NationStates Jolt Archive

FINALLY! I thought we'd never get serious with the terrorists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11857580/?GT1=7850
U.S. launches largest Iraq air assault in 3 years
50 aircraft, 1,500 soldiers attack targets north of Baghdad

U.S. military handout via Reuters
U.S. helicopters leave their Iraqi base for the assault Thursday in a province north of Baghdad.



• Operation Swarmer
March 16: The U.S. military leads an offensive in Iraq dubbed Operation Swarmer.

Updated: 12:38 p.m. ET March 16, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. forces, joined by Iraqi troops, on Thursday launched the largest air assault since the U.S.-led invasion, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital, the military said.

The U.S. military said the offensive, dubbed Operation Swarmer, was aimed at clearing “a suspected insurgent operating area” northeast of Samarra and was expected to continue over several days.

“More than 1,500 Iraqi and Coalition troops, over 200 tactical vehicles, and more than 50 aircraft participated in the operation,” the military statement said.

Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, was the site of a massive bombing against a Shiite shrine on Feb. 22 that touched off sectarian bloodshed that has killed more than 500 and injured hundreds more, threatening to push Iraq into civil war.

Near the end of the first day of the operation, the military said, “a number of enemy weapons caches have been captured, containing artillery shells, explosives, IED-making materials, and military uniforms.”

Part of Sunni triangle
Samarra is a key city in Salahuddin province, a major part of the so-called Sunni triangle where insurgents have been active since shortly after the U.S.-led invasion three years ago. Saddam Hussein was captured in the province, not far from its capital and his hometown, Tikrit.

Iraq’s interim Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the attack had been necessary to prevent insurgents from forming a new stronghold such as they had established in Fallujah, west of Baghdad.

“After Fallujah and some of the operations carried out successfully in the Euphrates and Syrian border many of the insurgents moved to areas nearer to Baghdad,” Zebari said on CNN. “They have to be pulled out by the roots.”

The assault came as Iraq’s new parliament was sworn in Thursday, with parties still deadlocked over the next government, vehicles banned from Baghdad’s streets to prevent car bombings and the country under the shadow of a feared civil war.

The long-expected first session, which took place within days of the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion, lasted just over 30 minutes and was adjourned indefinitely because the legislature still has no speaker.

Locals hear explosions
Residents in the targeted area said there was a heavy U.S. and Iraqi troop presence in the area and large explosions could be heard in the distance.

It was not clear if the U.S. aircraft had carried out any raids nor were there reports of insurgent resistance.

The operation, residents said, appeared to be concentrated near four villages — Jillam, Mamlaha, Banat Hassan and Bukaddou — about 20 miles north of Samarra. The villages are near the highway leading from Samarra to the city of Adwar.

Waqas al-Juwanya, a spokesman for Iraq’s joint coordination center in nearby Dowr, said “unknown gunmen exist in this area, killing and kidnapping policemen, soldiers and civilians.”

YES!!! Shoot the Terrorists dead!:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Honestly, this is something the U.S. should have done a long time ago.

May be to little too late. We needed to show serious force right up front. We needed the 400,000 troops that many in the Armed Forces asked for at the beginning of the occupation. I've seen operation after operation like this since then and we just go, kill a bunch of bad guys along with some civilians and then leave and in a few months its right back to the way it was. I hate this administraction, but I really hope they succeed in Iraq because it would be a disaster for the US and the world if Iraq implodes. I'm just afarid they are way too incompetent to pull it off. The best I think we can hope for is for Iraq to not fall completetly apart before we get a new administration.

May be to little too late. We needed to show serious force right up front. We needed the 400,000 troops that many in the Armed Forces asked for at the beginning of the occupation. I've seen operation after operation like this since then and we just go, kill a bunch of bad guys along with some civilians and then leave and in a few months its right back to the way it was. I hate this administraction, but I really hope they succeed in Iraq because it would be a disaster for the US and the world if Iraq implodes. I'm just afarid they are way too incompetent to pull it off. The best I think we can hope for is for Iraq to not fall completetly apart before we get a new administration.

Amen to that. Still, better late than never.

I almost think that these coordinated strikes are PR tools. When I heard about this on the radio, this morning, it was billed as the biggest strike since the initial invasion. If we are serious about killing terrorists, we should be doing this every day and every night until there are no more IED bombings, no more assasinations of Iraqi officials, and no more massacres of new police and army recruits.

I almost think that these coordinated strikes are PR tools.
Funny, I feel the same way. This is an election year, afterall, and the Republicans have been having a tough time, what with the indictments and the incompetence and all.

Are you serious?

50 planes! oh noes! [/sarcasm]

this is a very small offensive being labeled as a D-day.
Propaganda crap.

Are you serious?

50 planes! oh noes! [/sarcasm]

this is a very small offensive being labeled as a D-day.
Propaganda crap.

I think you're right.
Maybe we need a D-Day.:(

FINALLY! I thought we'd never get serious with the terrorists.
They still haven't. The attacks are against the insurgents - there is a difference.

I'm wondering about the collateral damage this will cause, how many civilians will die due to this "show of force".

They still haven't. The attacks are against the insurgents - there is a difference.

I'm wondering about the collateral damage this will cause, how many civilians will die due to this "show of force".

No, there isn't. "Insurgents" is a soft term used by the media to call the terrorists now.

It's like calling "Wheat" "Grain". Same dif.

No, there isn't. "Insurgents" is a soft term used by the media to call the terrorists now.

It's like calling "Wheat" "Grain". Same dif.

So if the US is invaded, then its citizens that take up arms are terrorists and not insurgents?

The insurgents become terrorist when they start terrorising and targeting the civilian population.

Insurgents remain insurgents as long as their target is soldiers and not civilians.

No, there isn't. "Insurgents" is a soft term used by the media to call the terrorists now.

It's like calling "Wheat" "Grain". Same dif.
Actually, that's not true. There's the Sunni insurgency and then there's Zarkawi's (sp?) Al Qaeda In Iraq, which is terrorist organization. They often work in parellel, but they are different organizations with different goals. The insurgency wants to maintain the standard of living Sunni's enjoyed during Saddam's reign, AQ just wants to fuck everything up as much as possible to give the US a black eye.

So if the US is invaded, then its citizens that take up arms are terrorists and not insurgents?

The insurgents become terrorist when they start terrorising and targeting the civilian population.

Insurgents remain insurgents as long as their target is soldiers and not civilians.
Well, he's right about tactics. The insurgents have been targetting civilians for a long time. Even children. As I posted, there's a difference in goals, but the insurgents do use terrorist tactics.

Actually, that's not true. There's the Sunni insurgency and then there's Zarkawi's (sp?) Al Qaeda In Iraq, which is terrorist organization. They often work in parellel, but they are different organizations with different goals. The insurgency wants to maintain the standard of living Sunni's enjoyed during Saddam's reign, AQ just wants to fuck everything up as much as possible to give the US a black eye.

eh...alright. You have a point.

That still doesn't make 'em any better.

So if the US is invaded, then its citizens that take up arms are terrorists and not insurgents?

The insurgents become terrorist when they start terrorising and targeting the civilian population.

Insurgents remain insurgents as long as their target is soldiers and not civilians.

They recklessly kill whoever.

And yes, anyone who guerilla fights the U.S. (esp. in the name of Islam) is a terrorist.

They recklessly kill whoever.

And yes, anyone who guerilla fights the U.S. (esp. in the name of Islam) is a terrorist.

Some recklessly kill whoever

Some recklessly kill US soldiers.

Those who kills whoever = Terrorists
Those who kill US, UK, DK, Italian, etc... soldiers = Insurgents

Well, he's right about tactics. The insurgents have been targetting civilians for a long time. Even children. As I posted, there's a difference in goals, but the insurgents do use terrorist tactics.

I thought we went by a guilty until proven innocent principle?

We can tell they are insurgents easy enough, heck, they'll tell you that, but I don't see how you can claim that they are terrorists before you can prove that they have personally been responsible for the killing of civilians.

An insurgent needs a trial before he can be called a terrorist.

