in use were either of Russian manufacture, or of Russian techniques of manufacturing - techniques that are NOT used by the US.

We're talking about tabun, sarin, and mustard gases that were NOT manufactured by the US, nor did we provide advice on how to make them. It looks like the Russians either provided the weapons to them, or told them how to make them.

Before you bandy about the charge that "The US provided WMD", you should check carefully.
The USSR possibly helped Iraq with developing its chemical weapons (though it isn't very difficult to produce the nerve agents, especially tabun and mustard gas).

However, sarin was a standard NATO chemical warfare agent, and the US produced it in the 1950s. The US also produced the mustard gas. Do you remember the Bari incident in 1943?

I'm surprised at how closely these allegations resemble actions taken by American troops in the Vietnam war.


Just replace a few words and SPLAT! American actions in Vietnam!

War crimes? I didn't see John Kerry's name in there.

The USSR possibly helped Iraq with developing its chemical weapons (though it isn't very difficult to produce the nerve agents, especially tabun and mustard gas).

However, sarin was a standard NATO chemical warfare agent, and the US produced it in the 1950s. The US also produced the mustard gas. Do you remember the Bari incident in 1943?

The other byproducts present in the sarin proved that it was not made by US methods of manufacture - therefore it did not match anything in the US stockpile - therefore it was not US-made.

It DID match the method of manufacture used by the USSR.

Same for the mustard. All of this was studied at length in the 1980s. None of it was US chemicals.

War crimes? I didn't see John Kerry's name in there.
okay...

The other byproducts present in the sarin proved that it was not made by US methods of manufacture - therefore it did not match anything in the US stockpile - therefore it was not US-made.

It DID match the method of manufacture used by the USSR.
1) Of course it wasn't US-made.

2) Would you mind to give me a link on the different methods of nerve gas manufacture?

Which Butcher of Bagdad are we talking about? Bush or Hussein?

...

And North Korea is at war with the UN, not the US. Please read your history books and consult UN Resolution 90. ...
UN Security Council Resolution 90.

'The Security Council resolves to remove the item "Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea" from the list of matters of which the Council is seized.'

What do you mean?

What does "the place where human life started" have to do with anything?

We helped to make Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan a complete mess during the Cold War.

Arguably, the only part of Africa that the US could claim to have seriously interfered in is Angola.

As for the rest of Africa, that's a mess made by the European colonial powers. They should clean it up.

And North Korea is at war with the UN, not the US. Please read your history books and consult UN Resolution 90. The UN is obviously not doing anything to resolve the conflict after the armistice - and perhaps they should, instead of hoping that the US will solve the problem (nice out that - if the US solves the problem, the UN can sit back and talk shit about how the US solved it - if the US fails, the UN can sit back and talk shit about how the US failed - in either case, the UN washes its hands of its own conflict).

ok so maybe i got carried away about the life starting, but do those people not live in fear of death and rape and disease? This war on terror is not just about who has pissed america off, a war on terror surely means against anyone who is using fear and physical abuse to control their people

Which Butcher of Bagdad are we talking about? Bush or Hussein?
Ah but which bush?

never argue with douchebags

People are now more upset that there are photos of sadaam in his underwear.
Just blow the son of a bitch away, publish photos of the bloated dead body and throw his body out into the dust. Let the vermin strip his carcass. Thats still better than he treated most of his own people.
He is a piece of shit.

And stop comparing him to President Bush and stop comparing mass graves to what US soldiers may have done in vietnam. Its stupid beyond belief.

ok so maybe i got carried away about the life starting, but do those people not live in fear of death and rape and disease? This war on terror is not just about who has pissed america off, a war on terror surely means against anyone who is using fear and physical abuse to control their people

Sorry, we're not cleaning up any mess created by Europeans. We have enough of our own messes to clean up.

never argue with douchebags

People are now more upset that there are photos of sadaam in his underwear.
Just blow the son of a bitch away, publish photos of the bloated dead body and throw his body out into the dust. Let the vermin strip his carcass. Thats still better than he treated most of his own people.
He is a piece of shit.

And stop comparing him to President Bush and stop comparing mass graves to what US soldiers may have done in vietnam. Its stupid beyond belief.

amen...these guys are invincibly ignorant

Which Butcher of Bagdad are we talking about? Bush or Hussein?

There's only one Butcher of Baghdad (yes this is the proper spelling) and that's HUSSEIN! Read up on what Saddam did to his people and you can see why we are in there.

Ah but which bush?

Neither one.

Now how about you do the same for the 'Wanker of Washington'?
'The Ass of America' 'The Wombat of the West'
Bush has nothing like the amount of blood on his hands as Hussein, though I do like those nicknames.

Not! Don't forget, I was there, young phoole! :p
That doesn't take away from the fact that Americans killed millions of Vietnamese people. Just because you didn't, doesn't mean no Americans did.

"Butcher of Baghdad"
Sounds awesome, doesn't it? You can reduce the entire case, the whole truth down to that. Then no one has to use their brains to think...Thank god!

If there was a convincing case, they'd give it to the international court for war crimes and the like (yes, the one American soldiers can't be brought before. They'd never commit war crimes!)
They don't though. They prefer to make this a show trial to kill a human being. No presumption of innocence, no proper defence, no impartial judges and American observers on every door.
Why? Probably because a fair trial would take a few years, and bugger it, by then America will have forgotten about him.

The majority of victims of Saddam's regime were Shias who fought in the insurgency after the first war. The crackdown was way too harsh in my opinion, and yet it was a civil war, and you cannot blaim an incumbent for fighting a civil war. That's no excuse for the deaths of civilians though.
More importantly, wasn't it the American President who told the Shia to rise up, then refused to help? Shouldn't he take some of the blame for the dimensions of this slaughter?

The idea that America never supported Iraq (by giving it chemical and biological agents, among others) is stupid, and has probably been debated to death in this forum. It wasn't about research in Universities, it was about letting Iran bleed to death. When the Iraqis needed targets for their C-Weapons, the US supplied them with satelite pics of Iranian troop concentrations.

And against the leaders of the Wehrmacht the best thing the US could come up with was a new rule, "a war of aggression". I would say that, other than Afghanistan, zero of America's wars after WW2 were provoked in any way justifying a military response (the same goes for Vietnam, Eutrusca). It was enough to hang Jodl and Keitel, but that's completely different.
Of Course!

We're talking about tabun, sarin, and mustard gases that were NOT manufactured by the US, nor did we provide advice on how to make them. It looks like the Russians either provided the weapons to them, or told them how to make them.

Or else, they used those highly illegal and dangerous things known as First Year Chemistry Students.

Seriously. The formula for mustard gas is in my text book. I could put together a method to make it. If I can't do it this year -- I've not studied the formula, so I don't know how complex it is -- I'm certain I'll be able to do it by the end of the course.

EDIT: Oh, wow, it's even better than that. It actually spells out the mechanism!

It's a very pretty molecule. Cl-CH2-CH2-S-CH2-CH2-Cl.

"Butcher of Baghdad"
Sounds awesome, doesn't it? You can reduce the entire case, the whole truth down to that. Then no one has to use their brains to think...Thank god!

Amen. To bad it isn't that simple.

If there was a convincing case, they'd give it to the international court for war crimes and the like (yes, the one American soldiers can't be brought before. They'd never commit war crimes!)

We prosecute our own war criminals. As for this going to the International Court, Saddam was smart not to sign it therefore, the IC has no jurisdiction in this case. Ironic. :p

They don't though. They prefer to make this a show trial to kill a human being. No presumption of innocence, no proper defence, no impartial judges and American observers on every door.

I guess you haven't heard all of the evidence that is against Saddam Hussein. There's more than enough evidence to convict. Some reasons why this isn't at the IC: 1) They have no Jurisdiction, 2) The Iraqis want to try him, 3) The IC is so damn slow. 4) No death penalty at the IC. These are just four reasons why this is being tried in Iraq.

Why? Probably because a fair trial would take a few years, and bugger it, by then America will have forgotten about him.

This is going to be a fair trial. I don't know where your getting the idea that it isn't. Saddam is going to get a fair trial. Although, the evidence against him is damning. No way in hell he can get off on these charges no matter what court he's in.

The majority of victims of Saddam's regime were Shias who fought in the insurgency after the first war.

Nice try. They have been the victims long before their uprising. Read up on history dude.

The crackdown was way too harsh in my opinion, and yet it was a civil war, and you cannot blaim an incumbent for fighting a civil war. That's no excuse for the deaths of civilians though.

Incumbent? Who was running against him?

More importantly, wasn't it the American President who told the Shia to rise up, then refused to help? Shouldn't he take some of the blame for the dimensions of this slaughter?

Backed down due to pressure from Congress I believe. I actually blame the UN for the Slaughter because they wouldn't let us go in there to kick his ass out of power in 1991.

The idea that America never supported Iraq (by giving it chemical and biological agents, among others) is stupid, and has probably been debated to death in this forum.

And has been shown that the weapons used by Saddam where not made by American manufacturers. They were from the USSR by products.

It wasn't about research in Universities, it was about letting Iran bleed to death. When the Iraqis needed targets for their C-Weapons, the US supplied them with satelite pics of Iranian troop concentrations.

But not the weapons used by Saddam. Besides that, the only reason we supported Saddam was that we didn't want the Iranians from taking over the oil fields.

And against the leaders of the Wehrmacht the best thing the US could come up with was a new rule, "a war of aggression". I would say that, other than Afghanistan, zero of America's wars after WW2 were provoked in any way justifying a military response (the same goes for Vietnam, Eutrusca). It was enough to hang Jodl and Keitel, but that's completely different.
Of Course!

Korea was provocation, the North invaded the South and we couldn't allow that. That was provocation enough in my mind. It all depends on your definition of Provocation to justify anything. The 1st Gulf War was provoked when Saddam didn't leave Kuwait. After all... Saddam was after the oil and didn't like the fact that Kuwait called in payments on money they loaned to Saddam to fight Iran.

...



And has been shown that the weapons used by Saddam where not made by American manufacturers. They were from the USSR by products.



...
'The USSR by products'? Please provide me with a link or two to confirm that nerve agent precursors were 'USSR citizens'.

'The USSR by products'? Please provide me with a link or two to confirm that nerve agent precursors were 'USSR citizens'.

Google it because I'm off to bed.

Google it because I'm off to bed.
I'll wait for you to wake up, then. In the meantime I'd like to comment that the reports on Iraqi CW provided, AFAIK, only negative evidence of the origin of the gas samples.

1. We prosecute our own war criminals. As for this going to the International Court, Saddam was smart not to sign it therefore, the IC has no jurisdiction in this case. Ironic. :p

2. I guess you haven't heard all of the evidence that is against Saddam Hussein. There's more than enough evidence to convict. Some reasons why this isn't at the IC: 1) They have no Jurisdiction, 2) The Iraqis want to try him, 3) The IC is so damn slow. 4) No death penalty at the IC. These are just four reasons why this is being tried in Iraq.

3. This is going to be a fair trial. I don't know where your getting the idea that it isn't. Saddam is going to get a fair trial. Although, the evidence against him is damning. No way in hell he can get off on these charges no matter what court he's in.

4. Nice try. They have been the victims long before their uprising. Read up on history dude.

5. Incumbent? Who was running against him?

6. Backed down due to pressure from Congress I believe. I actually blame the UN for the Slaughter because they wouldn't let us go in there to kick his ass out of power in 1991.

7. Korea was provocation, the North invaded the South and we couldn't allow that. That was provocation enough in my mind. It all depends on your definition of Provocation to justify anything. The 1st Gulf War was provoked when Saddam didn't leave Kuwait. After all... Saddam was after the oil and didn't like the fact that Kuwait called in payments on money they loaned to Saddam to fight Iran.

1. Think about it. Would Hitler prosecute Heydrich for war crimes? Extreme example I grant you, but so far the US has shown zero attempt to prosecute anyone. The soldiers in Abu Ghraib? Fair enough,they were punished, but any suggestion that they may have gotten orders from above to behave in such a fashion was immediatly dismissed and then the Military was called in to investigate itself. That can never possibly ever work.

2. It is called the international war crimes tribunal. They have jurisdiction everywhere. There is some that don't agree, like Saddam Hussein and George Bush, but why should that be a reason not to try him there. If you call it "crimes against humanity", then humanity, not iraqity is who will try him.
The Iraqis didn't wanna try him, some people wanted to. Not that that would be a reason for the US to hand him over.
Hell, I said they were too slow for the short attention span of the US-Public.
Well, well, well. There is no death penalty, so you won't try him there? Interesting. Why are you responsible for choosing the penalty of a not yet convicted ex-leader of a nation before the trial has even begun?

3. If you say there is no way he can get off, then how is that fair? Where is the presumption of evidence? Where is it?

4. Oh, I assure you, I've spent the last three or four years reading up, and I will continue to do so. Thanks for the tip though, dude.
The majority of victims were afterwards.

5. A popular movement with guns in their hands and an Ayatollah as their leader. English is not my first language, so incumbent may not be the optimal word. Nonetheless, in a civil war, you cannot blaim one side for killing the military personell of the other side. Civilians are another matter.

6. "kick his ass out of power". Sounds almost like in Hollywood, doesn't it?
And since when does the US-President listen to the UN to back down from Iraq? But I guess it is convenient that they didn't support it...

7. Excuse me, but whether the North attacks the South about an eternity away from America is hardly a provocation that warrants American bombs being dropped. Nonetheless, Korea was a UN-Operation and as such doesn't count as an American war in my view.
Same goes for Saddam and Kuwait. I wasn't in Saddam's throne room when the decision was made, I don't claim to know what happened there. Everything we know about that is speculation made by one side in a war. Hardly reliable.
-----------------
And if you just wanted to keep Iran from getting the oil fields, then why did you support Iran as well at another time during the war?
I've seen ex-CIA people on TV who said the idea was to let them kill each other off.

...

2. It is called the international war crimes tribunal. They have jurisdiction everywhere. There is some that don't agree, like Saddam Hussein and George Bush, but why should that be a reason not to try him there. If you call it "crimes against humanity", then humanity, not iraqity is who will try him.
The Iraqis didn't wanna try him, some people wanted to. Not that that would be a reason for the US to hand him over.
Hell, I said they were too slow for the short attention span of the US-Public.
Well, well, well. There is no death penalty, so you won't try him there? Interesting. Why are you responsible for choosing the penalty of a not yet convicted ex-leader of a nation before the trial has even begun?

3. If you say there is no way he can get off, then how is that fair? Where is the presumption of evidence? Where is it?

...
I respectfully disagree over that.

Iraq is a sovereign country at present (, and it undeniably has juridisction over Saddam & Co, because it is the sovereign right of Iraq.

Iraq is not a party to the International Criminal Court, so it may choose to enter into an agreement with the court providing for it to have jurisdiction in the case. The government chose not to. I must confess that I'm an ICC-sceptic, and I don't think that the Court will ever justify hopes.

'The Iraqis didn't wanna try him' - what makes you think so?

Iraq has death penalty, so it may well be an option in Iraqi tribunal.

'The USSR by products'? Please provide me with a link or two to confirm that nerve agent precursors were 'USSR citizens'.
http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

And I quote:

"Indigenous or external sources of supply?

With the exceptions, maybe, of the last two of these different categories of putative Iraqi agent, sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplier, for the reason that the USSR is said, on evidence that has yet to be solidly substantiated but which has nonetheless attracted some firm believers, to have weaponized all three of them in recent years. For its part, the USSR has expressly denied supplying Iraq with toxic weapons. Reports of Soviet supply attributed to US and other intelligence sources have nonetheless recurred. The earliest predate reports of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War.

Official Iranian commentaries, too, have pointed to the USSR as a supplier of the Iraqi weapons. These sources have also accused Brazil, France and, most conspicuously, Britain of supplying the weapons. No basis for any of these Iranian accusations has been disclosed. France, alongside Czechoslovakia and both Germanies, is reportedly also rumoured, among "foreign military and diplomatic sources" in Baghdad, to have supplied Iraq with chemical precursors needed for an indigenous production effort. Unofficial published sources have cited Egypt as a possible supplier of actual chemical weapons. In the mid-1960s, when Iraq was alleged to be using chemical weapons against insurgent Kurdish forces, Swiss and German sources of supply were reported in the Western press. "

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

And I quote:

"Indigenous or external sources of supply?

With the exceptions, maybe, of the last two of these different categories of putative Iraqi agent, sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplier, for the reason that the USSR is said, on evidence that has yet to be solidly substantiated but which has nonetheless attracted some firm believers, to have weaponized all three of them in recent years. For its part, the USSR has expressly denied supplying Iraq with toxic weapons. Reports of Soviet supply attributed to US and other intelligence sources have nonetheless recurred. The earliest predate reports of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War.

Official Iranian commentaries, too, have pointed to the USSR as a supplier of the Iraqi weapons. These sources have also accused Brazil, France and, most conspicuously, Britain of supplying the weapons. No basis for any of these Iranian accusations has been disclosed. France, alongside Czechoslovakia and both Germanies, is reportedly also rumoured, among "foreign military and diplomatic sources" in Baghdad, to have supplied Iraq with chemical precursors needed for an indigenous production effort. Unofficial published sources have cited Egypt as a possible supplier of actual chemical weapons. In the mid-1960s, when Iraq was alleged to be using chemical weapons against insurgent Kurdish forces, Swiss and German sources of supply were reported in the Western press. "

I've read the SIPRI 1984 report. So, who was the Iraqi supplier - the USSR, some European country, Brazil, Egypt... or no one?

I've read the SIPRI 1984 report. So, who was the Iraqi supplier - the USSR, some European country, Brazil, Egypt... or no one?

It could very well have been indigenously produced - with external technical help. Given the processes involved, and in the case of the mustard, a technique that is definitely not Western, it could have been the USSR giving technical assistance.

None of the weapons that were specifically used to carry the chemicals had any resemblance to any Western weapons. The mortar shells I've seen are 82mm mortar shells - Soviet design, but could be of indigenous manufacture.

You'll note that the US supplied NO chemical weapons and is not suspected of having done so - while even countries such as France are suspected of possibly giving Iraq the technical means to produce chemical weapons.

I post this because I'm really tired of hearing people say, "the US supplied Saddam with WMD during the Iran/Iraq War". It's completely false.

Maybe someone else helped, but we certainly didn't.

It could very well have been indigenously produced - with external technical help. Given the processes involved, and in the case of the mustard, a technique that is definitely not Western, it could have been the USSR giving technical assistance.

None of the weapons that were specifically used to carry the chemicals had any resemblance to any Western weapons. The mortar shells I've seen are 82mm mortar shells - Soviet design, but could be of indigenous manufacture.

You'll note that the US supplied NO chemical weapons and is not suspected of having done so - while even countries such as France are suspected of possibly giving Iraq the technical means to produce chemical weapons.

I post this because I'm really tired of hearing people say, "the US supplied Saddam with WMD during the Iran/Iraq War". It's completely false.

Maybe someone else helped, but we certainly didn't.
I do agree, the US were most definitely not among the suppliers of WMD precursors. The USSR, France, Germany, and even the UK probably helped Iraq to produce CW.

I do agree, the US were most definitely not among the suppliers of WMD precursors. The USSR, France, Germany, and even the UK probably helped Iraq to produce CW.

Oddly, the people who bring up supposed US involvement point to Rumsfeld visiting Iraq during a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons in combat.

It's not so much that we knew about it then, it's that from a position of realpolitik, the US didn't care. Not that "not caring" is a good thing - but it certainly doesn't imply some secret conspiracy to supply Iraq with such weapons.

1. Think about it. Would Hitler prosecute Heydrich for war crimes? Extreme example I grant you, but so far the US has shown zero attempt to prosecute anyone. The soldiers in Abu Ghraib? Fair enough,they were punished, but any suggestion that they may have gotten orders from above to behave in such a fashion was immediatly dismissed and then the Military was called in to investigate itself. That can never possibly ever work.

Zero attempt to prosecute anyone? Now some here is either very ignorant or someone here hasn't been watching the news. As for your extreme example, the answer would be no! He'll just execute him on the spot. At least the US is prosecuting those responsible and tossing them into the brig, stockade, and what not and throwing their slimey asses right out of the military with a dishonorable Discharge. Interesting isn't it? Abu Ghraib perpetrators ARE BEING PROSECUTED!!!!!! I've heard this, read this, and heard sentencing. Where have you been living NOT to have noticed this? We have a J.A.G. for a reason! :rolleyes:

2. It is called the international war crimes tribunal. They have jurisdiction everywhere. There is some that don't agree, like Saddam Hussein and George Bush, but why should that be a reason not to try him there. If you call it "crimes against humanity", then humanity, not iraqity is who will try him.

Not unless someone signs onto it. We don't have to send every case there. Hell, we shouldn't send any case there but that is my opinion on the IWCT. As for Saddam, he never signed onto it so Iraq is not under its jurisdiction. The Iraqis themselves don't want Saddam to go there. Shall we ignore the will of the Iraqi people? I think not. This is an Iraqi problem and the Iraqis themselves will take care of this. In 2 months the trial will begin and thank God! Its called crimes against humanity because he committed them on IRAQI people. So tell me why the Iraqis, who never signed on to the ICC, shouldn't be allowed to try the Butcher of Baghdad?

The Iraqis didn't wanna try him, some people wanted to. Not that that would be a reason for the US to hand him over.

The Kurds in the North want him to be tried in Iraq and the Shia in the South want him tried in Iraq as well. These two groups make up the majority of the Iraqi people. So yes the Iraqis do want to try him. What proof do you have that they dont?

Hell, I said they were too slow for the short attention span of the US-Public.

:confused:

Well, well, well. There is no death penalty, so you won't try him there? Interesting. Why are you responsible for choosing the penalty of a not yet convicted ex-leader of a nation before the trial has even begun?[quote]

I'm not! The Iraqis are. They instituted the Death Penalty not the US. I find this abit Ironic since under the Occupation government, which was US led, there was NO death penalty.

[quote]3. If you say there is no way he can get off, then how is that fair? Where is the presumption of evidence? Where is it?

Look at the evidence dude. Gassing of the Kurds in 1988, and various other charges. I think the 12 counts are mentioned in the article. If not, I'll find the crimes and list them for you. You know, if you have so much evidence against one person, it doesn't matter what court you try'em in. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing case for example. The evidence pointed to these people and there was nothing anyone could do. They were still found guilty.

4. Oh, I assure you, I've spent the last three or four years reading up, and I will continue to do so. Thanks for the tip though, dude.
The majority of victims were afterwards.

I suggest you keep reading then because apparently, you haven't learned a thing.

5. A popular movement with guns in their hands and an Ayatollah as their leader. English is not my first language, so incumbent may not be the optimal word. Nonetheless, in a civil war, you cannot blaim one side for killing the military personell of the other side. Civilians are another matter.

Where are you getting a civil war now? There isn't a civil war going on in Iraq.