Actually, that's not true. There's the Sunni insurgency and then there's Zarkawi's (sp?) Al Qaeda In Iraq, which is terrorist organization. They often work in parellel, but they are different organizations with different goals. The insurgency wants to maintain the standard of living Sunni's enjoyed during Saddam's reign, AQ just wants to fuck everything up as much as possible to give the US a black eye.
My thoughts in other words.


And yes, anyone who guerilla fights the U.S. (esp. in the name of Islam) is a terrorist.
Maybe the current administration feels that way, but that doesn't make it so. It is not a terrorist act to attack US military forces using guerilla tactics.
(But this is a question of definitions...)

I thought we went by a guilty until proven innocent principle?

We can tell they are insurgents easy enough, heck, they'll tell you that, but I don't see how you can claim that they are terrorists before you can prove that they have personally been responsible for the killing of civilians.

An insurgent needs a trial before he can be called a terrorist.
Insurgents have blown up school bus stops, police recruiting offices, markets, restaraunts and have claimed responsibility for them. They have kidnapped and murdered foreign aid workers, foreign contractors, etc... By your own definition, the one you posted in this thread, that makes them terrorists.

definitions of terrorism:
One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.

Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.

a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. ...

as opposed to insurgency:
an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict

An insurgency is an armed rebellion by any irregular armed force that rises up against an established authority, government, or administration. Those carrying out an insurgency are “insurgents”. Insurgents conduct sabotage and harassment. Insurgents usually are in opposition to a civil authority or government primarily in the hope of improving their condition.


In fact, I even doubt there is an insurgency per say in Iraq, considering these definitons. Not very organized, is it? Sounds more like a rebellion to me.

But although it is easy for an insurgent to be classified as a terrorist, it must first be proven that they have attacked civilians/non-combatants AND/OR that they have used fear/terror for political gains.

FINALLY! I thought we'd never get serious with the terrorists.

~~Snippage~~

Honestly, this is something the U.S. should have done a long time
How many cities and towns will the US have to flatten to achieve their goal? How many more innocent people will have to die in a war that should never been fought?

Insurgents have blown up school bus stops, police recruiting offices, markets, restaraunts and have claimed responsibility for them. They have kidnapped and murdered foreign aid workers, foreign contractors, etc... By your own definition, the one you posted in this thread, that makes them terrorists.

No, that makes the insurgents that blow up school bus stops, police recruiting offices, markets and restaurants terrorists.

Everyone who does not do any of these things, is not a terrorist. Therefore, it is necessary to be sure that they have done these things before you call them a terrorist.

You must prove their individual guilt, because the insurgents are not collectively responsible for each and everyone's actions.

How many cities and towns will the US have to flatten to achieve their goal? How many more innocent people will have to die in a war that should never been fought?

Shut-up and keep your nose out my country's business!:mad: ;)

Shut-up and keep your nose out my country's business!:mad: ;)

Hmm...

so much for the coalition I see.

But remember: innocent until proven guilty.

No, that makes the insurgents that blow up school bus stops, police recruiting offices, markets and restaurants terrorists.

Everyone who does not do any of these things, is not a terrorist. Therefore, it is necessary to be sure that they have done these things before you call them a terrorist.

You must prove their individual guilt, because the insurgents are not collectively responsible for each and everyone's actions.
Funny, but they make no bones about it. They claim resposibility for these kinds of acts. Is a confession enough for proof? And as far as proving individual guilt, this is a war. If you pick up a gun you're a player and you should expect to be shot first and asked questions if you live. You act like this is just a bunch of people who are acting individually. It isn't these are organized bands of insurgents who kidnap and kill civilians and who blow up civilian targets and who are much more bold in claiming resposibility for these acts than you are to assigning guilt to them.

You: You have to prove that they each did it.
Them: No, actually we did it and we're gonna keep doing it.
You: Its innocent until proven guilty.
Them: No, we're guilty. We did it and we like it. We're gonna do it again. here, watch:

Kablamo!!!!!

Them: See? We did that.
You: You need to prove each one of them individually did it.

I almost think that these coordinated strikes are PR tools. When I heard about this on the radio, this morning, it was billed as the biggest strike since the initial invasion. If we are serious about killing terrorists, we should be doing this every day and every night until there are no more IED bombings, no more assasinations of Iraqi officials, and no more massacres of new police and army recruits.
And no more towns, and no more villages, and no more cities, and no more infastructure, and no more people........:rolleyes:

Hmm...

so much for the coalition I see.
Your country's not in the coalition.

Funny, but they make no bones about it. They claim resposibility for these kinds of acts. Is a confession enough for proof? And as far as proving individual guilt, this is a war. If you pick up a gun you're a player and you should expect to be shot first and asked questions if you live. You act like this is just a bunch of people who are acting individually. It isn't these are organized bands of insurgents who kidnap and kill civilians and who blow up civilian targets and who are much more bold in claiming resposibility for these acts than you are to assigning guilt to them.

You do know that confession is admission of guilt right? Yeah, you do, you just said so :p

What I am saying is: There is no "THEM" it's a bunch of them's. Some of them are, some of them aren't. It's possible that most of them are. Still, not every insurgent is a terrorist and not every terrorist is an insurgent.

Insurgents fully expect to be shot. Terrorists probably do too. So do soldiers.

But if an insurgent is arrested as an enemy combatant and the US then says "This guy is a terrorist" whereafter the guy says "No I am not! I only targetted US soldiers! That's not terrorism!" but the US just decides to accuse him of it anyway, isn't that a problem?

It's hypothetical I know, but it seems to be invading American society that: if you are against the US, you are a terrorist. That's simply not true.

Note: I am not supporting terrorists or their actions. I am not being apologetic towards these brutal people. What I am doing is trying to make sure that people realize that just calling people something isn't enough to make them so: you need proof (although admission is enough).

If a US soldier shoots someone, it isn't necessarily a terrorist. It could be an actual freedom fighter (one who avoids civilians) or even an unarmed civilian. It is war, so anybody with weapons who is being a threat is a legal target, but that doesn't mean that every legal target is a terrorist.

Your country's not in the coalition.

It is, with 500 soldiers. Not that I support it, but it is in the coalition.

Shut-up and keep your nose out my country's business!:mad: ;)
Nice flame there.

I am sure the Iraqis said the same to the US but they didn't listen.

BTW, Iraq is not your countrys' business.

I once heard the perfect solution to all the problems in the middle east.

1. Build a 300 ft. tall wall around the ME

2. Get one 400 ft ladder.

3. Toss all the grenades, guns, tanks, bombs and such as they could possibly want

4. put a net across the top (no fly-zone, no-one goes in, no one goes out)

5. For six months, let them have at it.

6. After six months, check on them, give those left more tanks, guns, ammo, what ever weapons they need, and let them have at it some more

7. Repeat the process until there's one guy left

8. Shoot the guy.

9. Tear the wall down, and voila! the ME is finally safe!
:p

Nice flame there.

I am sure the Iraqis said the same to the US but they didn't listen.

BTW, Iraq is not your countrys' business.

I said YOU stay out of OUR business. I never said anything about US getting into OTHER PEOPLE'S business.
:D

I thought we went by a guilty until proven innocent principle?

We can tell they are insurgents easy enough, heck, they'll tell you that, but I don't see how you can claim that they are terrorists before you can prove that they have personally been responsible for the killing of civilians.

An insurgent needs a trial before he can be called a terrorist.

So do your standards apply to US Soldiers? I'm thinking they do not.

I once heard the perfect solution to all the problems in the US.

1. Build a 300 ft. tall wall around the US

2. Get one 400 ft ladder.

3. Toss all the grenades, guns, tanks, bombs and such as they could possibly want

4. put a net across the top (no fly-zone, no-one goes in, no one goes out)

5. For six months, let them have at it.

6. After six months, check on them, give those states left more tanks, guns, ammo, what ever weapons they need, and let them have at it some more

7. Repeat the process until there's one guy left (or just non-violent people)

8. Shoot the guy (if violent).

9. Tear the wall down, and voila! the US is finally safe from all those christian fundamentalists and gun-nuts! And the only thing left is a bunch of non-violent people.
:p

Notice how I changed your quote to fit another situation.

Your post was in poor taste. Although I figure you were probably trying to be funny, I find that you failed. Badly.