6. "kick his ass out of power". Sounds almost like in Hollywood, doesn't it?

Nope. Not really though I think they have used that phrase alot in the last election that Hollywood lost! :p

And since when does the US-President listen to the UN to back down from Iraq? But I guess it is convenient that they didn't support it...[/guote]

If they didn't support it then why did we go in armed with 17 UN Resolutions and a UN Cease-fire? If we didn't support it why did we get the 17th UN Resolution on Iraq? If we didn't support it then why did President Bush go to the UN in the first place?

[quote]7. Excuse me, but whether the North attacks the South about an eternity away from America is hardly a provocation that warrants American bombs being dropped. Nonetheless, Korea was a UN-Operation and as such doesn't count as an American war in my view.

Actually, if you really look at it, the UN Relunctantly gave us the support. If it wasn't for the USSR boycotting the vote, the UN wouldn't have given their support because the USSR would veto it right out of the Security Council. Ironic that it was Taiwan that was on the Security Council and not mainland China that also approved of it.

Same goes for Saddam and Kuwait. I wasn't in Saddam's throne room when the decision was made, I don't claim to know what happened there. Everything we know about that is speculation made by one side in a war. Hardly reliable.

Believe what you will. I can't tell you differently.

And if you just wanted to keep Iran from getting the oil fields, then why did you support Iran as well at another time during the war?
I've seen ex-CIA people on TV who said the idea was to let them kill each other off.

We didn't want them overrunning Iraq and we didn't want Iraq overrunning Iran.

Oddly, the people who bring up supposed US involvement point to Rumsfeld visiting Iraq during a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons in combat.

It's not so much that we knew about it then, it's that from a position of realpolitik, the US didn't care. Not that "not caring" is a good thing - but it certainly doesn't imply some secret conspiracy to supply Iraq with such weapons.
Of course, but seeing Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam is still nauseating. Letting the cameras roll during their meeting turned out a great PR mistake (in hindsight).

As for me, I do not support Russia-bashing (USSR-bashing too: the Bear was big and bad, but he wasn't Reagan's 'focus of evil in the modern word'), US-bashing, Europe-bashing... I do not support bashing anyone at all. :)

yeah i mean who are we to say what is right, well the fact that democracy has been working preety well for a while now

Well, like everything man made, it has its faults etc. like which is better, PR Democracy, Direct or (the one in Britain, cant remember its name)

and since when has criticism helped the world?

Oh! Sorry, I thought this thread was going to be about G.W. Bush based on the title. Nevermind.

Of course, but seeing Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam is still nauseating. Letting the cameras roll during their meeting turned out a great PR mistake (in hindsight).

As for me, I do not support Russia-bashing (USSR-bashing too: the Bear was big and bad, but he wasn't Reagan's 'focus of evil in the modern word'), US-bashing, Europe-bashing... I do not support bashing anyone at all. :)

As I see it, the poverty and chaos of the third world rests strongly in two causes:

1. colonialism
2. the cold war

We may trace the abuses of colonialism to the European nations, and we can trace the abuses of the Cold War to the US and USSR.

Think about it. The US and USSR screwed up places like Afghanistan (screwing it from both directions), Iraq, Angola, etc.

The Europeans have screwed up most of Africa, and their little map drawing exercise got us the Middle East screwup.

The US seems to have resolved to try to unscrew what they have screwed up in the past - on the idea that perhaps something can be done about it (unknown), and that this chaos is the root cause of terrorism (possible).

The French seem to try every once in a while to unscrew something - Ivory Coast is an example.

Nothing is going to change in this world unless someone changes it - and I don't foresee the majority of Europe taking any responsibility for the aftermath of colonialism.

Oh! Sorry, I thought this thread was going to be about G.W. Bush based on the title. Nevermind.

How the hell did you come up with that? Nevermind!

Nevermind!

Okay!

Okay!

Though I'm curious as to why you said what you said when everyone has been calling Hussein this and not calling Bush this.

Though I'm curious as to why you said what you said when everyone has been calling Hussein this and not calling Bush this.

Well Corneliu, I don't know if math is your strong suit or not, but if you do the math of how many innocent people Saddam allegedly killed over a 30 year period and you look at how many innocent people the Americans have now killed since March 2003 and you figure out the % it would come up that per capita the Americans in 30 years at the current murder rate of Iraqi citizens would make Saddam look like Bozo the Clown in the killing of innocents department. It's all about averages.

Whispering Legs, I concur with your appraisal on the whole, although I think that the differences of cultures play a large part in the present problems of the Third World... but let's not digress.

I also suspect that American (or French, or Russian anyone's) motives for their actions are somewhat 'ulteriorer'. :)

But let's return to the subject. I think most of people here think Saddam will be found guilty and sent to the gallows, am I right?

Well Corneliu, I don't know if math is your strong suit or not, but if you do the math of how many innocent people Saddam allegedly killed over a 30 year period and you look at how many innocent people the Americans have now killed since March 2003 and you figure out the % it would come up that per capita the Americans in 30 years at the current murder rate of Iraqi citizens would make Saddam look like Bozo the Clown in the killing of innocents department. It's all about averages.

Allegedly killed? Thank God you told me that because Saddam's Regime killed far more people than our little War in Iraq have killed. As for innocents we killed, not nearly the number that the terrorists have killed. As for you 30 year number, I think your underestimating the fact that Baghdad can now be controled by the Iraqis themselves. I guess you also didn't know that we have an insurgency there that are killing far more people than the US have. I suggest you run your numbers again and this time, make sure you include the number of civilians killed by the terrorists! You might be surprised.

Still waiting on why you said that Bush is the Butcher of Baghdad.

Whispering Legs, I concur with your appraisal on the whole, although I think that the differences of cultures play a large part in the present problems of the Third World... but let's not digress.

I also suspect that American (or French, or Russian anyone's) motives for their actions are somewhat 'ulteriorer'. :)

But let's return to the subject. I think most of people here think Saddam will be found guilty and sent to the gallows, am I right?

1. Damn Jolt!

2. I agree that he's going to the gallows. He should too.

Still waiting on why you said that Bush is the Butcher of Baghdad.

Because it's what I believe. That is good enough for me. If it's not for you, that seems like your problem, not mine.

Because it's what I believe. That is good enough for me. If it's not for you, that seems like your problem, not mine.

Well that fine if that is what you believe. Your wrong though but don't let me stop ya.

Well that fine if that is what you believe. Your wrong though but don't let me stop ya.

I don't believe I'm wrong and since I don't know you from a hole in the ground you telling me I'm wrong means absolutely nothing to me. Unless you've been there doing a body count or are affiliated with an agency that is, you don't have enough information to tell me I'm wrong. Anyway, have fun with your nationalistic attitude of we can do no wrong "USA! USA! USA!" It's people who turn a blind eye to reality that make the rest of us Americans look bad.

Building a case?


What the fuck do they need to build a case for? All this shit was supposed to be iron-clad and fully documented already!

Don't we all remember all the mad screaming about Saddam in '02?

He was EVIL and we had proof!
He had WMD and we have the proof!
He was aligned with Osama and we have the proof!
He had reconstituted his nuke programs and we had the proof!
He had mobile WMD labs and we have the proof!
Here are the bunkers with the chemical weapons (as could be proven by that truck parked there) and here is the proof!
He was a grave and gathering threat to his neighbours and we have the proof!

Really? That's nice.....


He's been under a microscope for two decades. He has been in custody for 18 months while the US has had firm possession of the land of his crimes.

And they are still scrambling to find enough evidence to be able to secure a conviction? What the hell does THAT tell you?




Jesus fuck, at this rate we're gonna hear about him getting cited for a jaywalking violation and let go.... followed up by a sheepish "whoopsie.... heh - heh - sorry about your country...."



They're building a case? Now? Three years AFTER going to war over his crimes?


Well way to fucking go!

:rolleyes:

I don't believe I'm wrong and since I don't know you from a hole in the ground you telling me I'm wrong means absolutely nothing to me. Unless you've been there doing a body count or are affiliated with an agency that is, you don't have enough information to tell me I'm wrong. Anyway, have fun with your nationalistic attitude of we can do no wrong "USA! USA! USA!" It's people who turn a blind eye to reality that make the rest of us Americans look bad.

No I just have the words of people that were over there in 1991 and in this war. I have read the history of Saddam Hussein. I have studied the History of Iraq. I have the words of people that are older than you and therefore wiser. Those that have lived under Saddam Hussein and words from people in the region.

They're building a case? Now? Three years AFTER going to war over his crimes?

You have to build a case following the new Iraqi laws and courts.

Building a legal case is not as simple as you imagine. You have to get the live witnesses in order, go through mountains of paper evidence, and organized and prepare your case. It apparently took time (and some political consideration) in choosing exactly what they would charge him with.

And now, there will be more case preparation.

Yes, I wish this sort of thing worked like the movies, where we have a fair trial followed by a first-class hanging - all in the timespan of the last part of the movie. But it doesn't.

I'm sure if we did it that way, you would then complain that Saddam's rights had been violated.

One refreshing thing about Cat-Tribe is his consistency. I'm sure he wouldn't be jumping up and down complaining that we're not railroading Saddam fast enough.

No I just have the words of people that were over there in 1991 and in this war. I have read the history of Saddam Hussein. I have studied the History of Iraq. I have the words of people that are older than you and therefore wiser. Those that have lived under Saddam Hussein and words from people in the region.

Oh, I see, so if I'm older than you that means I'm wiser? Cool!

How do you know I haven't been there too? You sure do make quite a few assumptions and further, let me guess, the people you've talked to and the books on Saddam you've read are all pro-American right? Thought so.. :rolleyes:

You have to build a case following the new Iraqi laws and courts.

Building a legal case is not as simple as you imagine. You have to get the live witnesses in order, go through mountains of paper evidence, and organized and prepare your case. It apparently took time (and some political consideration) in choosing exactly what they would charge him with.

And now, there will be more case preparation.

Yes, I wish this sort of thing worked like the movies, where we have a fair trial followed by a first-class hanging - all in the timespan of the last part of the movie. But it doesn't.

I'm sure if we did it that way, you would then complain that Saddam's rights had been violated.

One refreshing thing about Cat-Tribe is his consistency. I'm sure he wouldn't be jumping up and down complaining that we're not railroading Saddam fast enough.



You ARE quite the smug, superior, condescending type aren't you?


"Why gosh mr Legs.... you mean it ain't just like it is on Law and Order? Geewillikers - thanks for clearing that up for po' little ole me......"

:rolleyes:




Or do you just go out of your way to miss the main point of other people's posts entirely for a reason?

Oh, I see, so if I'm older than you that means I'm wiser? Cool!

How do you know I haven't been there too? You sure do make quite a few assumptions and further, let me guess, the people you've talked to and the books on Saddam you've read are all pro-American right? Thought so.. :rolleyes:

Nope not at all! Nice try though. And have you been over there? Judging by how your talking you haven't been.

One of the people I talked with was a Rhodes Scholar who visited my intro to global politics class. He had some very interesting things to say about Saddam and he also went on to say that it was a good thing that the US went in there to oust him. He's from Jordan. Is he pro-us? I don't know and I didn't ask. However, he is from the region. He also stated that most of the Middle East Countries were scared of Saddam Hussein even after we tossed him out of Kuwait. Though he didn't like what happened at Abu Ghraib, he said along the lines of that what those prisoners went through was nothing compared to what the prisoners under Saddam Hussein's Rule went through.

...

He was EVIL and we had proof!
He had WMD and we have the proof!
He was aligned with Osama and we have the proof!
He had reconstituted his nuke programs and we had the proof!
He had mobile WMD labs and we have the proof!
Here are the bunkers with the chemical weapons (as could be proven by that truck parked there) and here is the proof!
He was a grave and gathering threat to his neighbours and we have the proof!

...
Links please... (I'm no racist at all, but no Colin Powell!)

who visited my intro to global politics class. He had some very interesting things to say about Saddam.

Enough said. That really didn't help your case. Oh well, it's been fun! I have to go now and do this thing called work. Bye!

You ARE quite the smug, superior, condescending type aren't you?

Yes.

"Why gosh mr Legs.... you mean it ain't just like it is on Law and Order? Geewillikers - thanks for clearing that up for po' little ole me......"
:rolleyes:

Yes.
Or do you just go out of your way to miss the main point of other people's posts entirely for a reason?

Your main point seems to be that somehow, the US had "evidence" of one crime or another - claims of WMD, or genocide, etc. And that somehow, this "evidence" would be immediately available and convertible to a usable form in an Iraqi court - if not, then you conclude that the "evidence" is worthless and the US is stupid for having brought it up.

Your argument, however, is predicated on a simplistic view of how the world works - and possibly predicated on the idea that a political and military action is somehow a police and court matter. Both of which are incorrect.

Which I've pointed out, by being sarcastic.

Enough said. That really didn't help your case. Oh well, it's been fun! I have to go now and do this thing called work. Bye!

Work? yea nice dodge of everything I said. I guess I scored a point since you just basically ignored everything I said. The guy I was talking about is a RHODES SCHOLAR FROM JORDAN! You know, a nation that neighbors Iraq? I guess you don't care about it. Alwell. Have a nice day.

Which I've pointed out, by being sarcastic.

Hey Leperous monkeyballs, I think he's trying to steal your style..lol ;)

never argue with douchebags

People are now more upset that there are photos of sadaam in his underwear.
Just blow the son of a bitch away, publish photos of the bloated dead body and throw his body out into the dust. Let the vermin strip his carcass. Thats still better than he treated most of his own people.
He is a piece of shit.

And stop comparing him to President Bush and stop comparing mass graves to what US soldiers may have done in vietnam. Its stupid beyond belief.

yeah and that would make us the civilized party involved would it.. give him dignity, he doesnt deerve it but we must to maintain our civility

Work? yea nice dodge of everything I said. I guess I scored a point since you just basically ignored everything I said. Have a nice day.

Nah, don't need to dodge anything, as first pointed out your opinion means nothing to me really. Also, not all of us are lucky enough to be students in an introduction course to global politics and then think we are now an expert. Some of us actually finished university some years ago and now have jobs. When you grow up you will have to get a job too. Sorry for being the one to have to give you the bad news. If it means anything, we mostly all have to work unless you win the lottery or have rich parents. LOL

P.S. More to the point though is what is the point of debating a subject with someone who won't change their mind no matter what evidence is provided. Look at your post history, you'll see what I mean. ;)

Hey Leperous monkeyballs, I think he's trying to steal your style..lol ;)
We could, for instance, start with the 1800 gallons of anthrax that he concealed from UN weapons inspectors.

Weaponized anthrax.

The UN inspectors discovered information about it from examining paperwork in 1993.

Saddam refused to account for it.

Taha, the woman who ran his bioweapons program, decided to dump it into a trench near one of Saddam's palaces, and bury it - without telling Saddam.

She told the US about it when she was detained. The trench was found as she indicated.

So now we know where the anthrax went - and we could not have found out any other way - because Saddam himself didn't even know and because Taha feared death at Saddam's hands if he found out.

So, at the time we took the country over, they didn't have the WMD in a form they could use. Unbeknownst to everyone except Taha, it was sitting uselessly in a trench. But they did make it. And for a while, they did have it.

And it was WMD, unquestionably.

Since there are two separate independent sources - the UN reports and Taha's testimony - that confirm this, would you care to try and prove it false?

I'm surprised at how closely these allegations resemble actions taken by American troops in the Vietnam war.


Just replace a few words and SPLAT! American actions in Vietnam!

Funny how leftists take a few isolated instances and lump an entire military into the same category.

Ya whatever, We invaded a country based on lies. No one can argue that isn't true any more. That's all I need to know.

Ya whatever, We invaded a country based on lies. No one can argue that isn't true any more. That's all I need to know.

Then I guess you think this is a lie, as well:

Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha al-Azawi is a British-educated Iraqi microbiologist who worked in Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program. Known as Dr. Germ and Toxic Taha by the U.S. and British governments and by the United Nations weapons inspectorate, a 1999 report commissioned by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) said she is regarded as one of the world's most dangerous women. [1] (pdf; p. 20)

Taha first rose to prominence in the Western media after being named in a 2003 British intelligence dossier, released to the public by Prime Minister Tony Blair, on Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear capability. The dossier alleged that Taha had played a leading role in the manufacture of anthrax and other biological agents. [2] It was this dossier that triggered the chain of events that led to the death of British UN weapons inspector Dr. David Kelly, who was accused of telling a BBC reporter that some of the intelligence had been manipulated, and the subsequent Hutton Inquiry into his death.

In 1997, Saddam Hussein awarded Taha a medal of scientific achievement and, prior to the 2003 war on Iraq, broadcasts were aired showing Taha and Saddam sitting next to each other. On May 12, 2003, the U.S. government announced that Taha had surrendered to coalition forces. As of February 2005, she remains in U.S. custody at an unknown location. She has not been charged with any offense.

On March 28, 2005, the Associated Press reported that Taha has explained the 1,800 gallon discrepancy between the amount of anthrax the UN knew she had manufactured, and the amount she admitted to destroying. The missing anthrax was one of the stated reasons for the Iraq war and was emphasized by then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell during his February 2003 speech to the Security Council. However, according to an Iraq Survey Group report published on October 6, 2004, Taha has told American investigators that she and her colleagues dumped the missing anthrax near the gates of one of Saddam's palaces in April 1991, but were afraid to admit to this for fear of incurring Saddam's wrath. The Iraqi biologists therefore told the UN weapons inspectors that the missing anthrax had never existed. [3]

http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Rihab_Rashid_Taha

Nah, don't need to dodge anything, as first pointed out your opinion means nothing to me really. Also, not all of us are lucky enough to be students in an introduction course to global politics and then think we are now an expert. Some of us actually finished university some years ago and now have jobs. When you grow up you will have to get a job too. Sorry for being the one to have to give you the bad news. If it means anything, we mostly all have to work unless you win the lottery or have rich parents. LOL

I know I'm not an expert. I just stated a fact that the Rhodes Scholar from Jordan visited our class to talk about the Middle East. He knows that they need to move towards democracy and that the Invasion of Iraq was necessary. He didn't like Abu Ghraib but knows its nothing compared to what Saddam Hussein did. This is what I'm saying. I know for a fact that I need to get a job when I leave my undergraduate studies but I intend to go on and get my masters and maybe my doctorates. I am going to try and get a job on the Hill or at the State Department. I want to work with the government after all, it is what I'm studying.

P.S. More to the point though is what is the point of debating a subject with someone who won't change their mind no matter what evidence is provided. Look at your post history, you'll see what I mean. ;)

Sorry but when I know I'm right, and i won't hesitate to admit when I'm wrong, I push.

Links please... (I'm no racist at all, but no Colin Powell!)

Why no Colin Powell? His sworn testimony as the appointed mouthpiece of US Foreign policy as presented to the the UN Security Council suddenly is irrelevant?


Or just inconvenient?


As to the rest, if you are completely unaware of a) satire, b)paraphrasing, and c) the general sentiments expressed by the Administration in the leadup to war - then frankly I can't help you.

And we must thank Israel for its attack upon Osirak reactor... If they hadn't destroyed it, we would have seen a nuclear flash over Tehran, or Tel Aviv, or Riyadh...

Why no Colin Powell? His sworn testimony as the appointed mouthpiece of US Foreign policy as presented to the the UN Security Council suddenly is irrelevant?


Or just inconvenient?


As to the rest, if you are completely unaware of a) satire, b)paraphrasing, and c) the general sentiments expressed by the Administration in the leadup to war - then frankly I can't help you.
I'm not asking for help. I'm asking for links...

And we must thank Israel for its attack upon Osirak reactor... If they hadn't destroyed it, we would have seen a nuclear flash over Tehran, or Tel Aviv, or Riyadh...

I don't think over Riyadh. That'll piss off all the muslim nations and Saddam would have a difficult time of it. Jerusalem maybe, Tel Aviv possibly. Tehran? more than likely.

I do thank Israel for what they did. They saved the world some major trouble.

Why no Colin Powell? His sworn testimony as the appointed mouthpiece of US Foreign policy as presented to the the UN Security Council suddenly is irrelevant?
Or just inconvenient?
As to the rest, if you are completely unaware of a) satire, b)paraphrasing, and c) the general sentiments expressed by the Administration in the leadup to war - then frankly I can't help you.

Are you saying that Taha is satire? That 1800 gallons of missing anthrax (proven by the UN as well as the US) was satire?

I see no refutation of Taha or the 1800 gallons of anthrax by you or anyone else. Perhaps it's because you can't.

Are you saying that Taha is satire? That 1800 gallons of missing anthrax (proven by the UN as well as the US) was satire?

I see no refutation of Taha or the 1800 gallons of anthrax by you or anyone else. Perhaps it's because you can't.
Undeniably there were 1800 gallons, but they were not ready for any use as a bioweapon.

*snip - blah blah blah - snip*

Since there are two separate independent sources - the UN reports and Taha's testimony - that confirm this, would you care to try and prove it false?

*plus snipping assorted further claims in a later post*




There. See you go!

First you tell me that they need time to build a case, now you trot out all of your "evidence" that is supposedly so well founded that you challenge me to disprove it (yeah, like a joe public citizen such as myself is gonna pull reams of classified site inspection documentation records out of their ass suffiecient to counter your claims to post on a message board :rolleyes: )



Talk about wanting to have it both ways! lmao!

Undeniably there were 1800 gallons, but they were not ready for any use as a bioweapon.

The problem is, no one knew about it except Taha. And there was no way to find out by using UN inspectors. Taha said that her fear of Saddam's wrath prevented her from telling the UN inspectors and prevented her from telling Saddam.

It looks like there was only one way to find out.

Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha al-Azawi, nicknamed by the media Doctor Germ, is a British-educated Iraqi microbiologist who worked in Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program. A 1999 report commissioned by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) said she is regarded as one of the world's most dangerous women. [1] (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/99-003.htm) (pdf; p. 20)

Taha first rose to prominence in the Western media after being named in a 2003 British intelligence dossier, released to the public by Prime Minister Tony Blair, on Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear capability. The dossier alleged that Taha had played a leading role in the manufacture of anthrax and other biological agents. [2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/html/full_dossier.stm) It was this dossier that triggered the chain of events that led to the death of British UN weapons inspector Dr. David Kelly, who was accused of telling a BBC reporter that some of the intelligence had been manipulated, and the subsequent Hutton Inquiry into his death.

In 1997, Saddam Hussein awarded Taha a medal of scientific achievement and, prior to the 2003 war on Iraq, broadcasts were aired showing Taha and Saddam sitting next to each other. On May 12, 2003, the U.S. government announced that Taha had surrendered to coalition forces. As of February 2005, she remains in U.S. custody at an unknown location. She has not been charged with any offense.