So do your standards apply to US Soldiers? I'm thinking they do not.

Are they not being tried for whenever they are accused of war crimes? If they are found innocent, are they not released? if they are found guilty, are they not punished?

I sure hope they are being tried for when they do commit war crimes.

Can you give me one good reason for why US soldiers who may have committed war crimes shouldn't be tried? Often the evidence is presented first (pics, videos, etc...) as proof of guilt and thus it becomes necessary to dispute whether they really are guilty or not (forged images, not actual war crimes, etc...)

You do know that confession is admission of guilt right? Yeah, you do, you just said so :p

What I am saying is: There is no "THEM" it's a bunch of them's. Some of them are, some of them aren't. It's possible that most of them are. Still, not every insurgent is a terrorist and not every terrorist is an insurgent.

Insurgents fully expect to be shot. Terrorists probably do too. So do soldiers.

But if an insurgent is arrested as an enemy combatant and the US then says "This guy is a terrorist" whereafter the guy says "No I am not! I only targetted US soldiers! That's not terrorism!" but the US just decides to accuse him of it anyway, isn't that a problem?

It's hypothetical I know, but it seems to be invading American society that: if you are against the US, you are a terrorist. That's simply not true.



It is, with 500 soldiers.
Okay, we can agree there. How about we put it this way:

There is a large overall insurgency in Iraq that consists of several independent, organized groups that work for a common goal: the maintenance of Sunni hegemony in Iraq. This political entity should not be confused with AQ in Iraq. Many of the organizations that make up the insurgency use terrorist tactics to try to destablize the interim government. I agree the administration throws the word "terrorist" around too much, though.

Okay, we can agree there. How about we put it this way:

There is a large overall insurgency in Iraq that consists of several independent, organized groups that work for a common goal: the maintenance of Sunni hegemony in Iraq. This political entity should not be confused with AQ in Iraq. Many, but not all, of the organizations that make up the insurgency use terrorist tactics to try to destablize the interim government. I agree the administration throws the word "terrorist" around too much, though.

Yep, I think that hits the spot pretty well. Although I think the bolded part that I added is kinda important as my side of the debate.

It is, with 500 soldiers. Not that I support it, but it is in the coalition.
I may be wrong, but I thought those soldiers were in Afghanistan. I didn't think Canada had any soldiers in Iraq. :confused:

I may be wrong, but I thought those soldiers were in Afghanistan. I didn't think Canada had any soldiers in Iraq. :confused:

:D I am not Canadian (and I am wondering if I should take that neutrally, as a compliment or as an insult. I guess I'll just take anything as a compliment.)

I am European. Okay, fine, I am Danish :p

I said YOU stay out of OUR business. I never said anything about US getting into OTHER PEOPLE'S business.
:D
Seems rather hypocritical of you don't you think? :eek:

Whether you realize it or not, what the US is doing in Iraq is the worlds' business.

BTW, if you don't like me posting in this thread, you have a couple of choices, such as have the thread deleted or put me on ignore, but I am not going to go away because you don't like dissent. ;)

YES!!! Shoot the Terrorists dead!:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:
The 6 shooting smilies alone show your level of thinking.
Do you think terrorists come in a fixed number like enemies in the first Quake, and when you shoot enough there'll be no more?

The 6 shooting smilies alone show your level of thinking.
Do you think terrorists come in a fixed number like enemies in the first Quake, and when you shoot enough there'll be no more?

No, I think they are like Golden Eye terrorists. Where if you stay in one place more come no matter how many you kill. Oh, the memories of hiding in that room with that ak......

Seems rather hypocritical of you don't you think? :eek:

Whether you realize it or not, what the US is doing in Iraq is the worlds' business.

BTW, if you don't like me posting in this thread, you have a couple of choices, such as have the thread deleted or put me on ignore, but I am not going to go away because you don't like dissent. ;)


Blah blah blah!

My hypocrisy problems are between me and my God! (stick my tongue out at you)

No, I think they are like Golden Eye terrorists. Where if you stay in one place more come no matter how many you kill. Oh, the memories of hiding in that room with that ak......

Nice :D made me laugh.

So, do you believe me or not that I will hold US soldiers to the same standard? If I do, then insurgents are more likely to fall below than US soldiers are, and I do.

Blah blah blah!

My hypocrisy problems are between me and my God! (stick my tongue out at you)

tsk tsk, I am your God and I order you to deal with that person right now :p

I think I should leave this thread while I still can.

The 6 shooting smilies alone show your level of thinking.
Do you think terrorists come in a fixed number like enemies in the first Quake, and when you shoot enough there'll be no more?

Eventually, yes.

No, I think they are like Golden Eye terrorists. Where if you stay in one place more come no matter how many you kill. Oh, the memories of hiding in that room with that ak......
Well... yeah... I guess that's my point.
Great game that. Never managed to get the invisibility cheat. Stands as one of my great failures in life.

:D I am not Canadian (and I am wondering if I should take that neutrally, as a compliment or as an insult. I guess I'll just take anything as a compliment.)

I am European. Okay, fine, I am Danish :p
Oh.

I was talking to CanuckHeaven, not you.

BTW - I've been buying a shit load of Danish beer and cheese and have been telling others to do the same. ;)

Eventually, yes.
So terrorists aren't made by seeing images in the media, say of bombing raids they perceive as unjust? That seeing US forces fight side by side with a government perceived as sectarian and dominated by their religious enemies won't actually strengthen their recruiting?
How do you think wars are sustained?

Oh.

I was talking to CanuckHeaven, not you.

BTW - I've been buying a shit load of Danish beer and cheese and have been telling others to do the same. ;)

Belgian beer is better. French cheese is better. Trust me, I know :p Danish beers and cheeses aren't bad though. What you really want is the ham and the pastry. The milk is pretty good too, but I think Argentina and New Zealand make better beef. Still, the beef in Denmark is pretty good too :p

Still, I mentioned the 500 soldiers *grin* you quoted me on that followed by saying that you didn't think there were canadian soldiers in Iraq, so I mentioned that my country is not Canada but Denmark and Denmark does have 500 soldiers in Iraq (or thereabout, I am not even sure).


It is, with 500 soldiers. Not that I support it, but it is in the coalition.

I may be wrong, but I thought those soldiers were in Afghanistan. I didn't think Canada had any soldiers in Iraq.

Belgian beer is better. French cheese is better. Trust me, I know :p Danish beers and cheeses aren't bad though. What you really want is the ham and the pastry. The milk is pretty good too, but I think Argentina and New Zealand make better beef. Still, the beef in Denmark is pretty good too :p

Still, I mentioned the 500 soldiers *grin* you quoted me on that followed by saying that you didn't think there were canadian soldiers in Iraq, so I mentioned that my country is not Canada but Denmark and Denmark does have 500 soldiers in Iraq (or thereabout, I am not even sure).
Oh, sorry. I thought the original, "So much for the coalition" was from CanuckHeaven. Nevermind.

I'm buying Danish because of the boycott, though, not the taste. Although I do like the cheese. The beers alright. Not that it matters. You stop caring what the beer tastes like after about the third beer.

FINALLY! I thought we'd never get serious with the terrorists.

snip

YES!!! Shoot the Terrorists dead!:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Honestly, this is something the U.S. should have done a long time ago.
So let me get this straight. In the thread about how Missouri is refusing to fund contraceptives because it supposedly encourages promiscuity, you're Mister Holier-Than-Thou, but here you're applauding the killing of people. And starting the thread with a big fucking smiley face on it, no less. Could you be a bigger fucking hypocrite? You're the kind of christian that gives christianity a bad name.

So let me get this straight. In the thread about how Missouri is refusing to fund contraceptives because it supposedly encourages promiscuity, you're Mister Holier-Than-Thou, but here you're applauding the killing of people. And starting the thread with a big fucking smiley face on it, no less. Could you be a bigger fucking hypocrite? You're the kind of christian that gives christianity a bad name.

As far as murderers and sex-offenders go, nope, I don't care about them one iota.

Child molesters, for example- here's what Christ said- "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

Murderers- Christ's thoughts- "Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder..."

He seems to be with me on this one.