On March 28, 2005, the Associated Press reported that Taha has explained the 1,800 gallon discrepancy between the amount of anthrax the UN knew she had manufactured, and the amount she admitted to destroying. The missing anthrax was one of the stated reasons for the Iraq war and was emphasized by then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell during his February 2003 speech to the Security Council. However, according to an Iraq Survey Group report published on October 6, 2004, Taha has told American investigators that she and her colleagues dumped the missing anthrax near the gates of one of Saddam's palaces in April 1991, but were afraid to admit to this for fear of incurring Saddam's wrath. The Iraqi biologists therefore told the UN weapons inspectors that the missing anthrax had never existed. [3] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4896228,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704)


Background
Born in 1957, and a graduate of the University of Baghdad, Taha received her Ph.D in plant toxins from the University of East Anglia's School of Biological Sciences in Norwich, England, which she attended from 1980 to 1984. She published two articles on her research, co-authored by her supervisor Professor John Turner, now dean of the biology department there. In 1984, "Contribution of tabtoxin to the pathogenicity of Pseudomonas syringae pv tabac" was published in Physiological Plant Pathology (25, 55-69) and "Effect of tabtoxin on nitrogen metabolism" by J.G. Turner, R.R. Taha & J.M. Debbage was published in Physiologia Plantarum in 1986 (67, 649-653). [4] (http://www.uea.ac.uk/bio/people/faculty/Updatehtml/JGTpub.html)

Taha is married to the British-educated General Dr. Amir Mohammad Rashid al-Ubaidi, the former Iraqi oil minister and director of Iraq's Military Industrial Corporation, which was responsible for Saddam's advanced weapons programs. Taha met General Rashid, who has a Ph.D in engineering from Birmingham University in England, when they were both invited to New York for a meeting with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in 1993. At the time, Taha was in her late 30s, unmarried and without children, a highly unusual situation for an Arab woman. Already married with a six-year-old son, General Rashid took Taha as his second wife when they returned to Baghdad.


Growth of biological agents

Inside the al-Hakam facility. Photograph taken by UNSCOM.Although Taha told her fellow students at Norwich that she wanted to return to Iraq to teach biology, she went instead to work for Iraq's germ warfare program. In 1985, she worked in the al-Muthanna chemical plant near Baghdad, and later became chief production officer in al-Hakam/al-Hakum, Iraq's top-secret biological-warfare facility at the time.

During several visits to Iraq by UNSCOM, set up after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to inspect Iraqi weapons facilities, [5] (http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom), weapons inspectors were told by Taha that al-Hakam was a chicken-feed plant. "There were a few things that were peculiar about this animal-feed production plant," Charles Duelfer, UNSCOM's deputy executive chairman, later told reporters, "beginning with the extensive air defenses surrounding it."

According to the 1999 DIA report, the normally mild-mannered Taha exploded into violent rages when questioned about al-Hakam, shouting, screaming and, on one occasion, storming out of the room, before returning and smashing a chair. [6] (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/inspections/suspicions.html) However, in 1995, UNSCOM's principle weapons inspector Dr. Rod Barton from Australia showed Taha documents obtained by UNSCOM from the Israeli regime that showed the Iraqi government had just purchased 10 tons of growth media from a British company called Oxoid. Growth media is a mixture of sugar, proteins and minerals that allows microscopic life to grow; it is used in hospitals, where swabs from patients are placed in dishes containing growth media for diagnostic purposes. Iraq's hospital consumption of growth media was just 200 kg a year; yet in 1988, Iraq imported 39 tons of it.

Shown this evidence by UNSCOM, Taha admitted to the inspectors that she had grown 19,000 litres of botulism toxin; [7] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2734305.stm) 8,000 litres of anthrax; 2,000 litres of aflatoxins, which can cause liver cancer; clostridium perfringens, a bacterium that can cause gas gangrene; and ricin, a castor bean derivative which can kill by impeding circulation. She also admitted conducting research into cholera, salmonella, foot and mouth disease, and camel pox, a disease that uses the same growth techniqes as smallpox, but which is safer for researchers to work with. It was because of the discovery of Taha's work with camel pox that the U.S. and British intelligence services feared Saddam Hussein may have been planning to weaponize the smallpox virus. Iraq had a smallpox outbreak in the 70s and UNSCOM scientists believe the government would have retained contaminated material.

Weaponization of biological agents

The British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and UNSCOM catalogued the weaponization by Taha's team of biological agents. Above, the SIS building photographed from Vauxhall Bridge Road, London UNSCOM learned that, In August 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Taha's team was ordered to set up a program to weaponize the biological agents. By January 1991, a team of 100 scientists and support staff had filled 157 bombs and 16 missile warheads with botulin toxin, and 50 bombs and five missile warheads with anthrax. In an interview with the BBC, Taha denied the Iraqi government had weaponized the bacteria. "We never intended to use it," she told journalist Jane Corbin of the BBC's Panorama program. "We never wanted to cause harm or damage to anybody." [8] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2734305.stm) However, UNSCOM found the munitions dumped in a river near al-Hakam. UNSCOM also discovered that Taha's team had conducted inhalation experiments on donkeys from England and on beagles from Germany. The inspectors seized photographs showing beagles having convulsions inside sealed containers.

The inspectors feared that Taha's team had experimented on human beings. During one inspection, they discovered two primate-sized inhalation chambers, one measuring 5 cubic metres, though there was no evidence the Iraqis had used large primates in their experiments. According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter in his 1999 book Endgame: Solving the Iraq Crisis, [9] (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743247728/qid=1104539222/sr=2-2/ref=pd_ka_b_2_2/102-5475444-5782553) UNSCOM learned that, between July 01 and August 15, 1995, 50 prisoners from the Abu Ghraib prison were transferred to a military post in al-Haditha, in the northwest of Iraq, (Ritter, 1999). Iraqi opposition groups say that scientists sprayed the prisoners with anthrax, though no evidence was produced to support these allegations. During one experiment, the inspectors were told, 12 prisoners were tied to posts while shells loaded with anthrax were blown up nearby. Ritter's team demanded to see documents from Abu Ghraib prison showing a prisoner count. Ritter writes that they discovered the records for July and August 1995 were missing. Asked to explain the missing documents, the Iraqi government charged that Ritter was working for the CIA and refused to co-operate further with UNSCOM.

Taha and Kenneth Bigley

The British government hoped Tawhid and Jihad would release Kenneth Bigley if the U.S. released Taha. On September 18, 2004, the Tawhid and Jihad ("Oneness of God and Holy War") Islamist group, led by Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, kidnapped Americans Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley, and British engineer Kenneth Bigley, threatening to kill them if Iraqi women prisoners were not released. Armstrong and Hensley were killed within the first 72 hours, but Bigley was kept alive for three weeks. The only Iraqi women prisoners being held at that time, according to the British government, were Dr. Taha and another woman scientist, the U.S.-educated Dr. Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, a bio-tech researcher who was on the U.S. list of the 55 most wanted members of Saddam's regime. [10] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3680120.stm) It was hoped that the release of these women, who had not been charged with any offense, would trigger the release of Bigley.


Iraq's prime minister refused to sanction Taha's release.On September 22, 2004, Noori Abdul-Rahim Ibrahim, a spokesman for the Iraqi Justice Ministry, said that Taha would be released soon on bail. He said the decision was not related to Zarqawi's demands, but that the government regularly reviews the cases of prominent detainees, and it was decided to release Taha because she had cooperated with the authorities. However, after a statement from U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell that there would be no negotiations with terrorists, Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi announced that neither Taha nor Ammash would be released in the near future. Kenneth Bigley was beheaded on October 7, 2004.


References
BBC: Iraqi bio-scientist breaks silence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2734305.stm)
BBC: Iraq's 'Dr Germ' detained (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3021481.stm)
BBC: Iraqi women not being released (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3680120.stm)
The al-Hakam facility (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_hakum.htm), Global Security
"The Inspections Maze" (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/inspections/suspicions.html), Christian Science Monitor, 2002
"Allawi:No release of female prisoner (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B2ED833A-25E0-4B52-9A8E-D25BE2C1DBBB.htm), Al-Jazeera, September 24, 2004
"Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British government (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/html/full_dossier.stm), an intelligence dossier naming Taha, released by Tony Blair, the British prime-minister.
Key United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) documents (http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm), The United Nations, 1991-99
UNSCOM chronology (http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm), April 1991 to December 1999
Professor John G. Turner's publications, including two with Taha (http://www.uea.ac.uk/bio/people/faculty/Updatehtml/JGTpub.html), University of East Anglia, retrieved January 3, 2004
Ritter, S. (1999) Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem — Once and for All, Simon and Schuster; paperback 2002, ISBN 0743247728
"Iraqi Anthrax Scientist Kept Her Secret" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4896228,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704), by Charles. J. Hanley, Associated Press', March 28, 2005
"A profile of WMD proliferants: Are there commonalities?" (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/99-003.pdf) (pdf) by Major, Brian. K. Anderson, USAF, study commissioned by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), May 1999

Please check your TG's Corneliu. Thanks.

Are you saying that Taha is satire? That 1800 gallons of missing anthrax (proven by the UN as well as the US) was satire?

I see no refutation of Taha or the 1800 gallons of anthrax by you or anyone else. Perhaps it's because you can't.



No, I'm saying that beside being smug, condescending, and self-righteous you seem to be completely oblivious and thin-skinned as well.


Otherwise you wouldn't take my response that was to somebedy else on a specific subject (colin powel) and try to twist into having any bearing whatsoever on whatever comment YOU were making regarding allegations of anthrax dumping by Taha.



Getting under your skin am I?

...

Otherwise you wouldn't take my response that was to somebedy else on a specific subject (colin powel) ...


The Colin Powell thing is done to death, that's all.

Otherwise you wouldn't take my response that was to somebedy else on a specific subject (colin powel) and try to twist into having any bearing whatsoever on whatever comment YOU were making regarding allegations of anthrax dumping by Taha.

Your assertion isn't just about Colin Powell.

It's about the whole case. That was your primary assertion.

And I don't have to twist anything at all to arrive at that conclusion.

Even your fellow poster Xanaz wishes to dismiss ALL allegations made pre-war as false - when there is evidence to the contrary.

I'm not asking for help. I'm asking for links...

Don't be so damn lazy - Work for them like the rest of us did.

Look for Bush's '02 state of the union address, his ultimarum speech on march 18th, and his UN address on September 13th.

Look for anything Condie Rice had to say in '02 and early '03.

Read the transcript of Powel's testimony to the UN

Read Dick Cheney's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August of '02

Read the directive from the White House to Congress when requesting the authorization to go to war with Iraq.



Google is your friend.......

Your assertion isn't just about Colin Powell.

It's about the whole case. That was your primary assertion.

And I don't have to twist anything at all to arrive at that conclusion.

Even your fellow poster Xanaz wishes to dismiss ALL allegations made pre-war as false - when there is evidence to the contrary.




I think I need to add "anal" and "devoid of humour" to your list of attributes.


You hijacked my response to someone else. Period. It is right there for all to see.







Obviously getting under your skin.... lol.

Don't be so damn lazy - Work for them like the rest of us did.

Look for Bush's '02 state of the union address, his ultimarum speech on march 18th, and his UN address on September 13th.

Look for anything Condie Rice had to say in '02 and early '03.

Read the transcript of Powel's testimony to the UN

Read Dick Cheney's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August of '02

Read the directive from the White House to Congress when requesting the authorization to go to war with Iraq.



Google is your friend.......
I provide links, with willingness, to anyone enquiring about the sources of my opinions. Why not do the same for me?

I think I need to add "anal" and "devoid of humour" to your list of attributes.

You hijacked my response to someone else. Period. It is right there for all to see.

Obviously getting under your skin.... lol.

I think you say those things because you don't have a factual or logical leg to stand on. At all. And you know it, otherwise you would have posted something else.

Please check your TG's Corneliu. Thanks.

I did and I telegrammed you back.

Look for Bush's '02 state of the union address, his ultimarum speech on march 18th, and his UN address on September 13th.

Actually, it was September 12th!

Read the directive from the White House to Congress when requesting the authorization to go to war with Iraq.

I did! Your point?

Has anyone noticed that the united states of America justs seems to start wars for any old reason and then will accuse the country they attacked as having weapons of mass destrution or threating to destroy something important to the world.
for example Vietnam and korea as well as the Iraq war which has taken two generations of bushes to end.
Heres some information to the world for free and that is 100% true America has weapons of mass destrution and judgeing by evidence presented in the pass is willing to use them.
And its not like American troops have ever killed women and children in cold blood they even raped them in 'nam.

Has anyone noticed that the united states of America justs seems to start wars for any old reason and then will accuse the country they attacked as having weapons of mass destrution or threating to destroy something important to the world.
for example Vietnam and korea as well as the Iraq war which has taken two generations of bushes to end.
Heres some information to the world for free and that is 100% true America has weapons of mass destrution and judgeing by evidence presented in the pass is willing to use them.
And its not like American troops have ever killed women and children in cold blood they even raped them in 'nam.

Someone has a short memory.

Korea-Started with the invasion of the South by the North. Reason for going into the Korean War? To stop communism from taking over the whole Korean Peninsula. Result? Cease-Fire and war is still legally in place.

1st Persian Gulf War-invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. Saudi Arabia asks for protection. UN Authorized the use of Force to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Result? Mission Accomplished but a cease-fire was instituted instead of a peace treaty. War in place till current invasion ousted Saddam from power

2nd Gulf War (or continuation of 1st Gulf War)-started when Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions and the UN Approved Cease-fire. Result? Saddam kicked out of power and a democratic government in the process of being set up. Iraq now has full control of their country.

Vietnam-Started when South Vietnam asked for assistance. US comes in to rescue the South. Result? Peace treaty followed by US Pull out causing the North to blitz into the south and puts all of Vietnam under one flag.

America's use of Nuclear Bombs-At time, nothing was mentioned of them in any protocal. Used on Hiroshima and 3 days later on Nagasaki. Result? Surrenderment of Japan and saving the lives of millions of Japanese and Chinese as well as hundreds of thousands of American service men.

I did and I telegrammed you back.
As did I.

*Boy, my contribution to this thread is impressive!*

Someone has a short memory.

Korea-Started with the invasion of the South by the North. Reason for going into the Korean War? To stop communism from taking over the whole Korean Peninsula. Result? Cease-Fire and war is still legally in place.

1st Persian Gulf War-invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. Saudi Arabia asks for protection. UN Authorized the use of Force to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Result? Mission Accomplished but a cease-fire was instituted instead of a peace treaty. War in place till current invasion ousted Saddam from power

...
I do not dispute that there is a formal state of war on the Korean Peninsula, but there was none in Iraq (the UN Security Council can authorize the use of force 'to maintain and secure international peace and security', it cannot declare war).

I do not dispute that there is a formal state of war on the Korean Peninsula, but there was none in Iraq (the UN Security Council can authorize the use of force 'to maintain and secure international peace and security', it cannot declare war).
The Korean War is not between North Korea and the US.

See UN Resolution 90. It's between the North Koreans and the UN.

The Korean War is not between North Korea and the US.

See UN Resolution 90. It's between the North Koreans and the UN.
This thread, post 24. :)

As a matter of fact, the war is between two Koreas.

This thread, post 24. :)

As a matter of fact, the war is between two Koreas.

I see no reason why the US should accede to the North Korean demand for unilateral negotiation.

Nor do I see any reason for the US to accede to the North Korean demand for an unconditional guarantee that the US will never attack North Korea. One might note that if the US does agree to such a thing, they are in essence giving North Korea license to do whatever they want to South Korea.

This is a UN problem. If the UN is so great, let it fix this problem.

I see no reason why the US should accede to the North Korean demand for unilateral negotiation.

Nor do I see any reason for the US to accede to the North Korean demand for an unconditional guarantee that the US will never attack North Korea. One might note that if the US does agree to such a thing, they are in essence giving North Korea license to do whatever they want to South Korea.

This is a UN problem. If the UN is so great, let it fix this problem.
Are you talking about 1951 or about 2005? I'm in complete and sincere bafflement.

I think you say those things because you don't have a factual or logical leg to stand on. At all. And you know it, otherwise you would have posted something else.


Excuse me? You guys are hilarious!

All I stated was that the allegation made before the war were that Saddam:

- was EVIL
- had WMD
- was aligned with Osama
- had reconstituted his nuke programs
- had mobile WMD labs
- had bunkers with the chemical weapons in known locations as could be proven by that truck parked there)
- was a grave and gathering threat to his neighbours


Are you honestly trying to tell me that those were NEVER presented to the public, the UN, and the world as being proven items constituting a national security threat that neccessitated military action? That there is no factual basis behind that list?




Just curious, but does the sun also come up in the east in History-Reviso land where you live? Or does it come up in the West there?

And its not like American troops have ever killed women and children in cold blood they even raped them in 'nam.

Hey 1970 called, it wants it's issues back. UN operatives are raping women and children TODAY. If Sudan is outraged about treatment of women it must really be bad. You keep condemning John Kerry over and over. John Kerry said he was sorry for the war crimes he admitted to before Congress.

You apologists for Saddam disgust me. You excuse the actions of a psychopathic sociopath who stole billions, gased towns, exterminated 300,000+ Shia muslims, executed political rivals, had rapists on the payroll, plundered Kuwait, sponsored suicide bombers, housed foreign terrorists because of something someone did 35 years ago. Man you are filled with so much hate that the truth is blurry.

The Korean WAr really was the first UN war. Just look at the list of countries involved in the 50's. Really dwarfs the coalition of the willing. The question about 1951 or 2005 is good though.

Excuse me? You guys are hilarious!

All I stated was that the allegation made before the war were that Saddam:

- had WMD


The UN reports PRIOR to the war indicate 1800 missing gallons of anthrax.
The US reports, which you may disregard, indicate the same.
Saddam, it is proven, thought he had those 1800 gallons of anthrax.
Only Taha knew that it had been dumped - a fact that could only be discovered by the invasion - and it was discovered by the WMD survey team.

As far as the world OUTSIDE of the US is concerned, Saddam HAD 1800 gallons of anthrax. So, are you saying that UNSCOM was lying as well?

Are you saying that somehow, Hans Blix and UNSCOM were complete and utter puppets of the US? That they only said what Bush told them to say?

Eh?

Just curious, but does the sun also come up in the east in History-Reviso land where you live? Or does it come up in the West there?

The rhetoric you stated as a reason for going to war was that rhetoric. The reason for military action was enforcement of UN Resolution 1441.

UN Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

1441 was adopted by vote of UN members because of noncompliance with 13 previous resolutions due to noncompliance. Noncompliance about what...possible WMDs of course. Saddam purposefully misled the UN, bluffing that he did have them. The French believed he did, the Germans believed he did, they were just not willing to enforce it. Saddam, through deception wanted to look like he had them secretly-his bluff worked but the Coalition didn't back down like the 13 times before.

Just trying to walk on eggshells here...

Saddam had 1800 gallons of anthrax. Ok. If you - and UNSCOM - say so. He could have attacked who with them? The USA? Hard to believe.

But wasn't this war of a pre-emptive kind? If Saddam was given, say, 20 more years, he'd have the capability to attack USA.

The rhetoric you stated as a reason for going to war was that rhetoric. The reason for military action was enforcement of UN Resolution 1441.

UN Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

1441 was adopted by vote of UN members because of noncompliance with 13 previous resolutions due to noncompliance. Noncompliance about what...possible WMDs of course. Saddam purposefully misled the UN, bluffing that he did have them. The French believed he did, the Germans believed he did, they were just not willing to enforce it. Saddam, through deception wanted to look like he had them secretly-his bluff worked but the Coalition didn't back down like the 13 times before.


The only problem with this is that Leperous probably doesn't believe the UN thuoght there was a violation - it would suit his worldview to think that only the US thought there were WMD there.

Too bad then, that UNSCOM was wanting to know where the 1800 gallons of anthrax were.

The UN reports PRIOR to the war indicate 1800 missing gallons of anthrax.
The US reports, which you may disregard, indicate the same.
Saddam, it is proven, thought he had those 1800 gallons of anthrax.
Only Taha knew that it had been dumped - a fact that could only be discovered by the invasion - and it was discovered by the WMD survey team.

As far as the world OUTSIDE of the US is concerned, Saddam HAD 1800 gallons of anthrax. So, are you saying that UNSCOM was lying as well?

Are you saying that somehow, Hans Blix and UNSCOM were complete and utter puppets of the US? That they only said what Bush told them to say?

Eh?

No, you're the one flinging around accusations of what other people are saying without the aparent skills to actually parse the written word and derive actual statements made.


OK braniac, here's another good one for you.

I presented a list of claims made before the war. I stated that they were presented as proven fact.


So what do you do?

Whine and complain that ONE of the facts might just have been true....in 1991!

Fine - so Taha claims that the Anthrax was destroyed in '91 - which still means that Saddam had no goddamn WMD at the time of the invasion. All you are wondering is how were we supposed to know that.

OK, there is one to cross of your list. Here, give yourself a nice gold star to pin on the wall with the rest of the kindergarden kids.



Now as to the actual allegations made - Did Saddam have WMD in 2002? Nope. Not to speak of.


And for all of your bluster you have NOT demonstrated any proof that the destruction of the Anthrax was done without Saddam's knowledge besides second hand anecdotal evidence from the one person making the claim. (Did everyone like the way single-source data from Curveball worked out?) And I should remind you of the fact that this approach would be a smart way for a member of the former regime to ingratiate themself with the invaders in a plea for immunity.

"They WERE destroyed.... and I did it all by myself without any word gettig back to that evil dictator guy.... because I'm SOOOOOOOOOOO humanitariam and..... PLEASE DON'T SEND ME TO ABU GHRAIB!!!!!!"


I'm sorry - but when is the last time anyone here tried to sneak 1800 gallons of anything out of somewhere - let alone sneaking out a deadly substance from a militarily secured area which supposedly represented a significant portion of the WMD stock of a threatened nation - and do it with NOBODY noticing in a country where such a theft could result in severe reprisals?





Sheesh Legs, we're right back to our original confrontation, that being that English Comprehension seems to a course you need remedial work with.




Now, please be specific, but what the hell does the destruction of anthrax in 1991 do to have any effect on the actual legal status of Saddam in 2002 regarding his possession or non-possession of WMD?


The answer: NOTHING!!!!!!!!

Whine and complain that ONE of the facts might just have been true....in 1991!

As far as UNSCOM was concerned, it was true until the US was able to verify what happened and the UN could talk to Taha.

Now as to the actual allegations made - Did Saddam have WMD in 2002? Nope. Not to speak of.
As far as UNSCOM was concerned, they had 1800 gallons of anthrax.

And for all of your bluster you have NOT demonstrated any proof that the destruction of the Anthrax was done without Saddam's knowledge besides second hand anecdotal evidence from the one person making the claim.

She's not "second hand anecdotal". She is the sole mastermind of the Iraqi bioweapons program. She was in charge of the whole thing.