P.S.- Terrorist=Murderer

As far as murderers and sex-offenders go, nope, I don't care about them one iota.

Child molesters, for example- here's what Christ said- "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

Murderers- Christ's thoughts- "Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder..."

He seems to be with me on this one.

P.S.- Terrorist=Murderer

So you take your beliefs from a man who was most likely mentally disturbed in some way?

So you take your beliefs from a man who was most likely mentally disturbed in some way?

Yes! I proudly bear the name of a "madman"!:D

"For We are not ashamed to own our Lord"

P.S.- Terrorist=Murderer

No, a murderer does not terrorize his victims or does not have the intention to do so, he just kills them and may accidently cause terror. He might have the intention, but then he is more than a murderer.

A terrorist actively kills with the intent to cause fear.

There is a difference.

So very tragic. Firstly, where is the incontravertible evidence that the antagonists are not merely reactionariers opposed to your as of yet legally unjustified occupation of their state?

Secondly, why do you have the right to perform operations within the sovereigntly of another state? Because God and "morality" dictates that it is justified, or due to your blase machismo. At least the European states acted with decorum as world powers, we never alienated an entitre race to the extent the US has contrived to accomplish in bu 50 years of pre-eminence.

Finally, were the roles reversed, would the advocates of the operation be similarly enthusiatsic? Somehow one doubts it.

As far as murderers and sex-offenders go, nope, I don't care about them one iota.

Child molesters, for example- here's what Christ said- "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

Murderers- Christ's thoughts- "Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder..."

He seems to be with me on this one.

P.S.- Terrorist=Murderer

You cannot base a legal, and moral, code upon a man of apocryphal significance, the religin of whom formed its moral code at the least two millenia perviously, hence making it somewhat of an anachronism. It is simply untenable in an erudite, civilised and advanced epoch.

Finally, were the roles reversed, would the advocates of the operation be similarly enthusiatsic? Somehow one doubts it.

I think we would all be impressed that the insurgents could pull something like that off.

I think we would all be impressed that the insurgents could pull something like that off.

Do not avoid the issue. Very transparent.

And yes, anyone who guerilla fights the U.S. (esp. in the name of Islam) is a terrorist.

No. Someone who only attacks occupying armed forces is an insurgent, not a terrorist. I know Bushist propaganda wants to make you lose any grasp on simple concepts of the English language, but do make an effort.

He who controls the language you use controls the way you think.

No. Someone who only attacks occupying armed forces is an insurgent, not a terrorist. I know Bushist propaganda wants to make you lose any grasp on simple concepts of the English language, but do make an effort.

He who controls the language you use controls the way you think.

Thankyou. Indoctrinated does come to mind in relation to the Niaman no?

Do not avoid the issue. Very transparent.

I'm not avoiding it. Of course if they need a major operation like this I wouldn't like it, but that is because I don't support their cause. But I would still be impressed.

I'm not avoiding it. Of course if they need a major operation like this I wouldn't like it, but that is because I don't support their cause. But I would still be impressed.

Good lord, a brick wall does come to mind. You are avoiding the issue, namely that an illegal occupation, and subsequent bombing of insurrectionsists, is every inch as deplorable as a terrorist attack.

As far as murderers and sex-offenders go, nope, I don't care about them one iota.

Child molesters, for example- here's what Christ said- "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

Murderers- Christ's thoughts- "Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder..."

He seems to be with me on this one.

P.S.- Terrorist=Murderer
We're not talking about sex offenders here, you antichristian hypocrite, and as far as murderers are concerned, well, there's plenty on both sides of that conflict, and a better known quote of Christ's was "return your sword to its place." Or don't you remember that one?

Good lord, a brick wall does come to mind. You are avoiding the issue, namely that an illegal occupation, and subsequent bombing of insurrectionsists, is every inch as deplorable as a terrorist attack.

The occupation was not illegal, plus it is no longer a true occupation. I have no problem fighting insurgents, as they are not in line with my goals for Iraq.

The occupation was not illegal, plus it is no longer a true occupation. I have no problem fighting insurgents, as they are not in line with my goals for Iraq.
Your goals? Are you an Iraqi? If not, then what the hell do your goals matter?

Your goals? Are you an Iraqi? If not, then what the hell do your goals matter?

Because.....shut up.

The occupation was not illegal, plus it is no longer a true occupation. I have no problem fighting insurgents, as they are not in line with my goals for Iraq.

Firstly, proffer incontravertible that the occupation is any facet legal. Moroever, to what end is the coalition presence in Iraq not an occupation? The Collin's definition of occupation is the following: " 4. the presence within a country of a foreign military power". Or is Novoga, the esteemed Novoga, using a hitherto unknown definition of occupation?

Moreover, has it ever crossed our psyche that "your goals" for Iraq are both unwanted and unjustified, and that you would soon object to an Iaqi having "goals" for the USA and imposing them upon you? Or is the USA empowered to impose itself upon other states due to, erm, its self-asserted ordination?

Because.....shut up.
A brilliant reply [/sarcasm]

Firstly, proffer incontravertible that the occupation is any facet legal. Moroever, to what end is the coalition presence in Iraq not an occupation? The Collin's definition of occupation is the following: " 4. the presence within a country of a foreign military power". Or is Novoga, the esteemed Novoga, using a hitherto unknown definition of occupation?

Moreover, has it ever crossed our psyche that "your goals" for Iraq are both unwanted and unjustified, and that you would soon object to an Iaqi having "goals" for the USA and imposing them upon you? Or is the USA empowered to impose itself upon other states due to, erm, its self-asserted ordination?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1483

Occupation not illegal.

A brilliant reply [/sarcasm]

Yep, I thought so too old chap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1483

Occupation not illegal.

I seem to recollect the war starting in March....:rolleyes:

And once more, do not avoid the other arguments, ingrate.

I seem to recollect the war starting in March....:rolleyes:

And once more, do not avoid the other arguments, ingrate.

Why should it matter that the war started in March?

Why should it matter that the war started in March?

I rather think the resolution was dated the 22nd May, and unless the USA now prosecutes pardoxical wars, the war was originally illegal.

Yep, I thought so too old chap.
In other words, you've got no actual reply to the question I asked above. As long as we're clear on that--you're devoid of any substantive answer. Gotcha.

I rather think the resolution was dated the 22nd May, and unless the USA now prosecutes pardoxical wars, the war was originally illegal.

But the resolution effectively made it legal. So you can stop with your illegal war argument.

But the resolution effectively made it legal. So you can stop with your illegal war argument.

Really? I daresay I can. However, the fact remains that in your zealotry to justify a morally reprehensibly conflict you disregarded a plethora of other issues. Would it not seem reasonable to use your evident intellect to prove me wrong once more?

Really? I daresay I can. However, the fact remains that in your zealotry to justify a morally reprehensibly conflict you disregarded a plethora of other issues. Would it not seem reasonable to use your evident intellect to prove me wrong once more?

I was not ignoring the other issues, I was only trying to show that the occupation was not illegal. Of course there are many issues, it is war afterall, but since I don't know what issues you are referring to I cannot debate them.

But the resolution effectively made it legal. So you can stop with your illegal war argument.
Try reading and understanding Resolution 1441, which preceded the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was illegal by many standards.

I was not ignoring the other issues, I was only trying to show that the occupation was not illegal. Of course there are many issues, it is war afterall, but since I don't know what issues you are referring to I cannot debate them.

I bloody posted them.

"Moreover, has it ever crossed our psyche that "your goals" for Iraq are both unwanted and unjustified, and that you would soon object to an Iaqi having "goals" for the USA and imposing them upon you? Or is the USA empowered to impose itself upon other states due to, erm, its self-asserted ordination?"

"So very tragic. Firstly, where is the incontravertible evidence that the antagonists are not merely reactionariers opposed to your as of yet legally unjustified occupation of their state?

Secondly, why do you have the right to perform operations within the sovereigntly of another state? Because God and "morality" dictates that it is justified, or due to your blase machismo. At least the European states acted with decorum as world powers, we never alienated an entitre race to the extent the US has contrived to accomplish in bu 50 years of pre-eminence.

Finally, were the roles reversed, would the advocates of the operation be similarly enthusiatsic? Somehow one doubts it."