And no, she didn't give the secret up easily. She had to be interrogated. And they had to go to the site where the anthrax was dumped and verify the story. So no, it's not "second hand anecdotal".

I do not dispute that there is a formal state of war on the Korean Peninsula, but there was none in Iraq (the UN Security Council can authorize the use of force 'to maintain and secure international peace and security', it cannot declare war).

Actually, yes. A state of war did still exist unless the definition of a Cease-fire changed while I wasn't looking. That was all that we got out of Saddam was a cease-fire. Upon violation of said Cease-Fire, war can resume. Hussein violated the Cease-Fire and therefore, war is the logical result.

One might also conclude that if everything was a known lie by the Bush Administration, they would have at least covered their bases by putting evidence of each and every one of their allegations in place in Iraq just after taking the place over. Even if they had to fabricate a mobild WMD lab.

Even a stupid liar would cover their ass.

But, aside from confusions over where the anthrax really was, we have a lot of really bad intel - and decisions were made on the basis of bad intel.

Even the Russians thought he had WMD. So their intel was as bad as ours. Which was as bad as the UK's intel.

Hard to tell what's going on inside a regime like that.

So, I don't buy your statement that it was all a lie. Because there's a much simpler explanation.

Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance.

Of course, since you hate Bush, you just have to have a darker interpretation of events - there has to be a sinister conspiracy of lies.

The rhetoric you stated as a reason for going to war was that rhetoric. The reason for military action was enforcement of UN Resolution 1441.

UN Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

1441 was adopted by vote of UN members because of noncompliance with 13 previous resolutions due to noncompliance. Noncompliance about what...possible WMDs of course. Saddam purposefully misled the UN, bluffing that he did have them. The French believed he did, the Germans believed he did, they were just not willing to enforce it. Saddam, through deception wanted to look like he had them secretly-his bluff worked but the Coalition didn't back down like the 13 times before.

Actually 16 but the number is a technicality! LOL

She's not "second hand anecdotal". She is the sole mastermind of the Iraqi bioweapons program. She was in charge of the whole thing.

And no, she didn't give the secret up easily.
I'm sorry, but I have to ask you this: 'How is she more reliable than those people released from GITMO?"

You seem to make the case the gitmo people are not to be trusted... how is this female from Iraq?

One might also conclude that if everything was a known lie by the Bush Administration, they would have at least covered their bases by putting evidence of each and every one of their allegations in place in Iraq just after taking the place over. Even if they had to fabricate a mobild WMD lab.

Even a stupid liar would cover their ass.

But, aside from confusions over where the anthrax really was, we have a lot of really bad intel - and decisions were made on the basis of bad intel.

Even the Russians thought he had WMD. So their intel was as bad as ours. Which was as bad as the UK's intel.

Hard to tell what's going on inside a regime like that.

So, I don't buy your statement that it was all a lie. Because there's a much simpler explanation.

Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance.

Of course, since you hate Bush, you just have to have a darker interpretation of events - there has to be a sinister conspiracy of lies.

So, when are you going to prove that the sum of incorrect information on which the decision to invade Iraq was made is actually a sinister conspiracy of lies, Dr. Windham?

Actually, yes. A state of war did still exist unless the definition of a Cease-fire changed while I wasn't looking. That was all that we got out of Saddam was a cease-fire. Upon violation of said Cease-Fire, war can resume. Hussein violated the Cease-Fire and therefore, war is the logical result.
Hovewer strange it may seem, the Gulf War was not a war in a legal sence. There were no declarations of war (had Iraq declared war after the US air attack, it would have been different - but Iraqis said something like 'the great battle commenced').

Ceasefire means cessation of hostilities, be it war or any other armed conflict. It isn't a mere interruption of war.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask you this: 'How is she more reliable than those people released from GITMO?"

You seem to make the case the gitmo people are not to be trusted... how is this female from Iraq?

Because she was incharge of the whole thing and what she told us turned out to be accurate!

Hovewer strange it may seem, the Gulf War was not a war in a legal sence. There were no declarations of war (had Iraq declared war after the US air attack, it would have been different - but Iraqis said something like 'the great battle commenced').

Ceasefire means cessation of hostilities, be it war or any other armed conflict. It isn't a mere interruption of war.

Funny thing is that the UN Authorized it. The US Congress also gave the authorization to use force against Iraq. Iraq didn't follow the resolution to pull out of Kuwait. So yea, that war was legal just like this war was illegal. Iraq agreed to a cease-fire when he was tossed right out of Kuwait. He then violated the Cease-Fire and 12 years later, the US and our allies ousted him from power.

Funny thing is that the UN Authorized it. The US Congress also gave the authorization to use force against Iraq. Iraq didn't follow the resolution to pull out of Kuwait. So yea, that war was legal just like this war was illegal. Iraq agreed to a cease-fire when he was tossed right out of Kuwait. He then violated the Cease-Fire and 12 years later, the US and our allies ousted him from power.
It hardly matters now. We've replaced the Iraqi government.

Calling wars "illegal" sounds silly, doesn't it?

It hardly matters now. We've replaced the Iraqi government.

Yep it hardly matter now.

Calling wars "illegal" sounds silly, doesn't it?

Yep. Who has the right to say wether a war is illegal or not anyway?

Funny thing is that the UN Authorized it. The US Congress also gave the authorization to use force against Iraq. Iraq didn't follow the resolution to pull out of Kuwait. So yea, that war was legal just like this war was illegal. Iraq agreed to a cease-fire when he was tossed right out of Kuwait. He then violated the Cease-Fire and 12 years later, the US and our allies ousted him from power.
Corneliu, you're incurable! The UN did not authorize the invasion, the Security Council had not found Iraq in violation of 1441... And how in the world had Iraq violate the ceasefire? :)

PS We don't want to go back to the treaty thing, don't we? ;)

Because she was incharge of the whole thing and what she told us turned out to be accurate!
Oh. She seems to be the only one to be accurate in this whole spectacle then. Carry on.

If you are in charge of something... instead being just a pawn... you are supposed to tell the truth then? Good for Mrs. Taha.

...
Calling wars "illegal" sounds silly, doesn't it?
All wars are illegal. Not all armed conflicts are, though...

All wars are illegal.
I say that only because some people imply that somehow, you can have a legal war.

I find war to be neither legal or illegal. It's just war.

Corneliu, you're incurable! The UN did not authorize the invasion, the Security Council had not found Iraq in violation of 1441... And how in the world had Iraq violate the ceasefire? :)

Yes they did. They issued resolutions of war on Iraq if Saddam didn't comply with UN Resolutions. He didn't comply and therefor, we now have removed Saddam from power. As for violating a cease-fire, not fully compling with it by full disclosure.

PS We don't want to go back to the treaty thing, don't we? ;)

You want to get bushwacked again?

Yes they did. They issued resolutions of war on Iraq if Saddam didn't comply with UN Resolutions. He didn't comply and therefor, we now have removed Saddam from power. As for violating a cease-fire, not fully compling with it by full disclosure.
You seem to adhere to certain UN decicions, ignoring the other ones which do not fit.

Let's go...

Was Saddam found in violation of UNSCR 1441 by the Security Council. No. The resolution to that effect was withdrawn, and the US attacked Iraq, despite Mr Blix's pleas for more time. It cannot be called 'respecting the UN opinion'. So, Saddam had no time to disclose whatever he had... or had not.



You want to get bushwacked again?
All right, my dear... come to me... has the US renounced its right to wage war?

You seem to adhere to certain UN decicions, ignoring the other ones which do not fit.

Which ones am I ignoring?

Let's go...

Go where?

Was Saddam found in violation of UNSCR 1441 by the Security Council. No.

Yes he was. He didn't fully comply. By not fully complying he was in violation of it.

The resolution to that effect was withdrawn, and the US attacked Iraq, despite Mr Blix's pleas for more time.

Because Russia and France was going to veto it. I say they should've been forced to use their veto but that is my opinion.

It cannot be called 'respecting the UN opinion'. So, Saddam had no time to disclose whatever he had... or had not.

Actually yes considering 17 UN Resolutions were violated. How come you can't understand that? How come you can't understand the fact that a UN Cease-Fire was also violated?

All right, my dear... come to me... has the US renounced its right to wage war?

Nope.

As far as UNSCOM was concerned, it was true until the US was able to verify what happened and the UN could talk to Taha.


No, as far as UNSCOM was concerned - there was the possibility that up to 1800 gallons of Anthrax existed based on assumptions of output capacity from manufacturering based upon what they knew about available raw materials. However they were very clear that they could not completely verify that Iraq’s declarations about its total past procurement and production of chemical precursors and agents were true because of a lack of documentation and information on these activities from both Iraq and its foreign suppliers. As such, the possibility of outstanding stocks of anthrax was a bone of contention.



However I admire your tenacity at the national straw clutching championships. What your argument comes down to is that after all of the BS claims about aluminum tubes, yellowcake, mobile labs, centrifuges, mustard gas, Ricin, storage locations, production plants, weapons deployable in 45 minutes, etc. etc. etc. that since there was ONE element that the US could not have known was not in existence which then justifies everything else.

And to do this you forget to note that UNMOVIC was very clear that they were finding absolutely nothing from every piece of intel that the US was feeding them during the last bout of inspections, so you might have thought that the prudent person would wonder how so much that they thought they knew could possibly be so wrong?



Most people, however, would call it an unreasonable logical extension to use that one unknown to excuse all the rest. But I have learned never to underestimate the capacity for people to find ways to justify their core beliefs in the face of mounting contrary evidence. It just hurts to much to have to admit that maybe you were wrong.

Which ones am I ignoring?

I do admit an inaccuracy - you do not see the absence of that final [1442] resolution Tony Blair was trying to push...

Also, I've got that feeling that you do not respect the numerous UN anti-Israeli resolutions... ;-)



Yes he was. He didn't fully comply. By not fully complying he was in violation of it.



Because Russia and France was going to veto it. I say they should've been forced to use their veto but that is my opinion.
So what? The UN did not admit the breach of its own resolution, and that's irrefutable.



Actually yes considering 17 UN Resolutions were violated. How come you can't understand that? How come you can't understand the fact that a UN Cease-Fire was also violated?

1441 gave Saddam a chance to comply with the demands of the UN, the US, and the UK... The tyrant admitted the UN mission to Iraq. And then the US and the UK denied him that chance. Mr Blix, of the Un, was asking for more time for his inspectors - do you remember?



Nope.
The poor UN Charter has suffered a lot, so let's go... you're wondering where? I'll tell.

We're going back to 1928.

What about the Kellogg-Briand Pact, whose official name is 'Treaty providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy', dear? The US is still a party to it. Read the treaty, it's interesing...

Corneliu, you're incurable! The UN did not authorize the invasion, the Security Council had not found Iraq in violation of 1441... And how in the world had Iraq violate the ceasefire? :)

PS We don't want to go back to the treaty thing, don't we? ;)

The UN did find Iraq in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 687 and promptly passed another ignored resolution until we get to 1284. Noncompliance with 1284 (he was found in violation of it too) led to the passing of 1441. He was found in violation of those charges regardless the latter resolutions' numbers.

As for the ceasefire, No Fly Zones were authorizeded by UN Resolution 688. Saddam habitually violated these zones.

December 28, 1992...Mig 25 flies into the no fly zone (shot down). 1st legal justification for renewal of conflict.

Jaunary 1993 Iraqi antiair units fire missiles at planes patrolling the no fly zone. 2nd justification for renewal of conflict.

January 13, 1993 we retaliate by only destroying radar and missile sites.

January 17, 1993 42 Tomahawk missiles hit the Zafraniyah Nuclear Fabrication Facility, near Baghdad for noncompliance with UN Resolution 687.

June 27, 1993 The United States fires 24 cruise missiles at an intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. President Clinton ordered this attack as retaliation for a plot to assassinate former President George Bush on a trip to Kuwait.

In 1996, 1998 President Bill Clinton launched attacks on Iraq in response to Iraqi military personnel firing on Coalition (UN authorized) planes in the no fly zone.

From 1998 through 2003 the Iraqi military fired on Coalition jets on a constant basis.

Saddam had been asking for it for years.

I do admit an inaccuracy - you do not see the absence of that final [1442] resolution Tony Blair was trying to push...

Oh the 2nd resolution that was going to say bye bye to Saddam? "Serious Consequences" was enough for me. BTW, when resolution was withdrawn, stocks shot up 300 Points.

Also, I've got that feeling that you do not respect the numerous UN anti-Israeli resolutions... ;-)

And how many condemed the Terrorists for killing Israelis? Sorry but the UN needs to learn the difference between murder (The terrorists) and self-defence(Israeli response)


So what? The UN did not admit the breach of its own resolution, and that's irrefutable.

It is refutable and has been refuted several times on these forums. Saddam never complied with ANY UN Resolution. If he did then why the heck did he have 17 UN Resolutions leveled against him? If he was complying, wouldn't we have just one or two on him instead of 17?


1441 gave Saddam a chance to comply with the demands of the UN, the US, and the UK... The tyrant admitted the UN mission to Iraq. And then the US and the UK denied him that chance. Mr Blix, of the Un, was asking for more time for his inspectors - do you remember?

HAHAHAHA!!! Denied him that chance? HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Thanks for the laugh dude. I needed the laugh. You really made me smile with this line of BS. Saddam had 12 YEARS TO COMPLY!! He never did. Its been proven that he never did. He has proven that he had no intentions of complying either. We denied him that chance? He had 12 Years and 17 chances to come clean and he never did.


The poor UN Charter has suffered a lot, so let's go... you're wondering where? I'll tell.

Your right that it has suffered alot. Its because the UN does nothing.

We're going back to 1928.

What about the Kellogg-Briand Pact, whose official name is 'Treaty providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy', dear? The US is still a party to it. Read the treaty, it's interesing...

And yet when World War II broke out, Britain, France, and all the other signatories too it prior to December 7. 1941 violated it first. Interesting that you singled out the US but not Britain or France. Interesting to say the least. World War II kinda put an end to that treaty.

The UN did find Iraq in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 687 and promptly passed another ignored resolution until we get to 1284. Noncompliance with 1284 (he was found in violation of it too) led to the passing of 1441. He was found in violation of those charges regardless the latter resolutions' numbers.

As for the ceasefire, No Fly Zones were authorizeded by UN Resolution 688. Saddam habitually violated these zones.

December 28, 1992...Mig 25 flies into the no fly zone (shot down). 1st legal justification for renewal of conflict.

Jaunary 1993 Iraqi antiair units fire missiles at planes patrolling the no fly zone. 2nd justification for renewal of conflict.

January 13, 1993 we retaliate by only destroying radar and missile sites.

January 17, 1993 42 Tomahawk missiles hit the Zafraniyah Nuclear Fabrication Facility, near Baghdad for noncompliance with UN Resolution 687.

June 27, 1993 The United States fires 24 cruise missiles at an intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. President Clinton ordered this attack as retaliation for a plot to assassinate former President George Bush on a trip to Kuwait.

In 1996, 1998 President Bill Clinton launched attacks on Iraq in response to Iraqi military personnel firing on Coalition (UN authorized) planes in the no fly zone.

From 1998 through 2003 the Iraqi military fired on Coalition jets on a constant basis.

Saddam had been asking for it for years.

Thank you Matchopolis.

The UN did find Iraq in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 687 and promptly passed another ignored resolution until we get to 1284. Noncompliance with 1284 (he was found in violation of it too) led to the passing of 1441. He was found in violation of those charges regardless the latter resolutions' numbers.

As for the ceasefire, No Fly Zones were authorizeded by UN Resolution 688. Saddam habitually violated these zones.

December 28, 1992...Mig 25 flies into the no fly zone (shot down). 1st legal justification for renewal of conflict.

Jaunary 1993 Iraqi antiair units fire missiles at planes patrolling the no fly zone. 2nd justification for renewal of conflict.

January 13, 1993 we retaliate by only destroying radar and missile sites.

January 17, 1993 42 Tomahawk missiles hit the Zafraniyah Nuclear Fabrication Facility, near Baghdad for noncompliance with UN Resolution 687.

June 27, 1993 The United States fires 24 cruise missiles at an intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. President Clinton ordered this attack as retaliation for a plot to assassinate former President George Bush on a trip to Kuwait.

In 1996, 1998 President Bill Clinton launched attacks on Iraq in response to Iraqi military personnel firing on Coalition (UN authorized) planes in the no fly zone.

From 1998 through 2003 the Iraqi military fired on Coalition jets on a constant basis.

Saddam had been asking for it for years.
Of course, Iraq was habitually violating the UN resolutions! This is undisputable, and UNSCR 1441 admitted this. However, the UN did not decide that the time had come for regime change, and Saddam remained technix=cally in compliance with 1441. The invasion of 2003 was not backed by the UN.

Of course, Iraq was habitually violating the UN resolutions! This is undisputable, and UNSCR 1441 admitted this. However, the UN did not decide that the time had come for regime change, and Saddam remained technix=cally in compliance with 1441. The invasion of 2003 was not backed by the UN.

Resolution 1441 gave the backing if Saddam wasn't complying and Britain, Spain, and the US saw that he wasn't complying. France and Russia had deals with Saddam (proven I might add) so they threatened Veto. Spain, US, and UK then removed the 2nd Resolution and 48 hours later, the war started.

Resolution 1441 gave the backing if Saddam wasn't complying and Britain, Spain, and the US saw that he wasn't complying. France and Russia had deals with Saddam (proven I might add) so they threatened Veto. Spain, US, and UK then removed the 2nd Resolution and 48 hours later, the war started.
Do you admit that the UN (not the Azores Three) had not found Saddam in violation of 1141?

...
And yet when World War II broke out, Britain, France, and all the other signatories too it prior to December 7. 1941 violated it first. Interesting that you singled out the US but not Britain or France. Interesting to say the least. World War II kinda put an end to that treaty.
The Kellogg-Briand Pact is still on the books, and it is a part of 'supreme Law of the Land' - your land, the US of A, it is. :) Yes, it was ratified by the US Senate... and yes, it is still in force as one of multilateral treaties to which the US is a party. You're wrong, Corneliu.

The World War II argument does not hold water at all - the IMT relied on the Kellogg-Briand Pact in establising the notion of 'crime against peace'.

Do you admit that the UN (not the Azores Three) had not found Saddam in violation of 1141?

The UN knew but they just didn't care. Didn't help matter much that the same UN is runned by tin-pot dictators themselves but that's a whole different issue.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact is still on the books, and it is a part of 'supreme Law of the Land' - your land, the US of A, it is. :) Yes, it was ratified by the US Senate... and yes, it is still in force as one of multilateral treaties to which the US is a party. You're wrong, Corneliu.

Actually no. Under International Law, once a treaty is violated by one side or another, the treaty is declared null and void. World War II ended this treaty when the signatories went to war. Therefore, the treaty became null and void at this point.

The World War II argument does not hold water at all - the IMT relied on the Kellogg-Briand Pact in establising the notion of 'crime against peace'.

World War II does hold because it made this treaty null and void when war broke out and the signatories went to war.

The UN knew but they just didn't care. Didn't help matter much that the same UN is runned by tin-pot dictators themselves but that's a whole different issue.
You're dodging my question.

If Putin, Hu, and Lukashenko were to have a summit in Bobruisk and declare the US in violation of UNSCR Resolution XXXX, would the US then be a violator of the Resolution? My answer is no. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

You're dodging my question.

Not the answer your looking for? Yes they knew they just didn't care. Its a simple enough answer.

If Putin, Hu, and Lukashenko were to have a summit in Bobruisk and declare the US in violation of UNSCR Resolution XXXX, would the US then be a violator of the Resolution? My answer is no. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

No aparently I am not thinking what your thinking.

Actually no. Under International Law, once a treaty is violated by one side or another, the treaty is declared null and void. World War II ended this treaty when the signatories went to war. Therefore, the treaty became null and void at this point.



World War II does hold because it made this treaty null and void when war broke out and the signatories went to war.
You seem to know better than the US Department of State (check its Web site, Corneliu, I gave you a link recently) and a whole bunch of lawyers, which were preparing the Nuremberg trials.

Your statement is factually incorrect - the Kellogg-Briand Pact does not provide for denunciation, withdrawal, or termination. No one has ever declared that treaty null and void.

War or no war - it is in force, and it's binding upon the parties.

Why are you two arguing?

It seems rather obvious to me that the US defeated Saddam, captured him, created a new Iraqi government, and now that government's courts are going to try and then execute him.

Not the answer your looking for? Yes they knew they just didn't care. Its a simple enough answer.
Well, probably... French and Russian governments had good working relationships with Saddam, and they didn't care, just like Mr Rumsfeld in 1983.



No aparently I am not thinking what your thinking.
Poor United States! Three guys in Bobruisk can declare you a violator, a breaker of peace etc etc, and someone thinks that it will be fair!

Why are you two arguing?

...
That's a Continuation Flame War, I suppose... :)

I was arguing with Corneliu upon the minute details of international law not long ago, and now we're trying to sort everything out.

As for the ceasefire, No Fly Zones were authorizeded by UN Resolution 688. Saddam habitually violated these zones.

*blah, blah, blah*

Saddam had been asking for it for years.


I dare ya to find the section of Resolution 688 that authorizes the No Fly zones. Go ahead and pull THAT link out of your ass.


The US HAS claimed that they have a legal right to impose these zones under 688 as it stipulates that Iraq could not harm it's populace. They feel that this grants them the right to put in place enforcement mechanisms of their own choosing.

Iraq, and other security council members such as Russia disagree for the simple reason that 688 does not invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter, a necessary condition for the use of force, and because it does not authorise specific measures to uphold human rights in Iraq, such as "no fly zones".

The US never tried to mitigate this as they never went to get a specific resolution authorizing the no-fly zones, and they - of course - squashed every complaint by IRaq about this blatant overreach of authority.


Under the UN Charter, a resolution with no enforcement provision which does not specifically invoke Chapter VII cannot be used as a legal basis for military intervention. Under Washington's interpretation in this matter, EVERY security council resolution could be taken to be a legitimization for military action for any non-conmpliance. Frankly, that is NOT the generally accepted understanding of how enforcement is to take place.

You seem to know better than the US Department of State (check its Web site, Corneliu, I gave you a link recently) and a whole bunch of lawyers, which were preparing the Nuremberg trials.

What does this have to do with the treaty of 1928? Nothing. Its null and void. It could still be on the books but it is essentially a dead treaty. Its null and void and that's a fact.

Your statement is factually incorrect - the Kellogg-Briand Pact does not provide for denunciation, withdrawal, or termination. No one has ever declared that treaty null and void.

Doesn't have to be declared publicly Olantia. Actions themselves make treaties null and void. World War II made this treaty null and void when its signatories went to war against Germany. Therefore, the treaty became dead at that point.

War or no war - it is in force, and it's binding upon the parties.

Nope! No longer in force due to it being null and void.

Why are you two arguing?

It seems rather obvious to me that the US defeated Saddam, captured him, created a new Iraqi government, and now that government's courts are going to try and then execute him.

This is a whole different arguement but he brought it up so now I"m finishing it. Something I should've done a few days ago.

Well, probably... French and Russian governments had good working relationships with Saddam, and they didn't care, just like Mr Rumsfeld in 1983.

Two completely different scenerios actually.


Poor United States! Three guys in Bobruisk can declare you a violator, a breaker of peace etc etc, and someone thinks that it will be fair!

Since the US is enforcing the orders of the UN how are we a breaker of the peace?

What does this have to do with the treaty of 1928? Nothing. Its null and void. It could still be on the books but it is essentially a dead treaty. Its null and void and that's a fact.



...
'It could still be on the books but it is essentially a dead treaty.' Oh, so you're in contempt of the supreme law of the US! Well... I have nothing more to say.

That's a Continuation Flame War, I suppose... :)

I was arguing with Corneliu upon the minute details of international law not long ago, and now we're trying to sort everything out.

Accurate. At least we can agree on this! LOL :D

Does anyone really believe that the war on terror will ever end. It won't as long as their are other to take the place of their masters, it will keep on going. We as a race will keep on killing each for what is right or for pleasure. In a way this war is right but in the long run its morally wrong. Who are we to go in under false charges, when we really went in to pay back those who have harmed us on our own soil. This world will never know peace until it is to late. But maybe and go willing 2 centuries from now peace will exist and a new threat will come from some distant stars.

'It could still be on the books but it is essentially a dead treaty.' Oh, so you're in contempt of the supreme law of the US! Well... I have nothing more to say.

Nope. I just know the difference between a defunct treaty, a null and void treaty (not necessarily different from defunct), and an active treaty.

Two completely different scenerios actually.




Since the US is enforcing the orders of the UN how are we a breaker of the peace?
So different?


I was talking about a hypothetical situation, not a real one. And I see that you'd like to give a free hand to my Bobruisk chaps...

Nope. I just know the difference between a defunct treaty, a null and void treaty (not necessarily different from defunct), and an active treaty.
OMG...

Is the Kellogg-Briand Treaty a part of supreme law of the land as of 2005? Yes or no?

Even if it is in force, it only applies to relations between High Contracting Parties.

Iraq wasn't a High Contracting Party.

Although the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, otherwise known as the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, was a binding treaty signed by almost all states in the world at the time, it is very difficult to see it as anything more than a matter of some historical interest and a milestone in the development of the modern international legal framework. The thrust of the document, in effect to outlaw war as an instrument of policy, has been replaced in international law with the UN Charter and the customs and laws of war of the modern era. It is a general principle of law, most notably international law, that a later law prevails over an earlier law. Therefore, its rather sweeping exclusion of force is modified by newer legal obligations and standards. At the same time, the spirit of the Kellogg-Briand treaty lives on in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

Your question implies that because it is a treaty and therefore the "supreme law of the land" pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI) it would somehow prevent the US, as a matter of US domestic law, from lawfully deploying force in the exercise of its authority. This is just not so. Even if one were to consider the Kellogg-Briand Treaty to be in force and valid today (a highly speculative proposition) a treaty is equal in dignity and normative rank to federal legislation and inferior to provisions of the Constitution itself. Therefore, a constitutionally permissible use of force, either pursuant to a congressional declaration of war or an authorized use of force by the executive (typically delegated authority by Congress, as in the present legislation pertaining to Iraq) would satisfy the requirements of US domestic law. There are several key federal court decisions and many fine scholarly articles addressing the role of treaties in the US legal system that demonstrate this point.

I will add a historical note -- for all intents and purposes the Kellogg-Briand Pact was repudiated when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland. The free European nations understood the dangers of the moment. The folly and shortsightedness of the Munich Pact left no choice but world war at a dreadful price.

Thank you for your participation in the InternationalLawHelp.com Forum.

Howard S. Schiffman, Esq.

Co-Founder and Administrator www.InternationalLawHelp.com

OMG...

Is the Kellogg-Briand Treaty a part of supreme law of the land as of 2005? Yes or no?

No because its null and void due to the fact that all of its signatories went to war along side or against eachother.

Whispering Legs, thank you very much!

Corneliu, have you noticed that bit about the UN Chaarter? ;-)

No because its null and void due to the fact that all of its signatories went to war along side or against eachother.
Actually no... Afghanistan, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden were not at war.

Whispering Legs, thank you very much!

Corneliu, have you noticed that bit about the UN Chaarter? ;-)

Charter is still not a treaty and you notice that WL didn't call it a treaty either. ;)


Actually no... Afghanistan, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden were not at war.

I'll grant you Portugal and Sweden. Spain had a Civil WAR so you could say that it was null and void then too. Afghanistan is a different Animal. Where they under british rule or where they independent at the time of its signing?

Also, Japan also signed this I believe and they violated it when they invaded Manchuria.

Your question implies that because it is a treaty and therefore the "supreme law of the land" pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI) it would somehow prevent the US, as a matter of US domestic law, from lawfully deploying force in the exercise of its authority. This is just not so. Even if one were to consider the Kellogg-Briand Treaty to be in force and valid today (a highly speculative proposition) a treaty is equal in dignity and normative rank to federal legislation and inferior to provisions of the Constitution itself. Therefore, a constitutionally permissible use of force, either pursuant to a congressional declaration of war or an authorized use of force by the executive (typically delegated authority by Congress, as in the present legislation pertaining to Iraq) would satisfy the requirements of US domestic law. There are several key federal court decisions and many fine scholarly articles addressing the role of treaties in the US legal system that demonstrate this point.

This would apply equally to the UN Charter. Its provisions are subordinate to our Constitution, under US domestic law. Under domestic law, we're covered - it's not an "illegal" war. International law experts can argue all they want, but I believe that's wasted air.

Charter is still not a treaty and you notice that WL didn't call it a treaty either. ;)

...
So how has the UN Charter managed to supersede the Kellogg-Briand Pact, if it is of lesser legal standing and is NOt an international treaty, according to your point of view?

So how has the UN Charter managed to supersede the Kellogg-Briand Pact, if it is of lesser legal standing and is NOt an international treaty, according to your point of view?

I'm still waiting on the Article and section number that refers to the Charter as a treaty.

So how has the UN Charter managed to supersede the Kellogg-Briand Pact, if it is of lesser legal standing and is NOt an international treaty, according to your point of view?

The point I posted is that they are BOTH treaties.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact was superseded by the UN Charter.

That being said, treaties of any kind, under US law, are subordinate to the Constitution.

As long as you declare war or delegate the authority to use force using constitutional means ( as we have ) then under US law, the war or force is legal (under domestic law).

It may be a violation of international law, but there aren't any police out there, so...

This would apply equally to the UN Charter. Its provisions are subordinate to our Constitution, under US domestic law. Under domestic law, we're covered - it's not an "illegal" war. ...
Actually, it's not a war under US domestic law - it's 'use of force'.

Subordinate to the constituution - probably... though some lawyers regard the international treaties as co-equal to it.

The UN Charter thing - Corneliu is sure that it isn't a treaty under international law... I'm sure that it is a treaty. :)

The point I posted is that they are BOTH treaties.

Whispering Legs, the UN isn't a treaty by any definition of the word.

The point I posted is that they are BOTH treaties.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact was superseded by the UN Charter.

...
Yee-haw!

...

As long as you declare war or delegate the authority to use force using constitutional means ( as we have ) then under US law, the war or force is legal (under domestic law).

It may be a violation of international law, but there aren't any police out there, so...
My point exactly.

Now it's time to me to quote a well-known statement by Samuel Pepys - 'And so to bed.'

Yee-haw!

Now it's time to me to quote a well-known statement by Samuel Pepys - 'And so to bed.'

What? No article or section number to define this as a treaty? I guess I am right after all.

Good night.

Whispering Legs, the UN isn't a treaty by any definition of the word.

It's an "international agreement". And it hardly matters - as long as we do things by our Constitution, it doesn't matter what we sign.

Any external agreement (treaty or otherwise) is always subordinate to the Constitution under US domestic law.

So how has the UN Charter managed to supersede the Kellogg-Briand Pact, if it is of lesser legal standing and is NOt an international treaty, according to your point of view?

i don't know whether to quote the above statement, or the one where you tell WL thanks and Corneliu if he noticed the part about the UN Charter... but here's my response:

you and i may not have read it the same, what i read "...At the same time, the spirit of the Kellogg-Briand treaty lives on in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter...." means that the Kellog-Briand treaty is still defunct (or null and void if you wanna call it that) but "lives on" in the article of the UN Charter. but it's only in spirit, it's not an actual enforcement of the Kellog-Braind treaty. so i still don't think your argument holds water against Corneliu's.

but to get this thread back on topic. i hope they fry the bastard.

1.
This is about his violations of human rights (not US the constitution) and how he is going to be tried in Iraq for that. Whether or not the US had a right to attack is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. Unless you are calling the non-compliance with a UN resolution reason enough for the death penalty, in which case we could probably produce hundreds of potential death row inmates, including US Presidents, Israeli Prime Ministers and lots of other people.

2.
Zero attempt to prosecute anyone? Now some here is either very ignorant or someone here hasn't been watching the news. As for your extreme example, the answer would be no! He'll just execute him on the spot. At least the US is prosecuting those responsible and tossing them into the brig, stockade, and what not and throwing their slimey asses right out of the military with a dishonorable Discharge. Interesting isn't it? Abu Ghraib perpetrators ARE BEING PROSECUTED!!!!!! I've heard this, read this, and heard sentencing. Where have you been living NOT to have noticed this? We have a J.A.G. for a reason!

Do you know who Heydrich was? He was guilty of war crimes, and Hitler ignored that because it fit his view of the world. Do you get my drift?
The soldiers are not the ones responsible. There was no serious attempt made to go up the chain of command and actually amount evidence that could get a general into trouble (or a head of the pentagon).
Why do you think the military would prosecute its' own people? They didn't for those that shot Nicola Calipari, they didn't for those who shot the wounded prisoners during the battle in Faludja (which was bloody well caught on tape, download it if you want - self-defence my arse)

3.
Where are you getting a civil war now? There isn't a civil war going on in Iraq.

I thougth I was clear, since this referred to the many thousands of dead Shia Militia after the uprising. Back then I would say that qualifies as civil war.

4.
Actually, if you really look at it, the UN Relunctantly gave us the support. If it wasn't for the USSR boycotting the vote, the UN wouldn't have given their support because the USSR would veto it right out of the Security Council. Ironic that it was Taiwan that was on the Security Council and not mainland China that also approved of it.

Taiwan shouldn't ever have had a place on the Council. It's a break-away province of Kai-Chek's men, who were just as bad a bunch of criminals as Mao's were. Nonetheless, somehow they are the good guys...
I can understand why the USSR would boycott a vote there only for the US national interest. The spread of communism was not a danger for the world, US provocation of the USSR was.

5.
We didn't want them overrunning Iraq and we didn't want Iraq overrunning Iran.

How exactly do you justify wanting anything in relation to other sovereign states. US politics should care about US issues, not two dictatorships fighting each other on the other side of the planet. The problem is that the US seems to make everything their issue somehow or other.

6.
The US constitution is national law. International Law goes for everyone, the US constitution goes for the US, not for Iraq. Whether or not the US constitution allows for you to kill people on the other side is irrelevant if international law doesn't provide for it.

7.
Serious Consequences is not = war. If it was, it would have said "war". There was a reason it didn't say so, which was that most of the world was not convinced it was reason enough for killing people. (especially on such a scale)

8.
How dare the Iraqis shoot at American planes! They are flying over its airspace afterall, on almost a weekly basis attacking targets in Iraq, killing humans. Good on the Americans to shoot down all those nasty Iraqi planes who dare fly in the "no-fly zone". They really deserved it, hey?

9.
And finally I say to you: Whether or not the Kellog-Briand treaty is legally binding should come second to the "message". War shouldn't be a tool of foreign policy! What is so wrong with that, how come Americans see it somehow differently?
Tell me, how has war ever actually solved a problem? All it ever does is create a temporary victor, to be challenged by the next generation of defeated. All you do is create new enemies...

1.
This is about his violations of human rights (not US the constitution) and how he is going to be tried in Iraq for that. Whether or not the US had a right to attack is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. Unless you are calling the non-compliance with a UN resolution reason enough for the death penalty, in which case we could probably produce hundreds of potential death row inmates, including US Presidents, Israeli Prime Ministers and lots of other people.

Actually, the death penalty is on the table because of what he did to his own people and not for compliance with UN Resolutions. I suggest you learn that here and now if you are to follow the trial.

2.
Do you know who Heydrich was? He was guilty of war crimes, and Hitler ignored that because it fit his view of the world. Do you get my drift?
The soldiers are not the ones responsible. There was no serious attempt made to go up the chain of command and actually amount evidence that could get a general into trouble (or a head of the pentagon).
Why do you think the military would prosecute its' own people? They didn't for those that shot Nicola Calipari, they didn't for those who shot the wounded prisoners during the battle in Faludja (which was bloody well caught on tape, download it if you want - self-defence my arse)

And yet, the terrorists have a habit of booby trapping. I would've done the samething in his shoes as would any other soldier which is why he got off. However, we prosecuted those responsible for Abu Ghraib. It is also the soldiers responsibility to disobey an illegal order. A soldier knows what that is. If they follow it, then they are just as guilty and deserve to be punished. We don't know what these soldiers orders are but I don't think Torture was the order of the day.

3.
I thougth I was clear, since this referred to the many thousands of dead Shia Militia after the uprising. Back then I would say that qualifies as civil war.

That can also be considered an issurection against Saddam Hussein.

4.
Taiwan shouldn't ever have had a place on the Council. It's a break-away province of Kai-Chek's men, who were just as bad a bunch of criminals as Mao's were. Nonetheless, somehow they are the good guys...

Your opinion that they shouldn't be on there. I say they should've been. To bad they got booted from the Security Council and no longer recognized as an independent nation by the UN though several nations DO recognize Taiwan as a free and independent and I can give you several of those countries too.

I can understand why the USSR would boycott a vote there only for the US national interest. The spread of communism was not a danger for the world, US provocation of the USSR was.

But they turned their back on a Communist ally. So much for fostering Communist revolution everywhere.

5.
How exactly do you justify wanting anything in relation to other sovereign states. US politics should care about US issues, not two dictatorships fighting each other on the other side of the planet. The problem is that the US seems to make everything their issue somehow or other.

Here's something! O-I-L! Care to imagine what our situation would've been like if Iran took over Iraq? You need to think about that.

6.
The US constitution is national law. International Law goes for everyone, the US constitution goes for the US, not for Iraq. Whether or not the US constitution allows for you to kill people on the other side is irrelevant if international law doesn't provide for it.

In that case, every nation on this planet is in violation of International Law. I guess the UN doesn't care about Sudan, the Congo, and other places that wars are going on. What are they doing about it? Nothing. Hussein didn't comply with International Law. The Coalition of the Willing did comply with International Law and took him out of power to put a more International Law friendly government in power.

7.
Serious Consequences is not = war. If it was, it would have said "war". There was a reason it didn't say so, which was that most of the world was not convinced it was reason enough for killing people. (especially on such a scale)

I'm still trying to figure out what other type of Serious Consequences could've befallen Saddam Hussein. I can't think of any that we havent already done. War was the last option. Saddam didn't comply so we took him out of power. What is your definition of Serious Consequences?

8.
How dare the Iraqis shoot at American planes! They are flying over its airspace afterall, on almost a weekly basis attacking targets in Iraq, killing humans. Good on the Americans to shoot down all those nasty Iraqi planes who dare fly in the "no-fly zone". They really deserved it, hey?

We were killing humans? Notice the buildings we hit were military in nature. Nice to know you don't care about self defense. Don't shoot at us and we won't shoot at you. Simple as that. When he fired on our planes, we could've gone back to war right then since that was a violation. You do understand that right?

9.
And finally I say to you: Whether or not the Kellog-Briand treaty is legally binding should come second to the "message". War shouldn't be a tool of foreign policy! What is so wrong with that, how come Americans see it somehow differently?

Maybe because we are tired of putting up with a very corrupt UN who doesn't enforce anything? We took the bull by the horns and did the UN's dirty work for them. We used the Resolutions and followed them. We enforced International Law. How is that wrong?

Tell me, how has war ever actually solved a problem? All it ever does is create a temporary victor, to be challenged by the next generation of defeated. All you do is create new enemies...

Interesting logic and mostly accurate. However, we are enforcing International Law when we went into Iraq and with Afghanistan, that was the last known position of Bin Laden.

Here's something! O-I-L! Care to imagine what our situation would've been like if Iran took over Iraq? You need to think about that.
Are you admitting now that Iraq IS important for her OIL? Interesting. :)

I'm still trying to figure out what other type of Serious Consequences could've befallen Saddam Hussein. I can't think of any that we havent already done. War was the last option. Saddam didn't comply so we took him out of power. What is your definition of Serious Consequences?
The US violated Resolution 1441 by invading Iraq. Iraq was complying with UN inspections. Still stuck on this one huh?

We were killing humans? Notice the buildings we hit were military in nature. Nice to know you don't care about self defense. Don't shoot at us and we won't shoot at you. Simple as that. When he fired on our planes, we could've gone back to war right then since that was a violation. You do understand that right?
Ummm I understand that you are totally wrong on this issue (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html).

But the "no-fly" zone was never specifically mandated by the UN Security Council, and was rejected from the outset by Iraq as a violation of its sovereignty. Iraq's objections were backed by Russia and China, and in 1996 France withdrew its participation.

Maybe because we are tired of putting up with a very corrupt UN who doesn't enforce anything? We took the bull by the horns and did the UN's dirty work for them. We used the Resolutions and followed them. We enforced International Law. How is that wrong?
The US violated International law by invading Iraq. You are still stuck on this issue too?

Interesting logic and mostly accurate. However, we are enforcing International Law when we went into Iraq.
See above.

Are you admitting now that Iraq IS important for her OIL? Interesting. :)

I never said they didn't CH. Nice try! Care to point to a post where I said they didn't? You'll find none that's for sure.

The US violated Resolution 1441 by invading Iraq. Iraq was complying with UN inspections. Still stuck on this one huh?

*yawns* Same crap different day.

Ummm I understand that you are totally wrong on this issue (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html).

I think, and You'll have to search the thread but I think someone mentioned resolution 688 or something like that that authorized it. I'm not 100% sure though so I suggest you flip through the pages.

The US violated International law by invading Iraq. You are still stuck on this issue too?

How is enforcing 17 Resolutions and a Cease-fire a violation of International Law? You still haven't answered it and I've asked you time and time again. I'm still waiting.

See above.

see above.

i don't know whether to quote the above statement, or the one where you tell WL thanks and Corneliu if he noticed the part about the UN Charter... but here's my response:

you and i may not have read it the same, what i read "...At the same time, the spirit of the Kellogg-Briand treaty lives on in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter...." means that the Kellog-Briand treaty is still defunct (or null and void if you wanna call it that) but "lives on" in the article of the UN Charter. but it's only in spirit, it's not an actual enforcement of the Kellog-Braind treaty. so i still don't think your argument holds water against Corneliu's.

...
Mirchaz, I am in full agreement with the statement by WL that: 'As long as you declare war or delegate the authority to use force using constitutional means ( as we have ) then under US law, the war or force is legal (under domestic law).

It may be a violation of international law, but there aren't any police out there, so...'

Of course, the use of force was lawful under US domestic law, having been authorized by congress. I don't dispute this.

A little more about the legal standing of international treaties in the US (I'll rely on Wikipedia a bit). The American view is that international agreements become part of the body of US federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. The most recent changes will be enforced by US courts entirely independently of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the US. Additionally, an international agreement that is inconsistent with the US Constitution is void under domestic US law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has never done so.

Well... neither the Kellogg-Briand Pact nor the UN Charter have been modified in any manner, repealed, or declared unconstitutional, so they are US laws as of 2005. Sometime they may well be resurrected, (not unlike the Alien Tort Act was, after a 190-year-old disuse).

I never said they didn't CH. Nice try! Care to point to a post where I said they didn't? You'll find none that's for sure.
Well I have always stated that the war in Iraq was about oil, and it is nice to see that you agree with me. :D

*yawns* Same crap different day.
I would have thought that you would have been housebroken by now? :rolleyes:

I guess you figure that if you repeat it enough times, than it is true? Alas, you are only fooling yourself and not the others who are wise to your dodge.

I think, and You'll have to search the thread but I think someone mentioned resolution 688 or something like that that authorized it. I'm not 100% sure though so I suggest you flip through the pages.
No, I suggest that you flip through the pages. I already know the answer. If you can post something that supports your claim I would be surprised.

How is enforcing 17 Resolutions and a Cease-fire a violation of International Law? You still haven't answered it and I've asked you time and time again. I'm still waiting.
On and on you go but you have the right to remain stuck. Several people have answered this for you and you either cannot comprehend what we have written, or you choose to ignore what has been written. :eek:

Maybe because we are tired of putting up with a very corrupt UN who doesn't enforce anything? We took the bull by the horns and did the UN's dirty work for them. We used the Resolutions and followed them. We enforced International Law. How is that wrong?

Call me a pacifist, but having an international organisation not complying with one member's current interests is enough to bag it and go it alone?

Do you realise that, interpretations aside, if the UN would have wanted to go to war, they would have said so, explicitly?

But, having WMDs, possibly in a trench somwhere, doesn't hurt anyone. Using them might, but he couldn't. Even you said that at one point.
Going to war does hurt people (often people are things to be found in military installations...). And therefore people got hurt when there was no need for it.
It is highly cynical of anyone to then go ahead and interpret resolutions, obviously ignoring the spirit in which they were written.

I also was referring to the topic of the thread. It is about possible human rights violations (and in a cynical reinterpretation, not "iraqi rights violations", which in my view would qualify him getting a fair trial in front of one of humanity's judges, not an iraqi one)
Nonetheless, the topicof the thread changed somewhat to an interpretation contest. I was merely pointing that out.
And don't take that tone with me, young man.

Well I have always stated that the war in Iraq was about oil, and it is nice to see that you agree with me. :D

I like to know how your managing to twist my words when I never agreed with you in the first place.

I would have thought that you would have been housebroken by now? :rolleyes:

I guess you figure that if you repeat it enough times, than it is true? Alas, you are only fooling yourself and not the others who are wise to your dodge.

Nice insult! Careful about insults CanuckHeaven. I'm liable to toss one right back. Though this is a petty one so I'll ignore it for now even though it was the same crap on a different day.

No, I suggest that you flip through the pages. I already know the answer. If you can post something that supports your claim I would be surprised.

No actually, you flip through the pages.