And to think ... if we had been smart enough to build the towers out of superball rubber, none of this would have happened in the first place.

http://www.unlc.biz/images/image1.jpg http://www.unlc.biz/images/image2.jpg

See?

So...since when have air strikes been any good against insurgents, guerillas, partisans and irregulars?

This is just another billion dollars down the drain.

So...since when have air strikes been any good against insurgents, guerillas, partisans and irregulars?

This is just another billion dollars down the drain.
It's not just airstrikes. Its a ground operation with mass air support. Idoubt anyone will be able to tell this operation even happened six months from now, though, because the election will be over.

I would think that the most likely scenario is that the aircraft were just used as intimidators as they are often. It never said that any airstikes occured. You would be surprised how fast insurgents run when they hear aircraft incoming.

So...since when have air strikes been any good against insurgents, guerillas, partisans and irregulars?

This is just another billion dollars down the drain.

It was an Airborne Assault, not just massive Air Strikes. There is a big difference.

You would be surprised how fast insurgents run when they hear aircraft incoming.
I'd be willing to bet they run about as fast as the run-of-the-mill Iraqi citizenry do. Dehumanize at your own peril.

It's not just airstrikes. Its a ground operation with mass air support. Idoubt anyone will be able to tell this operation even happened six months from now, though, because the election will be over.
It was an Airborne Assault, not just massive Air Strikes. There is a big difference.
I see.

But still, past operations of all sorts of sizes haven't really been successful either. This is going to cost a lot of money, it will cause a lot of damage, innocents will no doubt get hurt and people offended, and during all that the insurgents simply fade into the population.

This isn’t a very new development in continued Guerrilla War in Iraq. Because after the initial invasion, Rummy felt like fighting on the cheap and not providing the troops to secure the nation he conquered you have as much of a mess as exists today. His ass should have been canned after the complete breakdown of order in the wake of the invasion. Insecure munitions dumps were looted and some even used as a base of operations because they took so long to be discovered. In between lulls in the action, where the poor bastard on the ground spends their time waiting to blown up by an IED or shoot up a civilian vehicle that too close to their convoy, they get operations like this.

The US army goes out along with some stuffed uniforms of Iraqi tourist brigades to do firefighting against the more active build ups of urban guerrillas fighting against the occupation and the coalition backed government. We’ve seen it a few times already and it hasn’t worked to stem the tide of the struggle. When you go into someone’s town and shoot it up, all you do is make new martyrs, kill more innocent civilians, and generally grow the insurgency. It will quiet down for a while in that sector because the worst trouble makers slip away and restart their operations elsewhere. They might even restart them in the town they got driven out of.

These operations are good for the US troops to feel as though they have a target to unload on, instead of just waiting to get bushwhacked by a roadside bomb set off by a cell phone. Are they effective? No. They haven’t stemmed the insurgency yet. They have deployed the latest technology to eradicate resistance and mostly it just begets them new resistance fighters. The only difference is that the Sunni insurgents are now making more successful civilian attacks to ignite a civil war in Iraq.

The Bruce

What is the answer? I think the answer was available a few years ago, before the invasion of Iraq. Before the US began arming Saddam as their favourite puppet and creating instabilities in the region. It’s a bit late for answers that work well. Even the best answers are going to be very messy and cost a lot more coalition lives. There was a reason during the First Gulf War that daddy Bush stopped at the Iraq border. Dad wasn’t the idiot his son was, and had no intention of plunging the American people into a long and costly guerilla war in Iraq. Iraq was there for the taking and there was even an element of just cause to knock over the government, compared to the lies after 9-11 to justify the invasion. Corporations like Halliburton are raping the US taxpayer as much as they are Iraq and there seems little sign of it slowing down.

The biggest single effect of this conflict has been to save anyone in the Middle East airfare to North America, because they can strike at them in their own backyard. The Bush regime stuck a big lightning rod into the Middle East and now they are stuck there. Just remember that the terrorists who launched the 9-11 attack were spurred on by the First Gulf War. I can only imagine what kinds of terrorism the current occupation will bring for the next generation in the West. Unless you’re a corporation getting rich out of this it sucks to be you. Sometime around the end of this decade, a few years before or after, something very unpleasant is going to happen in the West inspired by the current policy towards the Middle East. Considering the kind of incompetent cronies put in charge of the organizations tasked to prevent this (FEMA is the tip of the iceberg), I’m not very hopeful about the future.

The Bruce

This isn’t a very new development in continued Guerrilla War in Iraq. Because after the initial invasion, Rummy felt like fighting on the cheap and not providing the troops to secure the nation he conquered you have as much of a mess as exists today. His ass should have been canned after the complete breakdown of order in the wake of the invasion. Insecure munitions dumps were looted and some even used as a base of operations because they took so long to be discovered. In between lulls in the action, where the poor bastard on the ground spends their time waiting to blown up by an IED or shoot up a civilian vehicle that too close to their convoy, they get operations like this.

The US army goes out along with some stuffed uniforms of Iraqi tourist brigades to do firefighting against the more active build ups of urban guerrillas fighting against the occupation and the coalition backed government. We’ve seen it a few times already and it hasn’t worked to stem the tide of the struggle. When you go into someone’s town and shoot it up, all you do is make new martyrs, kill more innocent civilians, and generally grow the insurgency. It will quiet down for a while in that sector because the worst trouble makers slip away and restart their operations elsewhere. They might even restart them in the town they got driven out of.

These operations are good for the US troops to feel as though they have a target to unload on, instead of just waiting to get bushwhacked by a roadside bomb set off by a cell phone. Are they effective? No. They haven’t stemmed the insurgency yet. They have deployed the latest technology to eradicate resistance and mostly it just begets them new resistance fighters. The only difference is that the Sunni insurgents are now making more successful civilian attacks to ignite a civil war in Iraq.

The Bruce
You appear to have adequately expressed the situation. Good post!! :)

What is the answer? I think the answer was available a few years ago, before the invasion of Iraq. Before the US began arming Saddam as their favourite puppet and creating instabilities in the region. It’s a bit late for answers that work well. Even the best answers are going to be very messy and cost a lot more coalition lives. There was a reason during the First Gulf War that daddy Bush stopped at the Iraq border. Dad wasn’t the idiot his son was, and had no intention of plunging the American people into a long and costly guerilla war in Iraq. Iraq was there for the taking and there was even an element of just cause to knock over the government, compared to the lies after 9-11 to justify the invasion. Corporations like Halliburton are raping the US taxpayer as much as they are Iraq and there seems little sign of it slowing down.

The biggest single effect of this conflict has been to save anyone in the Middle East airfare to North America, because they can strike at them in their own backyard. The Bush regime stuck a big lightning rod into the Middle East and now they are stuck there. Just remember that the terrorists who launched the 9-11 attack were spurred on by the First Gulf War. I can only imagine what kinds of terrorism the current occupation will bring for the next generation in the West. Unless you’re a corporation getting rich out of this it sucks to be you. Sometime around the end of this decade, a few years before or after, something very unpleasant is going to happen in the West inspired by the current policy towards the Middle East. Considering the kind of incompetent cronies put in charge of the organizations tasked to prevent this (FEMA is the tip of the iceberg), I’m not very hopeful about the future.

The Bruce
It would appear that the US has sown some pretty ominous seeds in Iraq. Next part of the iceberg is Iran?? Another good post. :)

What is the answer? I think the answer was available a few years ago, before the invasion of Iraq. Before the US began arming Saddam as their favourite puppet and creating instabilities in the region. It’s a bit late for answers that work well. Even the best answers are going to be very messy and cost a lot more coalition lives. There was a reason during the First Gulf War that daddy Bush stopped at the Iraq border. Dad wasn’t the idiot his son was, and had no intention of plunging the American people into a long and costly guerilla war in Iraq. Iraq was there for the taking and there was even an element of just cause to knock over the government, compared to the lies after 9-11 to justify the invasion. Corporations like Halliburton are raping the US taxpayer as much as they are Iraq and there seems little sign of it slowing down.