On and on you go but you have the right to remain stuck. Several people have answered this for you and you either cannot comprehend what we have written, or you choose to ignore what has been written. :eek:

Nice dodge of the question CH. What's the matter huh? Why can't you answer such a simple question? Oh that's right, because I'm right. You can't admit it to yourself that enforcing 17 UN Resolutions and a UN Cease-fire DOES NOT violate International Law but ENFORCES IT!

Call me a pacifist, but having an international organisation not complying with one member's current interests is enough to bag it and go it alone?

I love this! How did we go it alone? We didn't.

Do you realise that, interpretations aside, if the UN would have wanted to go to war, they would have said so, explicitly?

You have alot to learn about the corruptness of the UN. I suggest you read the book Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos By Dore Gold, A former UN Ambassador. You might be surprised at how disfunctional the UN truly is.

But, having WMDs, possibly in a trench somwhere, doesn't hurt anyone. Using them might, but he couldn't. Even you said that at one point.
Going to war does hurt people (often people are things to be found in military installations...). And therefore people got hurt when there was no need for it.
It is highly cynical of anyone to then go ahead and interpret resolutions, obviously ignoring the spirit in which they were written.

We didn't ignore the spirit of them! Hussein did. As for the WMD, we had no idea that they were in the Trench. Hussein thought he still had them but didn't and we know that now. We wouldn't have if we didn't go in there. Frankly, I'm glad that Saddam is gone. His human rights record was...I can't describe it it was that bad.

I also was referring to the topic of the thread. It is about possible human rights violations (and in a cynical reinterpretation, not "iraqi rights violations", which in my view would qualify him getting a fair trial in front of one of humanity's judges, not an iraqi one)

You keep forgetting one thing. I'm surprised you are forgetting this. Saddam never signed onto the ICC and therefore the ICC has no jurisiction in this case. And besides that, the Iraqis don't trust the ICC and not signing onto it was a smart decision by Saddam Hussein.

Nonetheless, the topicof the thread changed somewhat to an interpretation contest. I was merely pointing that out.
And don't take that tone with me, young man.

Don't tell me what to do either.

Nice dodge of the question CH. What's the matter huh? Why can't you answer such a simple question? Oh that's right, because I'm right. You can't admit it to yourself that enforcing 17 UN Resolutions and a UN Cease-fire DOES NOT violate International Law but ENFORCES IT!
So I guess if say Iran nuked the shit out of Isreal that'd be cool cause Isreal is in violation of International law/UN resolutions?

My favorite bit of all this is how everyone complains about how weak and ineffectual the UN is, but somehow neglects to remember that the US vetoed more resolutions, by FAR than anyother SC member. It's great. You're all like "HOW DARE POLITICIZE THE UN!!!!!1" but then conveniently forget that the US is the worst offender of them all. Seriously, even the big bad USSR didn't veto half as much. So next time you whine about how ineffective the UN is, remember who made it that way.

I don't understand. Why the emphasis on all these minor crimes post-1991? It's just a few hundred people here and there. What about the hundreds of thousands during the 1980s when the US and UK were giving Saddam Hussein weapons, including MWD? I'd like to see a trial for those crimes. :rolleyes:
Ah but that was under a different administration.

But, having WMDs, possibly in a trench somwhere, doesn't hurt anyone. Using them might, but he couldn't. Even you said that at one point.

No one knew they were in a trench. UNSCOM (not the US) said that the anthrax was unaccounted for. And it's not "some" anthrax. 1800 gallons is conceivably enough to kill everyone on the planet if properly dispersed in the air.

Given that such material was KNOWN to exist (outside of US intel sources!) and given the risk that even an amount as small as 10 grams poses if thrown from the top of a high building to people as far away as 500 miles, and given that there is no effective prophylaxis for the general civilian population anywhere on Earth against such an agent, what do you think people should have done?

The UN inspectors, according to Taha, would NEVER have found out what happened. She didn't even tell Saddam, because she knew he would be angry and have her killed. The ONLY way that we would have really known what happened to 1800 gallons of anthrax was to go there and be able to interrogate people and dig up any site we pleased without warning.

Now that the final report of the WMD survey team reveals Taha's claim to be true - by verifying the contents of the trench using lab tests - we know they DID at one time have the anthrax. So our initial intelligence was CORRECT. What we did not know, and could not possibly discover through Saddam or UNSCOM, was what happened to the anthrax.

Let's do the political math, shall we?

If the risk of someone using 1800 gallons of anthrax (which is unaccounted for) is say, 1 in 10,000 per year, and the number of casualties you can expect is say, 200 million people (because they don't spread it effectively), is that a politically unacceptable risk in light of the previous surprise attack on the US?

It's one thing to have someone fly a few planes into buildings unannounced - in real terms, those are mere conventional attacks. No one is going to kill millions of people that way, and even if the risk is high, the casualties are low compared to the use of anthrax.

If the unexpected and unannounced attacker uses anthrax, the fact that tens or hundreds of millions of people could be killed completely overrides the actual risk - if the chances of the attack are extremely low, the potential outcome remains politically unacceptable.

This is the same logic that people use to argue against the use of nuclear power plants. The risk is extremely low - the chance of a particular power plant melting down and venting to the atmosphere is remote. But if it does, it harms millions of people - so in most places, nuclear power plants are considered politically unacceptable - even if mathematically we can show that the family car or the bathtub is a much greater danger to any individual.

1800 gallons of anthrax in the hands of any nation hostile to the United States is a politically unacceptable risk - especially if the United States possesses the means to resolve that risk without direct harm to the United States.

So I guess if say Iran nuked the shit out of Isreal that'd be cool cause Isreal is in violation of International law/UN resolutions?

Considering that Iran themselves in violation of International Law and not to mention the repercussions of Nuking Tel Aviv or Jerusalem for that matter... That'll be a very bad political move. Besides that, how many times as Israel defended itself from Terrorist agression? Remember that Israel is the Victims of Terror attacks on a constent basis. Speaking of which, I haven't heard much out of Israel lately. I guess the cease-fire is holding. Not to mention no new UN Resolutions for US to veto either.

My favorite bit of all this is how everyone complains about how weak and ineffectual the UN is, but somehow neglects to remember that the US vetoed more resolutions, by FAR than anyother SC member. It's great. You're all like "HOW DARE POLITICIZE THE UN!!!!!1" but then conveniently forget that the US is the worst offender of them all. Seriously, even the big bad USSR didn't veto half as much. So next time you whine about how ineffective the UN is, remember who made it that way.

Notice where most of our Vetos are on? Resolutions on Israel! :rolleyes:

Considering that Iran themselves in violation of International Law and not to mention the repercussions of Nuking Tel Aviv or Jerusalem for that matter... That'll be a very bad political move. Besides that, how many times as Israel defended itself from Terrorist agression? Remember that Israel is the Victims of Terror attacks on a constent basis. Speaking of which, I haven't heard much out of Israel lately. I guess the cease-fire is holding. Not to mention no new UN Resolutions for US to veto either.


Well if you have to have a clear record to interevene, then by that standard the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq. The US has stood in violation of int. law throughout the past decades, Nicaragua is a particularly clear example. And in the matter of protecting itself from terrorists, that hardly gives you a carte blanche as far as human rights are concerned.

Notice where most of our Vetos are on? Resolutions on Israel! :rolleyes:

Nonetheless, how can you complain when other countries veto when you do it yourself so often? It's ridiculous. Vetos are only okay when you're protecting a client state? It's perposterous.

Well if you have to have a clear record to interevene, then by that standard the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq.

So we shouldn't have invaded Iraq when Hussein was in Violation of 17 UN resolutions AND a UN Cease-Fire? Sorry dude but where's the logic in that?

The US has stood in violation of int. law throughout the past decades, Nicaragua is a particularly clear example. And in the matter of protecting itself from terrorists, that hardly gives you a carte blanche as far as human rights are concerned.

Soviet Union was in Violation of International Law when they invaded Afghanistan. Argentina was in Violation of International Law when they tried to take the Fakland Islands. I could go on but it isn't worth it.

Nonetheless, how can you complain when other countries veto when you do it yourself so often? It's ridiculous. Vetos are only okay when you're protecting a client state? It's perposterous.

I can complain about this one because Colin Powel clearly stated, don't vote for 1441 if your not going to back up the 2nd one. France, Germany, and Russia voted FOR 1441 then France and Russia threatened VETO of the 2nd one. Didn't matter anyway, Saddam was in violation of past resolutions so we used those to go in and kick his ass out of power.

Nice dodge of the question CH. What's the matter huh? Why can't you answer such a simple question? Oh that's right, because I'm right. You can't admit it to yourself that enforcing 17 UN Resolutions and a UN Cease-fire DOES NOT violate International Law but ENFORCES IT!


Errr...... you are "enforcing a ceasefire" where you are one of the parties to that agreement....by shooting? And you go about this by first escalating your own bombing campaign in an attempt to provoke the other party?


Does this qualify under "two wrongs make a right"? Or just under "retarded leaps of logic?"


Newsflash for the slow learners who's names begin with 'C': Most of those resolutions had to do with disarmament. Survey says.... he WAS disarmed, just that some asshats in Washington and London refused to believe it (and some here keep whining about one specific item where maybe they had good reason not to believe, however completely ignore the fact that the allegations raised at the time were laughably far off the base in almost every single instance, and that at the end of the day it turns out that he HAD disarmed.)


So you were enforcing resolutions that needed not to be enforced. Kinda like a cop saying "yeah, I went to his house and shot him for committing that bank robbery", except that the guy didn't rob the bank, with the cop's excuse being.... "well how was I supposed to know that he didn't do it? He was a bank robber!"

The Cop gets his ass kicked off the force for dumb stunts like that.

Except in this case you aren't even a cop. You have no mandate to enforce the laws outside of the UN - especially not at the same time as you try and use UN resolutions as your justification. "Dumb-assed UN wouldn't do what it turned out didn't need to be done, so we did it anyway - despite it not needing to be done - and we're proud of it!"



In your case, you are the private citizen who suspects his neighbour was beating his wife. You talked to the police, you know that he did have one prior conviction, but the police can't do anything do to a lack of evidence. So one night after a whole day of listening to Rush Limbaugh and taking Oxycontin on his behalf you get all drunked up, go next door and shoot your neighbour to protect his wife.

Your excuse is that the cops wouldn't, and it needed being done. The sad part is that although it turns out the guy was a complete asshole it turns out he wasn't actually beating his wife.


I'll let you guess what the judge will say when your defense rests with "how the fuck was I supposed to know?"

Errr...... you are "enforcing a ceasefire" where you are one of the parties to that agreement....by shooting? And you go about this by first escalating your own bombing campaign in an attempt to provoke the other party?

Saddam violated a Cease-Fire! By rule, the United States can go to war with Iraq at anytime.

Does this qualify under "two wrongs make a right"? Or just under "retarded leaps of logic?"

Hey, when one side violates a cease-fire, the other side has the right to wage war. Interesting isn't it? Not to mention going to war after a break in the cease-fire is legal under International Law.

Newsflash for the slow learners who's names begin with 'C': Most of those resolutions had to do with disarmament. Survey says.... he WAS disarmed, just that some asshats in Washington and London refused to believe it (and some here keep whining about one specific item where maybe they had good reason not to believe, however completely ignore the fact that the allegations raised at the time were laughably far off the base in almost every single instance, and that at the end of the day it turns out that he HAD disarmed.)

I guess you don't understand. I guess you'll never will. We all know that Saddam Violated UN Resolutions and a Cease-fire. The US was right to do what we did because of this. It is also perfectly legal under International Law to wage war when said cease-fire was violated. Do you understand this? When a Cease-Fire is violated, its war all over again. Hussein violated a cease-fire so there, bombs away.

So you were enforcing resolutions that needed not to be enforced.

Thanks for playing. This just shows how little you know about the United Nations and the world as a whole. The UN Resolutions need to be enforced otherwise, there'll be contempt with the UN. Just read Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos by Dore Gold. You'll see clear examples of this.

Kinda like a cop saying "yeah, I went to his house and shot him for committing that bank robbery", except that the guy didn't rob the bank, with the cop's excuse being.... "well how was I supposed to know that he didn't do it? He was a bank robber!"

Nice analogy though I could punch holes in this so fast, it ain't even funny.

The Cop gets his ass kicked off the force for dumb stunts like that.

Actually jailed but that's beside the point.

Except in this case you aren't even a cop. You have no mandate to enforce the laws outside of the UN - especially not at the same time as you try and use UN resolutions as your justification. "Dumb-assed UN wouldn't do what it turned out didn't need to be done, so we did it anyway - despite it not needing to be done - and we're proud of it!"

Actually we did. Its called violations of 17 UN Resolutions and violation of a UN Cease-Fire. That is all the justification I need to support this war.

In your case, you are the private citizen who suspects his neighbour was beating his wife. You talked to the police, you know that he did have one prior conviction, but the police can't do anything do to a lack of evidence. So one night after a whole day of listening to Rush Limbaugh and taking Oxycontin on his behalf you get all drunked up, go next door and shoot your neighbour to protect his wife.

Your getting more and more pathetic and I'm Laughing because of it. You truly don't know how the world works do you?

I'll let you guess what the judge will say when your defense rests with "how the fuck was I supposed to know?"

Read up on the abysmal failures of the UN!

Saddam violated a Cease-Fire! By rule, the United States can go to war with Iraq at anytime.
WRONG!!

Hey, when one side violates a cease-fire, the other side has the right to wage war. Interesting isn't it? Not to mention going to war after a break in the cease-fire is legal under International Law.
WRONG AGAIN!!

I guess you don't understand. I guess you'll never will. We all know that Saddam Violated UN Resolutions and a Cease-fire. The US was right to do what we did because of this. It is also perfectly legal under International Law to wage war when said cease-fire was violated. Do you understand this? When a Cease-Fire is violated, its war all over again. Hussein violated a cease-fire so there, bombs away.
WRONG AGAIN THIRD TIME!!

Thanks for playing. This just shows how little you know about the United Nations and the world as a whole. The UN Resolutions need to be enforced otherwise, there'll be contempt with the UN. Just read Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos by Dore Gold. You'll see clear examples of this.
If UN Resolutions need to be enforced, why does the US continue to VETO UN Resolutions against Israel?

If UN Resolutions need to be enforced, why does the US violate the UN Charter?

Actually we did. Its called violations of 17 UN Resolutions and violation of a UN Cease-Fire. That is all the justification I need to support this war.
WRONG AGAIN FOURTH TIME!!

Your getting more and more pathetic and I'm Laughing because of it. You truly don't know how the world works do you?
*CanuckHeaven* hands Corny a mirror.

Read up on the abysmal failures of the UN!
Read up on the US abuse of the UN Charter, then perhaps you might understand why the UN is not as effective as it could be.

I love this! How did we go it alone? We didn't.

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia (70% against the war), Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark(majority against the war), El Salvador (not exactly an independent state), Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy (69% against the war), Japan (70% opposed), South Korea,Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Morocco (offering the infamous 2000 monkeys against land mines), Netherlands (majority opposed), Nicaragua, Phillipines, Poland, Palau, Romania, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain (more than 87% vs the war even with a 2nd resolution), Turkey (95% opposed), UK (majority opposed), Uzbekistan

The red countries have no armed forces.
As impressive as this may seem, these countries are either
a) totally dependent on the US
b) there against the will of their population
c) not really there since they don't have an army.
Not part of the coalition are somewhere around 140 countries.
This is an American war, face it.


You have alot to learn about the corruptness of the UN. I suggest you read the book Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos By Dore Gold, A former UN Ambassador. You might be surprised at how disfunctional the UN truly is.
Yes, an orthodox Jew who has a problem with Arabs of pretty much any kind. Other selected writings include:

Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism (Regnery, 2003)
Wartime Witch Hunt: Blaming Israel for the Iraq War. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. June 1, 2004.
The Kingdom of Incitement. Wall Street Journal. April 14, 2003.
Only Buffer Zones Can Protect Israel. The New York Times. Feb 27, 2002.



And besides that, the Iraqis don't trust the ICC and not signing onto it was a smart decision by Saddam Hussein.
You mean you don't trust the ICC. That Saddam didn't sign up was not smart, it is merely convenient for you.


Given that such material was KNOWN to exist (outside of US intel sources!) and given the risk that even an amount as small as 10 grams poses if thrown from the top of a high building to people as far away as 500 miles, and given that there is no effective prophylaxis for the general civilian population anywhere on Earth against such an agent, what do you think people should have done?
I think people should have stepped back (especially those in the intelligence community). They should'vetaken a two week holiday without thinking about it and then neutrally look at the evidence again. That's what you do when groupthink happens.


If the risk of someone using 1800 gallons of anthrax (which is unaccounted for) is say, 1 in 10,000 per year, and the number of casualties you can expect is say, 200 million people (because they don't spread it effectively), is that a politically unacceptable risk in light of the previous surprise attack on the US?

It's one thing to have someone fly a few planes into buildings unannounced - in real terms, those are mere conventional attacks. No one is going to kill millions of people that way, and even if the risk is high, the casualties are low compared to the use of anthrax.

If the unexpected and unannounced attacker uses anthrax, the fact that tens or hundreds of millions of people could be killed completely overrides the actual risk - if the chances of the attack are extremely low, the potential outcome remains politically unacceptable.

Are we coming any closer to the core of the problem here?
That's right, Al Qaeda and Saddam. No Government, especially a hated one like Saddams' would give away its WMDs. Especially not to islamic fundamentalists.
If I recall correctly, Osama offered his Mudjaheddin to the Saudi Family when Saddam invaded Kuwait. He called Saddam an infidel and despised his secular government over some of Islam's holy sites.
The mere existence of WMDs wouldn't have been enough to get the US into war, it had to be a direct threat to US citizens...

WRONG!!

So you say that Saddam should get away with a Cease-Fire violation? Nice breach of International Law CH! I thought you were for upholding International Law? I guess you just blew your For International Law Credibility

WRONG AGAIN!!

See Above Statement!

WRONG AGAIN THIRD TIME!!

See Above Statement!

If UN Resolutions need to be enforced, why does the US continue to VETO UN Resolutions against Israel?

If UN Resolutions need to be enforced, why does the US violate the UN Charter?

Where are the resolutions condemning the Terror attacks on Israel? Does Israel have the right to Self Defense? The answer is that the UN is pro terrorist and Anti-democracy.

Where has the US violated the UN Charter?

WRONG AGAIN FOURTH TIME!!

See my first statement

*CanuckHeaven* hands Corny a mirror.

*Turns the mirror around and shows CH*

Read up on the US abuse of the UN Charter, then perhaps you might understand why the UN is not as effective as it could be.

I'm waiting on how we violated the UN Charter!

Where are the resolutions condemning the Terror attacks on Israel? Does Israel have the right to Self Defense? The answer is that the UN is pro terrorist and Anti-democracy.

Israel's military came from a militia formed out of radicals, who routinely blew up buildings and people when Judea was still under British control.
That terrorist attacks should be condemned is self-evident. Why does it need a UN resolution?
The people who blow up Israelis however come from the occupied territories. They are called that because they were never meant to be part of Israel. The original plan was for two equal states, Israel and Palestine, who were supposed to live in peace and share Jerusalem.
Zionism was a peaceful idea. If early Zionists could see today's Israel they would be rotating in their graves. One of them even said in 1949 that this can never work and that this Israel only exists because of the plight of others and will therefore never live in peace with its neighbours.
Zionism has been hijacked by a mixture of religious fanaticism, nationalism and a good sprinkling of anti-arabic racism.
If you want the UN to stop condemning Israeli actions, it should comply with its rulings, withdraw from all occupied territories (including half of Jerusalem, although if I remember correctly, Jerusalem was supposed to be a "Free City" and therefore demilitarised) and begin from the start as had been the plan in 1949.

Israel's military came from a militia formed out of radicals, who routinely blew up buildings and people when Judea was still under British control.
That terrorist attacks should be condemned is self-evident. Why does it need a UN resolution?
The people who blow up Israelis however come from the occupied territories. They are called that because they were never meant to be part of Israel. The original plan was for two equal states, Israel and Palestine, who were supposed to live in peace and share Jerusalem.
Zionism was a peaceful idea. If early Zionists could see today's Israel they would be rotating in their graves. One of them even said in 1949 that this can never work and that this Israel only exists because of the plight of others and will therefore never live in peace with its neighbours.
Zionism has been hijacked by a mixture of religious fanaticism, nationalism and a good sprinkling of anti-arabic racism.
If you want the UN to stop condemning Israeli actions, it should comply with its rulings, withdraw from all occupied territories (including half of Jerusalem, although if I remember correctly, Jerusalem was supposed to be a "Free City" and therefore demilitarised) and begin from the start as had been the plan in 1949.

Something that I've already read. Does Israel have the Right to self Defense? Yes or no since you never answered the question.

Something that I've already read. Does Israel have the Right to self Defense? Yes or no since you never answered the question.

I missed your response to my argument. Where can I find it?
In plain English:
No.
Since you define the right to self-defence as the right to deprive a people of their land, their wealth and often their life, indiscriminately, and since all you achieve is to create more terrorists, no, they do not have the "moral" right to defending what they conquered.

I missed your response to my argument. Where can I find it?
In plain English:
No.

Why doesn't Israel have the right to self defense? They are a soveriegn nation. They deserve the right to hunt down these terrorist thugs that are killing their civilians.

Since you define the right to self-defence as the right to deprive a people of their land, their wealth and often their life, indiscriminately, and since all you achieve is to create more terrorists, no, they do not have the "moral" right to defending what they conquered.

Where on Earth did I define the right to self-defence as this? Nowhere that I can recall.

Israel is not the topic of this thread. Make an Israel thread, we can slug it out there.

Why doesn't Israel have the right to self defense? They are a soveriegn nation. They deserve the right to hunt down these terrorist thugs that are killing their civilians.
But they don't. Their self defence is merely delivering more reasons for individuals to blow up stuff (and people).
Calling desperate people who have lost everything, especially their will to live, because of the actions of a foreign invader, "terrorist thugs" (including 13 year old girls) is merely an attempt to justify unjust actions by reverting to absolutes.

Where on Earth did I define the right to self-defence as this? Nowhere that I can recall.
It is implied, for that is what Israel has done so far to "defend" itself.

Asking a question like "do they have the right to defend themselves?" hands me the choice of saying
a)yes and therefore either accepting what Israel is doing (which I don't), or to water down my argument by adding all kinds of conditions, ifs and buts.
b)no, and thus putting myself at risk of being called anti-semitic.

In order to sound decisive and not be caught up in a long discussion of technicalities, I have therefore chosen to say no and take "self-defence" as you called it to be the actions Israel has undertaken to defeat Palestinian resistance.

So you say that Saddam should get away with a Cease-Fire violation? Nice breach of International Law CH! I thought you were for upholding International Law? I guess you just blew your For International Law Credibility
I didn't say anything like that at all......it must be your over active imagination?