The biggest single effect of this conflict has been to save anyone in the Middle East airfare to North America, because they can strike at them in their own backyard. The Bush regime stuck a big lightning rod into the Middle East and now they are stuck there. Just remember that the terrorists who launched the 9-11 attack were spurred on by the First Gulf War. I can only imagine what kinds of terrorism the current occupation will bring for the next generation in the West. Unless you’re a corporation getting rich out of this it sucks to be you. Sometime around the end of this decade, a few years before or after, something very unpleasant is going to happen in the West inspired by the current policy towards the Middle East. Considering the kind of incompetent cronies put in charge of the organizations tasked to prevent this (FEMA is the tip of the iceberg), I’m not very hopeful about the future.

The Bruce
God save the cute and fluffy muslim guerillas, oh yeah right...
OK, if you liberals are all for human rights, how ethical is it to abandon the country WE invaded to civil war? We invaded Iraq becasue Mr. Saddam decided he was going to harbor terrorist, oh I forgot, you are a liberal, so god save the fluffy Hamas. BTW, Corporations are not getting rich out of this, if we wanted to boost arms manufacturing, we would have invaded Korea. You hypocritical liberals need to be silenced, and stop abusing the damned first ammendmant, I thinkt he press is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY too free...

This isn’t a very new development in continued Guerrilla War in Iraq. Because after the initial invasion, Rummy felt like fighting on the cheap and not providing the troops to secure the nation he conquered you have as much of a mess as exists today. His ass should have been canned after the complete breakdown of order in the wake of the invasion. Insecure munitions dumps were looted and some even used as a base of operations because they took so long to be discovered. In between lulls in the action, where the poor bastard on the ground spends their time waiting to blown up by an IED or shoot up a civilian vehicle that too close to their convoy, they get operations like this.

The US army goes out along with some stuffed uniforms of Iraqi tourist brigades to do firefighting against the more active build ups of urban guerrillas fighting against the occupation and the coalition backed government. We’ve seen it a few times already and it hasn’t worked to stem the tide of the struggle. When you go into someone’s town and shoot it up, all you do is make new martyrs, kill more innocent civilians, and generally grow the insurgency. It will quiet down for a while in that sector because the worst trouble makers slip away and restart their operations elsewhere. They might even restart them in the town they got driven out of.

These operations are good for the US troops to feel as though they have a target to unload on, instead of just waiting to get bushwhacked by a roadside bomb set off by a cell phone. Are they effective? No. They haven’t stemmed the insurgency yet. They have deployed the latest technology to eradicate resistance and mostly it just begets them new resistance fighters. The only difference is that the Sunni insurgents are now making more successful civilian attacks to ignite a civil war in Iraq.

The Bruce
Then the solution is to RULE THROUGH FEAR!!!! Half of these blasted Jihadist are cowards, and the other half can't kill you if you execute them! HUNT THEM DOWN!!! ALL OF THEM!!!

Try reading and understanding Resolution 1441, which preceded the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was illegal by many standards.
It had to be done. THe UN is a bunch of incomptent peace-loving idealist who will sink along with the idea of full- democracy. Democracy DOES NOT work, and only strong leaders can save the world, not the people he rules over.

This isn’t a very new development in continued Guerrilla War in Iraq. Because after the initial invasion, Rummy felt like fighting on the cheap and not providing the troops to secure the nation he conquered you have as much of a mess as exists today. His ass should have been canned after the complete breakdown of order in the wake of the invasion. Insecure munitions dumps were looted and some even used as a base of operations because they took so long to be discovered. In between lulls in the action, where the poor bastard on the ground spends their time waiting to blown up by an IED or shoot up a civilian vehicle that too close to their convoy, they get operations like this.

The US army goes out along with some stuffed uniforms of Iraqi tourist brigades to do firefighting against the more active build ups of urban guerrillas fighting against the occupation and the coalition backed government. We’ve seen it a few times already and it hasn’t worked to stem the tide of the struggle. When you go into someone’s town and shoot it up, all you do is make new martyrs, kill more innocent civilians, and generally grow the insurgency. It will quiet down for a while in that sector because the worst trouble makers slip away and restart their operations elsewhere. They might even restart them in the town they got driven out of.

These operations are good for the US troops to feel as though they have a target to unload on, instead of just waiting to get bushwhacked by a roadside bomb set off by a cell phone. Are they effective? No. They haven’t stemmed the insurgency yet. They have deployed the latest technology to eradicate resistance and mostly it just begets them new resistance fighters. The only difference is that the Sunni insurgents are now making more successful civilian attacks to ignite a civil war in Iraq.

The Bruce
I don't know that I've ever read a post that I so completely agreed with. We shouldn't have gone in, the posturing before the invasion was enough and would have left us at full military strength which probably would have meant that we wouldn't have even needed to deal with Iran right now. I'm of the opinion that it is the problems we are having in Iraq that has emboldened them. And if we had to go into Iraq we needed to do it with 400,000 troops and completely locked that place down. I think the first really big mistake that was made was sending the few occupying troops we had to defend oil infrastructure while the country was being looted after the initial invasion.

It's the incompetence, stupid.

hey, the war was over wasn'it?

must have lost something...

I thought we went by a guilty until proven innocent principle?

We can tell they are insurgents easy enough, heck, they'll tell you that, but I don't see how you can claim that they are terrorists before you can prove that they have personally been responsible for the killing of civilians.

An insurgent needs a trial before he can be called a terrorist.

You have GOT to be kidding.

The "insurgents" have openly taken credit for thousands of civilian deaths and they regularly blow away Shiite civilians every day.

I don't need some "trial" to convince me that the insurgents are terrorists too.

God save the cute and fluffy muslim guerillas, oh yeah right...
OK, if you liberals are all for human rights, how ethical is it to abandon the country WE invaded to civil war? We invaded Iraq becasue Mr. Saddam decided he was going to harbor terrorist, oh I forgot, you are a liberal, so god save the fluffy Hamas. BTW, Corporations are not getting rich out of this, if we wanted to boost arms manufacturing, we would have invaded Korea. You hypocritical liberals need to be silenced, and stop abusing the damned first ammendmant, I thinkt he press is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY too free...
Kiss my shiny liberal ass. Don't try to pin the mess your boys made on us. We were yelling from the beginning that this was a bad idea all the way around. Oh, and by the way, I loooooooooove your fucked up notion of freedom of speech and the press. I thought Freedom and Democracy won the Cold War, not the other way around. You need a Civics lesson or five.
Then the solution is to RULE THROUGH FEAR!!!! Half of these blasted Jihadist are cowards, and the other half can't kill you if you execute them! HUNT THEM DOWN!!! ALL OF THEM!!!Then I suggest you put on your Rambo Underoos and get your pop gun and show the rest of us how to do it. Don't be afraid to break out the machine-gun smiley while you're at it--those jihadists will PHEAR you. :rolleyes:

Try reading and understanding Resolution 1441, which preceded the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was illegal by many standards.


The resolution said if Iraq didn't comply with said resolution, it would be subject to action to force it to comply. They did not cooperate with inspectors, so the justification is there. You can cite loopholes by claiming there was no text stating what kind of action should be taken, but by the same token, it can also be claimed that by NOT specifying the type of punitive action, that the option for action was left open.

I agree that some interpretations can call the invasion illegal, but there are plenty that can call it legal as well for the same reasons - lack of specified conditional responses.

Check this link too... http://www.nysun.com/article/27183

The resolution said if Iraq didn't comply with said resolution, it would be subject to action to force it to comply. They did not cooperate with inspectors, so the justification is there. You can cite loopholes by claiming there was no text stating what kind of action should be taken, but by the same token, it can also be claimed that by NOT specifying the type of punitive action, that the option for action was left open.

I agree that some interpretations can call the invasion illegal, but there are plenty that can call it legal as well for the same reasons - lack of specified conditional responses.

Check this link too... http://www.nysun.com/article/27183
Wow, talk about a blast from the past. It was last August since you and I last locked horns, and it appears that you are in the horn locking mood again.

In regards to the Resolution, that has been beaten to death. Nothing could possible change my mind about the invasion of Iraq as being illegal. The last time we tangoed, you claimed that Iraq had WMD, but that has proven false.
Lets face facts. Bush wanted to invade Iraq and he did. The whole Iraqi affair stinks like an overflowing septic tank in the middle of summer.