What I did say and you can't seem to understand is that violations of the "ceasefire" did not apply to "no fly zones". I will post the quote again (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html):

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has made clear that the international body does not view "no-fly" zone confrontations as a violation of the resolution. "Let me say that I don't think the Council will say that this is in contravention of the resolution that was recently passed," Annan told reporters Tuesday during a visit to Kosovo.........

But the "no-fly" zone was never specifically mandated by the UN Security Council, and was rejected from the outset by Iraq as a violation of its sovereignty. Iraq's objections were backed by Russia and China, and in 1996 France withdrew its participation.

Quit using the ceasefire as a legitimate "excuse" for bombing the crap out of innocent Iraqi citizens, and invading "their" country.

...
The people who blow up Israelis however come from the occupied territories. They are called that because they were never meant to be part of Israel. The original plan was for two equal states, Israel and Palestine, who were supposed to live in peace and share Jerusalem.
...
IIRC, the original plan as envisaged in the UN resolution (i. e. creating two states and an international 'corpus separatum' of Jerusalem) was accepted by the representatives of the future Jewish state. However, the plan was rejected by Arab states, and they attacked Israel immediately after Ben-Gurion's declaration of independence.

When I first saw the title of this thread, I immediately thought you were talking about GWB.

IIRC, the original plan as envisaged in the UN resolution (i. e. creating two states and an international 'corpus separatum' of Jerusalem) was accepted by the representatives of the future Jewish state. However, the plan was rejected by Arab states, and they attacked Israel immediately after Ben-Gurion's declaration of independence.

Which of course validates the current occupation, does it?

When I first saw the title of this thread, I immediately thought you were talking about GWB.

Since the title has never and will never be attributed to GWB, how in the world did you arrive at that conclusion?

I didn't say anything like that at all......it must be your over active imagination?

Nope just the way you talk. I can't believe you would allow the "butcher of Baghdad to get away with violating 17 UN Resolutions and a UN Cease-Fire.

Which of course validates the current occupation, does it?

It also explains the current problems. The UN did nothing. They didn't see the Arab States as agressors and they did nothing to deter them when those same Arab States IGNORED UN RESOLUTIONS!!! Go figure that the arab states ignored the UN back then. Just like Syria is doing now and what Iraq was doing too prior to us enforcing them.

The UN Also did nothing in the Pakistani/Indian Conflict either. Pakistan ignored the UN (See a trend yet?) and they fought 3 wars. Something the UN couldn't stop. Oops. There's another war that wasn't prevented. So much for the UN preventing future conflicts.

Which of course validates the current occupation, does it?
No it doesn't validate anything, but it makes the Arab states sound like consummate hypocrites when they are pushing for new ant-Israeli UN resolutions.

The original intent of the Arab states was to disregard the UN decision and to implement a one-state soluton - the state in question being Arabic, of course.

and thats what happens when you get fanatical theists ruling countries, no consideration and poverty for the people

and thats what happens when you get fanatical theists ruling countries, no consideration and poverty for the people

Ahem. Saddam was not a theist. Just a douchebag.

agreed.

Nope just the way you talk. I can't believe you would allow the "butcher of Baghdad to get away with violating 17 UN Resolutions and a UN Cease-Fire.
The US has more than likely killed far more Iraqis (directly through bombing, and indirectly through sanctions), than Hussein. Hussein is just a US smoke screen for the real reason that US troops are in Iraq.

It is interesting that Saddam gets the name "butcher of Baghdad", even though the US Administration, removed Iraq from the list of nations that support terrorism, supported him during the Iran/Iraq War (diplomatic recognition), and didn't break ties until Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US even turned a blind eye to the gassing of Iranians during the war.

As far as violating UN Resolutions, try this one on: (http://www.vicpeace.org/fact-sheets/FactSheet6vpn.pdf)

[i]In its effort to justify its planned invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has emphasized the importance of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. However, in addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91
Security Council resolutions about countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. This raises serious questions regarding the Bush administration's insistence that it is motivated by a duty to preserve the credibility of the United Nations, particularly since the vast majority of the governments violating UN Security Council resolutions are close allies of the
United States.

This does not count the number of UN Resolutions against Israel that the US vetoed:

A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel" (http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1372)

However, the biggie, is that the US actually violated UN Resolution 1441 by invading Iraq, which in turn was a violation of the UN Charter.

No it doesn't validate anything, but it makes the Arab states sound like consummate hypocrites when they are pushing for new ant-Israeli UN resolutions.

The original intent of the Arab states was to disregard the UN decision and to implement a one-state soluton - the state in question being Arabic, of course.

Don't be too quick to assert anything here. The Jews weren't exactly peaceful either.
The Haganah was a textbook terrorist organisation. Gurion declared them to be the new Israeli army after the proclamation on the 14.5.1948. He of course did that without setting any borders. Apparently the UN Resolution that was supposed to settle this wasn't enough - for either side. The conflict that had begun previously continued.
The UN Security Council wanted to get both sides to the table, only to have their negotiator, Graf Folke Bernadotte, shot by jewish terrorists.
Negotiations in Egypt shortly after between Egyptian and Jewish delegates fail because of the Israeli's refusal to rule out occupying Arabic lands.
Only 1949 a peace deal is reached, with Israel keeping its occupied territories. Part of these territories is West Jerusalem, meant to be a stateless city,which is now being declared capital of Israel, understandably outraging the Arabs, and not recognised by the global community.
1958 Egypt and Syria become one state, addmittedly with the goal of creating an arab superpower. Pro-Egyptian rallies in Lebanon are cracked down upon and the Lebanese president calls in the US to help with that.
1961 that falls apart and Syria declares itself independent again.
1964 the PLO is officially accepted as the head organisation in the struggle against the Israeli occupation of (then) small parts of Palestine.
The central part here is however the six-day-war. Started on the 5.6.1967 with an Israeli preemptive strike against arab air forces, for reasons that are still being speculated on,it lasted six days and led to the Israelis conquering huge territories, including the rest of jerusalem. Even Israeli Generals are now saying that the idea of an imminent threat to Israel is "primarily an insult to the Israeli army". The refusal of Israeli troops to leave the new occupied territories leads to the majority of the world siding with the Arabs.
The wars following that are merely attempts to retake the occupied lands.

With a record like that, including the continued refusal to occupy lands long after the self-defence has been played validates a certain cauciousness on part of the UN when dealing with Israel.

The US has more than likely killed far more Iraqis (directly through bombing, and indirectly through sanctions), than Hussein. Hussein is just a US smoke screen for the real reason that US troops are in Iraq.

Ok your dodging again and I love how your dodging. Answer my question.

It is interesting that Saddam gets the name "butcher of Baghdad", even though the US Administration, removed Iraq from the list of nations that support terrorism, supported him during the Iran/Iraq War (diplomatic recognition), and didn't break ties until Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US even turned a blind eye to the gassing of Iranians during the war.

The enemy of they enemy is thy friend :rolleyes:

Snip

Violating 17 UN Resolutions is enough to get under anyone's skin. I'm sorry that enforcing 17 resolutions and then going back to war because of violations in the Cease-Fire doesn't sit well with you. I don't really care

snip

How many of these came in response to Israel defending itself? You do know that Israel has the full right to self defense right? I hope you do! Self-Defense is also in the UN Charter. By condemning Israel's right to self-defense, they condemn their own charter. Hypocracy only goes so far with me CH. Did you know that the Arab States that attacked them in the 1940s ignored UN Resolutions? I could rattle off several nations that have violated UN Resolutions. I'm sorry but I support Israel's right to self-defense and I condemn the UN for Condemning their right to self defense! How about that Declaration of Human Rights? The terrorists don't care who they kill. I don't see the UN Condemning the Palestinian Authority who has a seat in the UN but isn't a nation. That violates the UN Charter right there. What's your response to this CH? Going to tell me I'm wrong here too even though I'm right?

1. How many of these came in response to Israel defending itself?
2. Did you know that the Arab States that attacked them in the 1940s ignored UN Resolutions?
3. I don't see the UN Condemning the Palestinian Authority who has a seat in the UN but isn't a nation.
4. Going to tell me I'm wrong here too even though I'm right?

1. Depends on what you define as "defending itself". Holding a military parade in an occupied city that the UN considers a free city under hostile occupation is a blatant provocation. Bombing other nations in times of peace, or involvement in a civil war in a neighbouring country is provocation of the UN as well. Israel has a history of showing disrespect to the international community, justifying it by the UN's disregard of the claim of a 3000 year old book with zero relevance to today.
The line between self-defence and nationalistic conquests is indeed blurred.

2. See my post above. Both sides were quite happy to ignore the UN then, since both sides felt they had not been considered when borders were drawn. The claim "the arabs attacked the israelis" is questionable too and it would be good if you could provide a source.

3. That may be because the terrorist activity doesn't come from the Palestinian authority. The Israeli Government is clearly responsible for the actions it takes, the Palestinian Authority is powerless to stop popular movements that sometimes commit terrorist acts. Repeated attacks on Palestinian police stations and the like don't help either.

4. That's a bold claim to make before he had time to respond.

1. Depends on what you define as "defending itself". Holding a military parade in an occupied city that the UN considers a free city under hostile occupation is a blatant provocation.

This is no longer the case when they didn't hoist the UN flag over the city of Jeruselem. Shortly thereafter, the Arab states launched their invasion and then violated UN Resolutions. They were still defeated.

Bombing other nations in times of peace, or involvement in a civil war in a neighbouring country is provocation of the UN as well. Israel has a history of showing disrespect to the international community, justifying it by the UN's disregard of the claim of a 3000 year old book with zero relevance to today.

Well you just dug your own grave with your last line but that's a different thread. When terrorists hide in a peaceful nation, they are harboring those people. The US bombed Afghanistan and Afghanistan and the US were peaceful to eachother then 9/11 happened. We went after the terrorists in Afghanistan. Its the exact same thing. You go where the terrorists are.

The line between self-defence and nationalistic conquests is indeed blurred.

Tell that to the 5 Arab States that did a clear act of agression against the infant state of Israel.

2. See my post above. Both sides were quite happy to ignore the UN then, since both sides felt they had not been considered when borders were drawn. The claim "the arabs attacked the israelis" is questionable too and it would be good if you could provide a source.

How the hell is it questionable? Its clear that the Arab States attacked the Israelis first. Its a proven fact. Its also a proven fact that it was a clear act of aggression in violation of the UN Charter. It is also clear that the 5 Arab States ignored UN resolutions to cease and dissist. They didn't. Didn't matter anyway, Israel smacked them back.

3. That may be because the terrorist activity doesn't come from the Palestinian authority.

This deserves its own response! The Late Yassar Arafat himself was a terrorist my friend. Its a known fact that Arafat was a terrorist. He did absolutely nothing to condone peace. He never abided by any agreements he made and he even turned down an offer that would've solved most if not all of the Arab/Israeli conflict.

The Israeli Government is clearly responsible for the actions it takes, the Palestinian Authority is powerless to stop popular movements that sometimes commit terrorist acts.

I smell a BS Post here. Yea the Israeli Government is responsible for their responses but they have gone out of their way to try and not to kill civilians while trying to kill the terrorists. Can't say the same for the PLO, the PA and others. You need to brush up more on Mid East History.

Repeated attacks on Palestinian police stations and the like don't help either.

Palestinian Police have been known to be terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. You attack what you know is a legitament target. I categorize this as any building that supports terror at this point in the war on terror.

4. That's a bold claim to make before he had time to respond.

This is an old game him and i have been playing. I'm still waiting on a response from him on how enforcing 17 UN Resolutions and a Cease-Fire constitutes a violation of international law.

When terrorists hide in a peaceful nation, they are harboring those people.
So when "terrorists"(/Freedom Fighters) hide in the US, like they did prior to 11.09.2001, the US was harboring terrorists, validating a bombing campaign against targets in the US?


Tell that to the 5 Arab States that did a clear act of agression against the infant state of Israel.
Please name 5 independent states who in 1948/1949 engaged in aggression against Israel.


How the hell is it questionable? Its clear that the Arab States attacked the Israelis first. Its a proven fact. Its also a proven fact that it was a clear act of aggression in violation of the UN Charter. It is also clear that the 5 Arab States ignored UN resolutions to cease and dissist. They didn't. Didn't matter anyway, Israel smacked them back.
Have we come to the point of yelling "They started it!"? Even before any of these countries were independent Jewish extremists and Arab Nationalists were bombing and shooting the shit out of each other. If you start asking who started it we must go a loooong time back.
The premature declaration of independence without settling for any borders by Gurion was the reason for the breakout of hostilities in 1948/1949. That was against the UN's plans before the Arabs violated anything.
And if you have any more "clear proven facts" please post a link so I can follow your interpretation of such facts.


This deserves its own response! The Late Yassar Arafat himself was a terrorist my friend. Its a known fact that Arafat was a terrorist. He did absolutely nothing to condone peace. He never abided by any agreements he made and he even turned down an offer that would've solved most if not all of the Arab/Israeli conflict.
There are no absolutes in this world my friend. Arafat was as much a terrorist as Ben Gurion or George Washington. And have you got the text for this "agreement" he turned down? There'll be a reason for it, rest assured.


I smell a BS Post here. Yea the Israeli Government is responsible for their responses but they have gone out of their way to try and not to kill civilians while trying to kill the terrorists. Can't say the same for the PLO, the PA and others. You need to brush up more on Mid East History.
It is in the nature of the powerless that they will respond with desperate measures, including terrorism.
PLO: Fair enough,there are militant wings in the PLO who engage in terrorism.
PA: I assume that stands for Palestinian Authority. You are wrong here. They have NEVER engaged in terrorism and throwing them into one pot with these "others" is an insult to them, to me and to yourself.
Mid East History: I point again to my post above.


Palestinian Police have been known to be terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. You attack what you know is a legitament target. I categorize this as any building that supports terror at this point in the war on terror.
That is bullshit. You call them terrorist sympathisers, yet you do not support it with evidence. Point is, the police is the only tool the PA has to fight terrorism. Attacking it while claiming the PA isn't doing it is counter-productive and cynical.
The war on terror is another thing about which I'm not gonna say anything here. But how can you make war on a political concept?

How many of these came in response to Israel defending itself?
None.

You do know that Israel has the full right to self defense right?
As do all nations, depending on the circumstances that led to the determination that they were indeed acting in self defence.

Self-Defense is also in the UN Charter.
Yes indeed it is, under the provisions set down in Article 51.

By condemning Israel's right to self-defense, they condemn their own charter.
Please provide proof that the UN "condemned Israel's right to self-defense".

Did you know that the Arab States that attacked them in the 1940s ignored UN Resolutions?
Can you provide proof to back up your allegation?

I could rattle off several nations that have violated UN Resolutions.
I just posted a link to a list of them, so I guess you could?

I'm sorry but I support Israel's right to self-defense and I condemn the UN for Condemning their right to self defense!
Again, proof please.

How about that Declaration of Human Rights?
What about it?

The terrorists don't care who they kill.
Some people might suggest that the US's "Shock and Awe" Show is in the same category.

I don't see the UN Condemning the Palestinian Authority who has a seat in the UN but isn't a nation.
The following statement (http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2005/sgsm9676.html) was issued today by the Spokesman for Secretary-General Kofi Annan:

The Secretary-General condemns the Palestinian terror attack that caused the death of six Israeli civilians and injury to four others at the Karni crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip yesterday evening. He wishes to express his deepest condolences to the families of those killed and injured.

That violates the UN Charter right there.
You were saying?

What's your response to this CH? Going to tell me I'm wrong here too even though I'm right?
I do believe that you are wrong on many of the assumptions that you have made, although that could be cleared up if you can post information that would support your allegations.

Don't be too quick to assert anything here. The Jews weren't exactly peaceful either.
The Haganah was a textbook terrorist organisation. Gurion declared them to be the new Israeli army after the proclamation on the 14.5.1948. He of course did that without setting any borders. Apparently the UN Resolution that was supposed to settle this wasn't enough - for either side. The conflict that had begun previously continued.
The UN Security Council wanted to get both sides to the table, only to have their negotiator, Graf Folke Bernadotte, shot by jewish terrorists.
...
The Haganah was 'a textbook terrorist organization'? I beg to differ - you must not mix it with Irgun and Lehi.

The resolution of 1947 had not satisfied either Jews or Arabs, but the Arab states were the ones who disregarded it and went in for a kill.

Murder of Count Bernadotte was a thundering disgrace...

...
Negotiations in Egypt shortly after between Egyptian and Jewish delegates fail because of the Israeli's refusal to rule out occupying Arabic lands.
Only 1949 a peace deal is reached, with Israel keeping its occupied territories. Part of these territories is West Jerusalem, meant to be a stateless city,which is now being declared capital of Israel, understandably outraging the Arabs, and not recognised by the global community.
...
Yes, Israel preserved its independence and occupied the land which was supposed to form an Arab state in Palestine. Two wrongs do not make a right, but, as Cromwell said, 'necessity hath no law'. It was a matter of survival - you simply cannot fight when your state is cantonized like the Jewish state of 1947 resolution.


...
The central part here is however the six-day-war. Started on the 5.6.1967 with an Israeli preemptive strike against arab air forces, for reasons that are still being speculated on,it lasted six days and led to the Israelis conquering huge territories, including the rest of jerusalem. Even Israeli Generals are now saying that the idea of an imminent threat to Israel is "primarily an insult to the Israeli army". The refusal of Israeli troops to leave the new occupied territories leads to the majority of the world siding with the Arabs.
The wars following that are merely attempts to retake the occupied lands.

With a record like that, including the continued refusal to occupy lands long after the self-defence has been played validates a certain cauciousness on part of the UN when dealing with Israel.
Erm... I've supposed that the war of 1973 was meant to put an end to the existence of Israel, am I right?

Cautiousness - yes, Israel-bashing like in 1975 - no.

This is an old game him and i have been playing. I'm still waiting on a response from him on how enforcing 17 UN Resolutions and a Cease-Fire constitutes a violation of international law.
This is an "old game", that you have been playing. I post proof and you live in denial.

Opinion of UK ATTORNEY GENERAL (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf):

Force may be used in self-defence if there is an actual or imminent threat of an armed attack; the use of force must be necessary, ie the only means of averting an attack; and the force used must be a proportionate response. It is now widely accepted that an imminent armed attack will justify the use of force if the other conditions are met..........

But regime change cannot be the objective of military action.

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html)

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

Iraq war illegal, says Annan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm)

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

Blix says Bush, Blair insincere salesmen on Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/iraq-040210-pla-daily03.htm)

The former chief U.N. weapons inspector Sunday likened the use of intelligence by the leaders of Britain and the United States to justify war in Iraq to the tactics of insincere salesmen.

Hans Blix -- who pleaded for more time to search Iraq for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons before a U.S.-led invasion in March -- said the West had a right to expect more from their leaders.

"The intention was to dramatize it (the intelligence) just as the vendors of some merchandise are trying to exaggerate the importance of what they have," Blix told BBC television.

Nearly 10 months after the war none of the biological or chemical weapons cited by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair as the reason for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq have been found.

"From politicians, our leaders in the Western world, I think we expect more than that, a bit more sincerity," Blix said.

Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm)

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.

Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."


I have posted articles such as these, time after time, yet you persist in suggesting that I have not answered your question. How long do you want to play the game?

Hehehe, doing a bit of research, I found this:
http://haganah.us

The Haganah was 'a textbook terrorist organization'? I beg to differ - you must not mix it with Irgun and Lehi.
But even a hardly fair and balanced source like
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/haganah.html
describes it like one would describe Hamas today. And it does mention that it worked together with Irgun and Lehi to overthrow the British. Palestinians have been called terrorists for less than that.


Erm... I've supposed that the war of 1973 was meant to put an end to the existence of Israel, am I right?
That depends on who you ask. Israelis will tell you it was a war for life and death, (moderate) Arabs will probably tell you it was a war to win back territories that Israel had occupied in the previous conflicts.
--------
People just naturally side with the underdogs. That may have been Israel a long time ago, but these days Israel is the big player in the region, the only player who actually has the power to end this whole thing by just stepping back and being the bigger man.
If they gave back all the occupied territories and we could start again where we left of in 1948, they can get their territory guaranteed by everyone. If the Arabs still want to attack the Jews then, I'll personally go and help them.
But it ain't gonna happen.

Hehehe, doing a bit of research, I found this:
...


But even a hardly fair and balanced source like
[url]http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/haganah.html
describes it like one would describe Hamas today. And it does mention that it worked together with Irgun and Lehi to overthrow the British. Palestinians have been called terrorists for less than that.


...
I confess myself an Anglophile and a Judaeophile, so I'm torn now... :-)


Israelis will tell you it was a war for life and death, (moderate) Arabs will probably tell you it was a war to win back territories that Israel had occupied in the previous conflicts.

...
Erm... Sadat was enunciating something very similar to the Israeli point of view.

Erm... Sadat was enunciating something very similar to the Israeli point of view.

Hey, what's wrong with Anwar al-Sadat? He seems like a very intelligent, able politician. Apparently he started the war in 1973 because the Israelis wouldn't give back the Sinai, he went to the Israeli Knesset to speak for peace, and he was awarded the Nobel Peace Price.
At least on this source it says nothing of trying to destroy Israel.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/sadat.html

Oh, and he was murdered by Ayman Al-Zawahiri, today second in command of Al Qaeda.
If The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend, then he is a good friend if the US (and therefore Israel)
;)

You need to go back and read carefully.

The so-called WMD given by the US were small samples from the American Type Collection - samples so small that they could not possibly be considered "weaponized". In addition, since these were all biological samples, none of them have been traced to a use of a biological weapon by the Iraqis.

Many nations maintain such a type collection, and the US is not the only one who gave samples to Iraqi universities. It is likely that there are universities in your country which have received samples from the American Type Collection.

As for chemical weapons, not one was manufactured or purchased from the United States. Surveys conducted after the Iran-Iraq War revealed that the types of agents in use were either of Russian manufacture, or of Russian techniques of manufacturing - techniques that are NOT used by the US.

We're talking about tabun, sarin, and mustard gases that were NOT manufactured by the US, nor did we provide advice on how to make them. It looks like the Russians either provided the weapons to them, or told them how to make them.

Before you bandy about the charge that "The US provided WMD", you should check carefully.


1. It is not hard to grow organisms that you have gotten in small quantities from any country or other source. And the fact that NO WMD's were found by the US or the UN inspectors makes it seem strange that you should say that the Iraqi goverment possessed any.

2. In the hospital that I work at, we commonly received biological samples from the US. These are for proficiency testing of the laboratory. Are we to be invaded also??????

3. When I was in university, our instructor showed us the pathway on how to make sarin gas. It's not all that hard to do and the method is very well know through-out the world by many scientists.

4. The US did give the Iraqis weapons during the 70's and 80's. The Iraqis were smart in that they only bought what they wanted and also bought from the USSR and other countries what the US wouldn't sell them.