Iraq was Bushwhacked and the result has been death and destruction and a country on the verge of civil war.

This war was totally unnecessary!!

The "insurgents" have openly taken credit for thousands of civilian deaths
Would you kindly support the above statement?

I don't need some "trial" to convince me that the insurgents are terrorists too.
You don't believe in due process? You don't support democratic rights?

I need to dig up my notes from the last time we debated about "insurgents".

Would you kindly support the above statement?


You don't believe in due process? You don't support democratic rights?

I need to dig up my notes from the last time we debated about "insurgents".

We've never tried any GROUP before taking action against them. We try individuals - not armies - trying armed groups is just not feasible during a war so your argument for due process is ridiculous here.

And as for supporting arguments - shooting up voters counts as a supporting argument for me. The "insurgent" terrorists (not just the Al Qaida ones) have tried to stop the elections because they know their own votes can't defeat a majority vote. That's common knowledge.

And your false statement that no WMD's were ever found? - explain this please... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

And this... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

And this... http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/25/114037.shtml

And this... http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

And this... http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101

We've never tried any GROUP before taking action against them. We try individuals - not armies - trying armed groups is just not feasible during a war so your argument for due process is ridiculous here.

And as for supporting arguments - shooting up voters counts as a supporting argument for me. The "insurgent" terrorists (not just the Al Qaida ones) have tried to stop the elections because they know their own votes can't defeat a majority vote. That's common knowledge.

And your false statement that no WMD's were ever found? - explain this please... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

And this... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

And this... http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/25/114037.shtml

And this... http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

And this... http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101
I love it when people quote Worldnet and Newsmax as though they're any more credible than the Weekly World News.

I love it when people quote Worldnet and Newsmax as though they're any more credible than the Weekly World News.

Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. There are 5 sources in that post and you only attempted (although very weakly) to discredit two of them.

We've never tried any GROUP before taking action against them. We try individuals - not armies - trying armed groups is just not feasible during a war so your argument for due process is ridiculous here.

And as for supporting arguments - shooting up voters counts as a supporting argument for me. The "insurgent" terrorists (not just the Al Qaida ones) have tried to stop the elections because they know their own votes can't defeat a majority vote. That's common knowledge.

And your false statement that no WMD's were ever found? - explain this please... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

And this... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

And this... http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/25/114037.shtml

And this... http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

And this... http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101

*awaits the reply*

Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. There are 5 sources in that post and you only attempted (although very weakly) to discredit two of them.
Actually, I don't, because the stories you posted don't rise to the level of credibility--none of them. The Fox News story? It was about an IED made from weaponry left over from the Iran-Iraq War. The same from the Human Events Online story. And none of them deal with a discovery of any large scale discovery of biological or chemcal weapons. Sure, you can call the discovery of a single antiquated leftover bomb a WMD discovery if you want to, but you'll be mocked, just as I am mocking you. Not even the Bush administration is playing the WMD card anymore, and if they've given it up, you might as well do so also.

We've never tried any GROUP before taking action against them. We try individuals - not armies - trying armed groups is just not feasible during a war so your argument for due process is ridiculous here.

And as for supporting arguments - shooting up voters counts as a supporting argument for me. The "insurgent" terrorists (not just the Al Qaida ones) have tried to stop the elections because they know their own votes can't defeat a majority vote. That's common knowledge.

And your false statement that no WMD's were ever found? - explain this please... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

And this... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

And this... http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/25/114037.shtml

And this... http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

And this... http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101
No matter how you slice it you cannot get beyond the fact that the position of the CIA is that the WMD weren't there. This after exhaustive research through hundreds of hours of videotape, thousands of reams of paper, hundreds of interogations and thousands of hours of site inspections, something none of these news outlets had access to.

It was an Airborne Assault, not just massive Air Strikes. There is a big difference.

The same airborne assault that has more iraqi troops than American?

Actually, I don't, because the stories you posted don't rise to the level of credibility--none of them.

Unfortunately for you, they have a infinitely more credibility than your counter.

You have NOTHING to back up your postulate that they are false except for your stated opinion of such.

No matter how you slice it you cannot get beyond the fact that the position of the CIA is that the WMD weren't there.

Saddam's 2nd in command Air Chief disagrees with you.

No matter how you slice it you cannot get beyond the fact that the position of the CIA is that the WMD weren't there. This after exhaustive research through hundreds of hours of videotape, thousands of reams of paper, hundreds of interogations and thousands of hours of site inspections, something none of these news outlets had access to.

And their conclusion was dated. The FACT is they were found, no matter what the CIA may have said before the first discovery.

Ignoring new information does not validate old conclusions.

Unfortunately for you, they have a infinitely more credibility than your counter.

You have NOTHING to back up your postulate that they are false except for your stated opinion of such.
So where are the caches? Where are the photos and video of our conquering heroes pulling cases and cases of WMD out of Saddam's storehouses? Where are the news stories recounting how our brave soldiers discovered tons of chemical and biological agents and dismantled nuclear programs? Where the fuck are they?

Because you made the claim that they were there, it's your job to prove that they were. If they were as widespread as you fucking claim they are, then show us the proof? Don't give us a link to Fox News talking about a single fucking IED--give us a real discovery, or go back to Freeperland where they think you're some kind of God because you fight the librul media. :rolleyes:

We've never tried any GROUP before taking action against them. We try individuals - not armies - trying armed groups is just not feasible during a war so your argument for due process is ridiculous here.
That is not exactly what you were implying before when you stated:

[/i]"I don't need some "trial" to convince me that the insurgents are terrorists too."[/i]

And as for supporting arguments - shooting up voters counts as a supporting argument for me. The "insurgent" terrorists (not just the Al Qaida ones) have tried to stop the elections because they know their own votes can't defeat a majority vote. That's common knowledge.
You are twisting your own argument around. You stated:

The "insurgents" have openly taken credit for thousands of civilian deaths

Now please support it.




And your false statement that no WMD's were ever found? - explain this please... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

And this... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

And this... http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/25/114037.shtml

And this... http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

And this... http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101
Very easy to explain.....WorldNet, Fox, NewsMax, etc., anything but credible. The articles are two years old. We have had Blix, McKay, and Duelfer all say that there was no WMD.

So where are the caches? Where are the photos and video of our conquering heroes pulling cases and cases of WMD out of Saddam's storehouses? Where are the news stories recounting how our brave soldiers discovered tons of chemical and biological agents and dismantled nuclear programs? Where the fuck are they?

Because you made the claim that they were there, it's your job to prove that they were. If they were as widespread as you fucking claim they are, then show us the proof? Don't give us a link to Fox News talking about a single fucking IED--give us a real discovery, or go back to Freeperland where they think you're some kind of God because you fight the librul media. :rolleyes:


The articles state that they are finding small caches as they continue the search. They are finding them. They aren't finding HUGE stockpiles, but that's irrelevant. The fact is they are finding them. And Bush isn't digging this up anymore because he doesn't have to. He's not being questioned about WMD anymore. The reason *I* brought it up was because Canuckhaven made the statement that none were ever found and that was clearly false. That they haven't found "tons" as you stated doesn't render the fact that they are there false. And as for them being a real discovery - you yourself admitted that they are a real discovery.

Where are they? Why they're in the hands of Coalition scientists being studied right now.

We've never tried any GROUP before taking action against them. We try individuals - not armies - trying armed groups is just not feasible during a war so your argument for due process is ridiculous here.

And as for supporting arguments - shooting up voters counts as a supporting argument for me. The "insurgent" terrorists (not just the Al Qaida ones) have tried to stop the elections because they know their own votes can't defeat a majority vote. That's common knowledge.

And your false statement that no WMD's were ever found? - explain this please... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

And this... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

And this... http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/25/114037.shtml

And this... http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

And this... http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101

Well, here's a refutation about one thing found in the first article... I could probably go on but I'm more interested in eating my lunch.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" concluded that "the information available to the Intelligence Community indicated that these tubes were intended to be used for an Iraqi conventional rocket program and not a nuclear program." The Intelligence Committee further concluded that the "Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) initial reporting on its aluminum tube spin tests was, at a minimum, misleading and, in some cases, incorrect." The 2004 report of the Iraq Survey Group (also known as the Duelfer report*) concluded that the tubes were likely intended for an 81-mm rocket program, and that there was insufficient evidence "to show a nuclear end use was planned for the tubes."