Face it, if the US can sell something to someone they will do it, either publically or by 'illegal' mean , and it usually comes back sometime and bites them on the ass!!!!!!!!

Hey, what's wrong with Anwar al-Sadat? He seems like a very intelligent, able politician. Apparently he started the war in 1973 because the Israelis wouldn't give back the Sinai, he went to the Israeli Knesset to speak for peace, and he was awarded the Nobel Peace Price.
At least on this source it says nothing of trying to destroy Israel.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/sadat.html

Oh, and he was murdered by Ayman Al-Zawahiri, today second in command of Al Qaeda.
...
In 1970-1973 Sadat was talking about the 'year of decision', 'sacrificing one million of Egyptian soldiers', and 'the final battle'. It can be argued that his intention in 1973 was to take back only the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, but if the Israeli resistance had collapsed, would Sadat's army have stopped at pre-1967 borders? I don't think so.

In 1970-1973 Sadat was talking about the 'year of decision', 'sacrificing one million of Egyptian soldiers', and 'the final battle'. It can be argued that his intention in 1973 was to take back only the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, but if the Israeli resistance had collapsed, would Sadat's army have stopped at pre-1967 borders? I don't think so.

Well, I didn't know him personally nor did I read his memoires. I guess I can't say for sure.
If he was such an able politican and strategist, it is possible though that he said those things to keep the Egyptian population focussed, which at the time was being kinda unruly.

So when "terrorists"(/Freedom Fighters) hide in the US, like they did prior to 11.09.2001, the US was harboring terrorists, validating a bombing campaign against targets in the US?

Hmm no because we are going after those in our own country. Those that don't go after their own terrorists are guilty of harboring terrorists and deserve to be wacked.

Please name 5 independent states who in 1948/1949 engaged in aggression against Israel.

You are so stupid! Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. Iraq gave tacit support to the attack too. All were defeated and thrown back by Israel. BTW: the arab states asked the Palestinians to move out so they can attack. It was the Arabs, not the Israeli's, that caused the Palestinian Refugee problem.

Have we come to the point of yelling "They started it!"? Even before any of these countries were independent Jewish extremists and Arab Nationalists were bombing and shooting the shit out of each other. If you start asking who started it we must go a loooong time back.
The premature declaration of independence without settling for any borders by Gurion was the reason for the breakout of hostilities in 1948/1949. That was against the UN's plans before the Arabs violated anything.
And if you have any more "clear proven facts" please post a link so I can follow your interpretation of such facts.

They borders were defined. They were defined by the British Mandate of Palestine which was charged to create 2 states, Israel and Palestine. Israel had their borders and they were violated by the 5 Arab States. Is this not seeking in?

There are no absolutes in this world my friend. Arafat was as much a terrorist as Ben Gurion or George Washington. And have you got the text for this "agreement" he turned down? There'll be a reason for it, rest assured.

How the hell is George Washington a terrorist? Now you crossed the line. He is in NO WAY a terrorist. Did George Washington kill Civilians? NOPE! The British did kill civilians however. :rolleyes: Sorry that Israel was defending themselves from agression but under the UN Charter, they have the right to self defense. The Arab states did an act of agression no matter how much you try to spin it.

It is in the nature of the powerless that they will respond with desperate measures, including terrorism.

And yet, the Israelis offered up most of what the Palestinians wanted and it got turned down. Give me a break. They don't want 2 seperate states, they want 1. I hope you can see that this is the case.

PLO: Fair enough,there are militant wings in the PLO who engage in terrorism.

Under the direction of then Yasar Arafat. Thank God he's no longer around. Maybe now we can achieve peace. So far, the cease-fire is holding.

PA: I assume that stands for Palestinian Authority. You are wrong here. They have NEVER engaged in terrorism and throwing them into one pot with these "others" is an insult to them, to me and to yourself.
Mid East History: I point again to my post above.

Proof of this then please?

That is bullshit. You call them terrorist sympathisers, yet you do not support it with evidence.

*yawns* This statement is Bullshit since its being blasted all over the damn news.

Point is, the police is the only tool the PA has to fight terrorism. Attacking it while claiming the PA isn't doing it is counter-productive and cynical.

HAHAHAHA!!! Your in fantasy land dude. Your in fantasy land.

The war on terror is another thing about which I'm not gonna say anything here. But how can you make war on a political concept?

Aren't some wars on a political nature?

well they are all tits and democratically speaking about 200 years behind the western world
and we expect them to catch up in a generation

None.

Try again.

As do all nations, depending on the circumstances that led to the determination that they were indeed acting in self defence.

So you would say that having your citizens killed and then retaliating as not part of Self-Defense? That is precisely what Israel has done. They have only retaliated in response to acts of agression by neighboring states and by the terrorists.

Yes indeed it is, under the provisions set down in Article 51.

At least we agree on this.

Please provide proof that the UN "condemned Israel's right to self-defense".

Oh no. I'm not going to play that game with you. Everytime Israel attacks, Israel gets condemned. Its a known fact. The Israelis have been waging a war on terror for decades. They are going after terrorists leaders much like we are right now. Only problem is that they are in an enclosed environment where the cowards hide among civilians. The Israelis at least try not to kill civilians. Can't say the same about the terrorists. Hitting civilians is not my idea of winning favorites.

Can you provide proof to back up your allegation?

I sure can! "On April 17, 1948, it (UN SC) called on 'all persons and organizations in Palestine' to 'cease all activities of a military or para-military nature'". The Arab states ignored this. "On may 22nd, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution calling for a cease-fire, but the Arab States rejected it." So there's 2 resolutions the Arab States ignored.

I just posted a link to a list of them, so I guess you could?

I think we just said the same thing that other nations have violated UN Resolutions. Anyway, I'm still waiting on the UN to enforce them.

Again, proof please.

Israel attacks and they get condemned. They are defending themselves and I honor that.

What about it?

You tell me.

Some people might suggest that the US's "Shock and Awe" Show is in the same category.

At least we targeted military targets and not civilians.

The following statement (http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2005/sgsm9676.html) was issued today by the Spokesman for Secretary-General Kofi Annan:

The Secretary-General condemns the Palestinian terror attack that caused the death of six Israeli civilians and injury to four others at the Karni crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip yesterday evening. He wishes to express his deepest condolences to the families of those killed and injured.


You were saying?

Secretary-General Annan is only the Secretary-General. He is not the entire UN. I'm still waiting on that resolution condemning Palestinian terrorism. I haven't seen one yet.

I do believe that you are wrong on many of the assumptions that you have made, although that could be cleared up if you can post information that would support your allegations.

How is enforcing 17 UN resolutions and UN Cease-Fire a violation of International Law? You have YET to tell me but dodge it each and every time I ask.

This is an "old game", that you have been playing. I post proof and you live in denial.

I"m still waiting for proof.

Opinion of UK ATTORNEY GENERAL (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf):

Nice Guardian article and its an OPINION!!!! Learn the difference

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html)

Another Guardian article. Your losing more credibility by the minute. They are critics CH. Of course they're going to say its illegal :Rolleyes:

Iraq war illegal, says Annan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm)

He is only the Secretary-General. I'm still waiting on the resolution that says this is illegal. Haven't seen it yet. I'm also still wondering how enforcing 17 UN Resolutions and a Cease-Fire is a violation of international law.

Blix says Bush, Blair insincere salesmen on Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/iraq-040210-pla-daily03.htm)

It was faulty Intelligence. Something that has been reported time and time again in all the press. Still waiting on that proof CH.

[quote]Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm)

We already had enough Resolutions on Iraq. France backstabbed us so we used the resolutions already passed by the UNSC. I'm still waiting on Proof that it was illegal CH. None of these articles proved your case.

I have posted articles such as these, time after time, yet you persist in suggesting that I have not answered your question. How long do you want to play the game?

You haven't. I'm still waiting on that proof. I guess I'll be waiting awhile since all you have posted are O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S!

...

He is only the Secretary-General. I'm still waiting on the resolution that says this is illegal. Haven't seen it yet. I'm also still wondering how enforcing 17 UN Resolutions and a Cease-Fire is a violation of international law.

We already had enough Resolutions on Iraq. France backstabbed us so we used the resolutions already passed by the UNSC. I'm still waiting on Proof that it was illegal CH. None of these articles proved your case.


...
The UN Charter will do? (Of course it won't, I know, I know...)

Article 39

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

Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

(Emphasis mine)

...


You haven't. I'm still waiting on that proof. I guess I'll be waiting awhile since all you have posted are O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S!
Erm... like the opinions of your Supreme Court, you mean? :rolleyes:

The UN Charter will do? (Of course it won't, I know, I know...)

Took you long enough :p

Article 39

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

They decided that Iraq was a threat to peace. Therefore, we had 17 UN Resolutions passed against them. If Iraq wasn't a threat to peace, there woudldn't be a single resolution on them. If they followed the first one, we wouldn't have to add additional ones. He violated those too. Therefor, we are still legally bound to enforce them.

Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

They did this with Iraq! It didn't work. They did this in the past and it has failed utterly. Some nations just don't like to negotiate. That's an unfortunate fact :(

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Operation Desert Storm. Then the Embargo. Did it work? The first one tossed him right out of Kuwait. The next following resolutions have been disregarded time and time again and all they can do is pass more resolutions. How much longer would it have taken before someone actually did something about it? Apparently 12 years was the answer.

Article 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

And that is precisely what we did my friend. We got our allies together and we targeted Saddam for violating the UN Security Council Resolutions plus a UN Cease-Fire. :rolleyes:

(Emphasis mine)

Nah really?

Erm... like the opinions of your Supreme Court, you mean? :rolleyes:

They are a court. A court with defined powers as stated by the US Constitution. They render decisions then write opinions on their decisions. Most notably HOW they reached their decisions.

Took you long enough :p

I was drinking my tea... :)



They decided that Iraq was a threat to peace. Therefore, we had 17 UN Resolutions passed against them. If Iraq wasn't a threat to peace, there woudldn't be a single resolution on them. If they followed the first one, we wouldn't have to add additional ones. He violated those too. Therefor, we are still legally bound to enforce them.
We - you mean the US? No, the Security Council alone decides the facts and orders the use of force. The Security Council, not the US, considers 'that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate', the Security Council only 'may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.'



They did this with Iraq! It didn't work. They did this in the past and it has failed utterly. Some nations just don't like to negotiate. That's an unfortunate fact :(
The Iraqis were negotiating with the UN - remember the readmission of inspectors?



Operation Desert Storm. Then the Embargo. Did it work? The first one tossed him right out of Kuwait. The next following resolutions have been disregarded time and time again and all they can do is pass more resolutions. How much longer would it have taken before someone actually did something about it? Apparently 12 years was the answer.
It was for the UN Security Council to decide whether to do something... The decision was not made, of course.



And that is precisely what we did my friend. We got our allies together and we targeted Saddam for violating the UN Security Council Resolutions plus a UN Cease-Fire. :rolleyes:
Oh yeah, 'the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee' had decided to attack Iraq... Don't you want to buy a suspension (of disbelief) bridge in Moscow?



Nah really?
Aye...



They are a court. A court with defined powers as stated by the US Constitution. They render decisions then write opinions on their decisions. Most notably HOW they reached their decisions.
Thank you for your clarification.

I was drinking my tea... :)

I'm on my 4th cup of Coffee :P

We - you mean the US?

We=the United Nations.

No, the Security Council alone decides the facts and orders the use of force.

They did already! Then they approved the UN Cease-fire that Hussein Violated. You know the rules of I.L. Violate a Cease-Fire, prepare for bombs to be dropped :P

The Security Council, not the US, considers 'that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate', the Security Council only 'may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.'

They already approved the measures when they approved all 17 UN Resolutions and the UN Cease-Fire. All of which Saddam Violated.

The Iraqis were negotiating with the UN - remember the readmission of inspectors?


And yet they didn't let them have unfettered access! Violation of UN Resolutions right there. They didn't come clean when asked to come clean. Violation of UN Resolutions right there. :rolleyes: Hussein didn't care what he did. He was playing a game with the world and he lost.

It was for the UN Security Council to decide whether to do something... The decision was not made, of course.

The decision was made for them when Hussein violated their Resolutions (Something they do need to enforce but dont) and had their cease-fire violated.


Oh yeah, 'the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee' had decided to attack Iraq... Don't you want to buy a suspension (of disbelief) bridge in Moscow?

Nope. I just know that if a Cease-Fire is violated, its time to put down the flags of diplomacy and attack them. That is what you do when a cease-fire is violated time and again. Not to mention enforcing resolutions that the UNSC approved. See a pattern here? The Coalition of the Willing is enforcing the UNs own rules for the UN.


Aye...


:)

Thank you for your clarification.

No Problem.

I'm on my 4th cup of Coffee :P
Wow.. :-)



We=the United Nations.
The UN, the US... it's so easy to confuse it...



They did already! Then they approved the UN Cease-fire that Hussein Violated. You know the rules of I.L. Violate a Cease-Fire, prepare for bombs to be dropped :P
'Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations'

It occurs to me that I missed the Iraqi armed attack against the US, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, or Turkey, or, for that matter, Iran...

All other ceasefire violations, of whatever nature they might be, do not entail immediate bombing.



They already approved the measures when they approved all 17 UN Resolutions and the UN Cease-Fire. All of which Saddam Violated.
You may violate any UN resolution you like to - until the UNSC decides that your time has come (that's theory, of course, not the real life).




And yet they didn't let them have unfettered access! Violation of UN Resolutions right there. They didn't come clean when asked to come clean. Violation of UN Resolutions right there. :rolleyes: Hussein didn't care what he did. He was playing a game with the world and he lost.
Mr Blix was of different opinion, IIRC.


The decision was made for them when Hussein violated their Resolutions (Something they do need to enforce but dont) and had their cease-fire violated.
A man commits a murder in a public place. Should we try him in a court of law, or should we shoot him in the head immediately? After all, it can be argued that the killer has forfeited his right to life.




Nope. I just know that if a Cease-Fire is violated, its time to put down the flags of diplomacy and attack them. That is what you do when a cease-fire is violated time and again. Not to mention enforcing resolutions that the UNSC approved. See a pattern here? The Coalition of the Willing is enforcing the UNs own rules for the UN.
No, the coalition enforces the decisions of its leaders.

How is enforcing 17 UN resolutions and UN Cease-Fire a violation of International Law? You have YET to tell me but dodge it each and every time I ask.
You know Corny, you have posted this same diatribe countless times with different posters on here. You have been shown proof countless times that the actions of the US were in fact a violation of the UN Charter, hence illegal. There has also been proof given by experts in the field that the US acted illegally in invading Iraq, yet you keep on cycling this redundant question.

The onus is on you to PROVE that the US attack on Iraq was in fact legal. The problem is that you cannot bring forth those "facts", because there are none.

Perhaps you will realize how wrong you are when you actually read ALL of Security Council Resolution 1441, and finally understand exactly what those words mean. Until such time, you are just wasting bandwidth. :eek:

And no, your OPINION does not outweigh those of Richard Perle, Koffi Anan, Hans Blix, and the Attorney General of the United Kingdom.

Time for you to suck it up and move forward?

You know Corny, you have posted this same diatribe countless times with different posters on here. You have been shown proof countless times that the actions of the US were in fact a violation of the UN Charter, hence illegal.

Then where's the proof? You said it has been shown but it hasn't. I'm still waiting SO STOP DODGING!!! You know full well that this is LEGAL due to violations of the Resolutions AND the UN Cease-Fire. Sorry but your not showing proof.

There has also been proof given by experts in the field that the US acted illegally in invading Iraq, yet you keep on cycling this redundant question.

Those are there O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S and not evidence. You have to do better than the opinions of those who don't like the fact that we are doing the UNs business.

The onus is on you to PROVE that the US attack on Iraq was in fact legal. The problem is that you cannot bring forth those "facts", because there are none.

I have proved that are invasion of Iraq is legal. Its called ENFORCEMENT OF UN RESOLUTIONS AND CEASE-FIRE. You can't get any more legal than that!

Perhaps you will realize how wrong you are when you actually read ALL of Security Council Resolution 1441, and finally understand exactly what those words mean. Until such time, you are just wasting bandwidth. :eek:

*yawns*

And no, your OPINION does not outweigh those of Richard Perle, Koffi Anan, Hans Blix, and the Attorney General of the United Kingdom.

Time for you to suck it up and move forward?

Why don't you suck up to the fact that we are doing the UNs business?

... when you actually read ALL of Security Council Resolution 1441, and finally understand exactly what those words mean. ...
'13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations...'

The 'serous consequences' may include not only using military power, but also employing 'measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions (Art. 42)'.

There is nothing 'automatic' in 1441 - the Council reserves the right to decide for itself, it 'decides to remain seized of the matter.'

...


I have proved that are invasion of Iraq is legal. Its called ENFORCEMENT OF UN RESOLUTIONS AND CEASE-FIRE. You can't get any more legal than that!

Why don't you suck up to the fact that we are doing the UNs business?
As for me, invading a country in the name of upholding ceasefire is not unlike having sex in the name of upholding virginity...

You (the US and its allies) are doing your business.

Wow.. :-)

I love coffee :D


The UN, the US... it's so easy to confuse it...

I agree with you there :)


'Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations'

Ok so our actions are in self defense. After all they did fire on our planes constently :p Ok its a stretch but hey, you did quote this article :p

It occurs to me that I missed the Iraqi armed attack against the US, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, or Turkey, or, for that matter, Iran...

Firing on US planes can, and probably does in some circles, constitute an armed attack on the US and Britain.

All other ceasefire violations, of whatever nature they might be, do not entail immediate bombing.


Violate a cease-fire, its cause for war. The US got tired of it and decided to do something about enforcing those resolutions that the UN doesn't seem to want to be enforced.

You may violate any UN resolution you like to - until the UNSC decides that your time has come (that's theory, of course, not the real life).

It is only a theory and after 12 years of Hussein's BS the US decided to enforce them. That is precisely what we are doing. Enforcing the Resolutions that the UNSC passed. Since the UN doesn't have a military force, it is up to the member nations to do the enforcing.



Mr Blix was of different opinion, IIRC.

Its only his opinion. I have opinions as does everyone else. That is all it is however, opinions.

A man commits a murder in a public place. Should we try him in a court of law, or should we shoot him in the head immediately? After all, it can be argued that the killer has forfeited his right to life.

If it were me? Shoot'em in the head if we can prove that he was infact the killer. However, I have faith in the justice system. However, you are comparing two different things here.



No, the coalition enforces the decisions of its leaders.

And its up to those governments to enforce the UN resolutions. My line still holds :P

As for me, invading a country in the name of upholding ceasefire is not unlike having sex in the name of upholding virginity...

You (the US and its allies) are doing your business.

The coalition is doing the UNs business wether the world likes it or not.

...



Ok so our actions are in self defense. After all they did fire on our planes constently :p Ok its a stretch but hey, you did quote this article :p



Firing on US planes can, and probably does in some circles, constitute an armed attack on the US and Britain.


...

'The enemy was dastardly shooting at our planes, which were engaged in peaceful bombing.'


...




Violate a cease-fire, its cause for war. The US got tired of it and decided to do something about enforcing those resolutions that the UN doesn't seem to want to be enforced.



...
Would you mind to quote the relevant part of standing international law?

...



It is only a theory and after 12 years of Hussein's BS the US decided to enforce them. That is precisely what we are doing. Enforcing the Resolutions that the UNSC passed. Since the UN doesn't have a military force, it is up to the member nations to do the enforcing.

...

And its up to those governments to enforce the UN resolutions. My line still holds :P
Yes, it is up to UN members to do the fighting, not to Mr Annan. But -

'Article 48

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.'

Please enumerate the countries determined by the UNSC to carry out the invasion of Iraq.

The coalition is doing the UNs business wether the world likes it or not.
I daresay the world doesn't like it (if you can believe the opinion polls).

'The enemy was dastardly shooting at our planes, which were engaged in peaceful bombing.'

You have a problem here. We don't bomb unless we were shot at! LOL

Would you mind to quote the relevant part of standing international law?

Once a cease-fire is broken by one side, the other side can engage in combat. Hussein violated such a cease-fire and 12 years later, after negotiations failed, we dropped bombs over him.

Yes, it is up to UN members to do the fighting, not to Mr Annan. But -

No buts about it.

'Article 48

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.'

And they did determine it when they agreed to the Cease-Fire terms. Once that's violated, it becomes null and void and war is the result wether war is approved or not by the UN! BTW: When did the US give up its right to wage war on another country? We haven't given up that right as far as I know.

Please enumerate the countries determined by the UNSC to carry out the invasion of Iraq.

Most of the known world in 1991. They all approved of the UN Cease-Fire that was subsequently violated by Saddam Hussein and therefore, war became authorized automatically :rolleyes:

I daresay the world doesn't like it (if you can believe the opinion polls).

Does it look like I care about world opinion?

You have a problem here. We don't bomb unless we were shot at! LOL
Really? That's amazing!



Once a cease-fire is broken by one side, the other side can engage in combat. Hussein violated such a cease-fire and 12 years later, after negotiations failed, we dropped bombs over him.
I repeat my question.

Would you mind to quote the relevant part of standing international law?




And they did determine it when they agreed to the Cease-Fire terms. Once that's violated, it becomes null and void and war is the result wether war is approved or not by the UN! BTW: When did the US give up its right to wage war on another country? We haven't given up that right as far as I know.
The US signed and ratified the UN Charter. Your position contradicts that treaty.



Most of the known world in 1991. They all approved of the UN Cease-Fire that was subsequently violated by Saddam Hussein and therefore, war became authorized automatically :rolleyes:
You really have to read 1441.

Does it look like I care about world opinion?
Hell no! :)

Really? That's amazing!

Iraq shot at us and its bombs away. Sorry but that's a fact of life. They even so much as targeted us, the radar site was gone. Its self defense.

I repeat my question.

Would you mind to quote the relevant part of standing international law?

I did already. Its a known fact that once a cease-fire is violated, the other said can wage war against the violators. Its happened through out all of history.



The US signed and ratified the UN Charter. Your position contradicts that treaty.

Don't even go there. It isn't a treaty my friend and we've already debated that enough :D


You really have to read 1441.

I did.

...


I did already. Its a known fact that once a cease-fire is violated, the other said can wage war against the violators. Its happened through out all of history.




Don't even go there. It isn't a treaty my friend and we've already debated that enough :D

...
A lot of things happened throughout all of history. I'm still waitng for a quote from some law of war. I'm waiting in vain, of course.

I'm going, my friend... I want to see you denouncing the US Senate again. ;)

A lot of things happened throughout all of history. I'm still waitng for a quote from some law of war. I'm waiting in vain, of course.

I'm going, my friend... I want to see you denouncing the US Senate again. ;)

I have never denounced the US Senate. :D

I have never denounced the US Senate. :D
I'm offering you an opportunity to do it here - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424981 :)