Here's something to read:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter3-g.htm

That is not exactly what you were implying before when you stated:

[/i]"I don't need some "trial" to convince me that the insurgents are terrorists too."[/i]


You are twisting your own argument around. You stated:

The "insurgents" have openly taken credit for thousands of civilian deaths

Now please support it.







Very easy to explain.....WorldNet, Fox, NewsMax, etc., anything but credible. The articles are two years old. We have had Blix, McKay, and Duelfer all say that there was no WMD.

While they didn't openly take credit for it at a press conference. I'll concede that they aren't taking credit for "thousands" of deaths. But these people are terrorists. I don't need a trial to prove it to me. Check the link below.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/IRAQ-Insurgents-Slaughter-a-Shiite-Family-15737.shtml

And as for your supposition that the articles aren't credible, your opinion is noted. I still say you're wrong about the WMDs there and I've cited sources.

Saddam's 2nd in command Air Chief disagrees with you.
And ex-Saddam staff are so reliable. What doesn't disagree with me is teh chemical tests that have and continue to be done all over Iraq that show no trace of residual chemicals from the storage of mass amounts of WMD and the lack of any facilities to produce and store them. If there were the kinds of stockpiles that the Admin claimed there' be dogs barking all over Iraq and chemists red tagging building after building as showing signs of recently holding WMDs. There are none. They have found nothing but some left over chemicals from the Iran/Iraq war and from before GW1. Once you use a building to hold chemical weapons any chemist will be able to tell you that's what was there.

And their conclusion was dated. The FACT is they were found, no matter what the CIA may have said before the first discovery.

Ignoring new information does not validate old conclusions.
First, you posted a story from 2004 which is when the report came out and you claim that the report is dated. Second, the CIA has not concluded its mission in Iraq so if new information came out that showed that the weapons were there they'd be screaming it from the mountaintop. They took a big hit because their intelligence was wrong. There's no way they'd miss a chance to say, "nah, nah, we told you so!!!!!"

And ex-Saddam staff are so reliable. What doesn't disagree with me is teh chemical tests that have and continue to be done all over Iraq that show no trace of residual chemicals from the storage of mass amounts of WMD and the lack of any facilities to produce and store them. If there were the kinds of stockpiles that the Admin claimed there' be dogs barking all over Iraq and chemists red tagging building after building as showing signs of recently holding WMDs. There are none. They have found nothing but some left over chemicals from the Iran/Iraq war and from before GW1. Once you use a building to hold chemical weapons any chemist will be able to tell you that's what was there.


You keep citing MASS amounts, yet there was nothing in the resolution that required a minimum amount to be discovered for them to be in violation. It's been argued, though never proven that most of the weapons were moved into Syria when the war started. But the fact is, some weapons were still in Iraq and were found.

You're arguing semantics by harping over the amounts of these weapons.

First, you posted a story from 2004 which is when the report came out and you claim that the report is dated. Second, the CIA has not concluded its mission in Iraq so if new information came out that showed that the weapons were there they'd be screaming it from the mountaintop. They took a big hit because their intelligence was wrong. There's no way they'd miss a chance to say, "nah, nah, we told you so!!!!!"


You can't base your argument that the discoveries were false on the pretense that the administration should have made a media showcase out of the event. I'm sorry that the events following those discoveries don't fit the psychological model you have for what you feel might lend them credibility, but that doesn't change anything.

These items were found and you won't find any reports or articles refuting the public statements that they indeed were found.

http://qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2955
"Only—and this is important—big f*ing deal. It's been locked and monitored since 1991, and it was largely useless anyway.


That 1.77 tons of enriched uranium "had been under IAEA seal since 1991. It was last visited by IAEA inspectors in February 2003". "

I'll tell you what, Nerion and Corneliu. Here's a column from one of your guys, Cliff May f Townhall (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/cliffordmay/2006/03/16/190133.html). He neglects, of course, all the other lies that the Bush administration told on the run up to the war--the tubes, the exaggerations about the quickness and effectiveness of Iraq's ability to attack the US, the potential of their non-existent nuclear program--but lookie at this section:
For a moment, focus on the past -- which appears to be changing. Retired Marine Corps General Bernard E. Trainor and longtime Pentagon reporter Michael R. Gordon report in The New York Times that Iraq's top generals believed that Saddam Hussein retained an arsenal of WMD and were shocked when told that such weapons would not be available in the event of an American invasion. And yet you still insist on saying that we're finding WMD in Iraq?

http://qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2955
"Only—and this is important—big f*ing deal. It's been locked and monitored since 1991, and it was largely useless anyway.


That 1.77 tons of enriched uranium "had been under IAEA seal since 1991. It was last visited by IAEA inspectors in February 2003". "


That argument is actually debated on that link you posted and the counter argument has a point. The Uranium was in Iraq and the "seal" is basically meaningless. While that doesn't prove anything, if Saddam were still in power, that Uranium would be at his disposal for enrichment. You only need 3 kilograms of highly enriched Uranium to make a bomb. 1700 kilograms of partly enriched uranium would be enough to produce that.

But there was also Sarin gas found there. All I'm saying is that weapons were found. Whether or not they were in large quantities is not the argument. They were there.

*snip*

The quote you placed in the little quote box doesn'thelp your case. Infact, it can almost, almost mind you, make the case that they were, infact, moved.

You keep citing MASS amounts, yet there was nothing in the resolution that required a minimum amount to be discovered for them to be in violation. It's been argued, though never proven that most of the weapons were moved into Syria when the war started. But the fact is, some weapons were still in Iraq and were found.

You're arguing semantics by harping over the amounts of these weapons.
That's bullshit and you know. You knew it when you typed the response. Why'd you do it when you must have known how easy thsi was going to be?


The admin did not build this nation up for war based on the fact that there may be some shells left over from the last decade. Colin's report to the UN clearly stated that the admin felt that saddam was currently producing and stock piling mass amounts of WMD. He did not go to the UN and the American people and say, "Saddam may have a few shells left with sarin. We need to invade at once." President Bush in his SOTU made it clear that the admins position was that Saddam was hiding an active and large WMD program. BTW - I'm not even saying he lied. I think they actually thought they'd find something, but the fact is they didn't and if they hadn't been in such a rush to go to war we would've found that out. Two things bother me more than anything else:
1. Saddam sought exile in UAE prior to the invasion. The guy was willing to walk away without a fight.
2. Saddam sent an 11th hour offer to the White house prior to the invasion that said that he would let US inspectors, not UN, but US, inspect any building in his country if they would stand down.

If the admin had taken either of these routes I'd be willing to bet that not only would saddam be gone by now but there would probably be a stable government, Iran wouldn't be in a headlong rush to build nukes because our military wouldn't be all stretched out in Iraq, and, finally, the price of oil wouldn't keep climbing and climbing.

That's bullshit and you know. You knew it when you typed the response. Why'd you do it when you must have known how easy thsi was going to be?


The admin did not build this nation up for war based on the fact that there may be some shells left over from the last decade. Colin's report to the UN clearly stated that the admin felt that saddam was currently producing and stock piling mass amounts of WMD. He did not go to the UN and the American people and say, "Saddam may have a few shells left with sarin. We need to invade at once." President Bush in his SOTU made it clear that the admins position was that Saddam was hiding an active and large WMD program. BTW - I'm not even saying he lied. I think they actually thought they'd find something, but the fact is they didn't and if they hadn't been in such a rush to go to war we would've found that out. Two things bother me more than anything else:
1. Saddam sought exile in UAE prior to the invasion. The guy was willing to walk away without a fight.
2. Saddam sent an 11th hour offer to the White house prior to the invasion that said that he would let US inspectors, not UN, but US, inspect any building in his country if they would stand down.

If the admin had taken either of these routes I'd be willing to bet that not only would saddam be gone by now but there would probably be a stable government, Iran wouldn't be in a headlong rush to build nukes because our military wouldn't be all stretched out in Iraq, and, finally, the price of oil wouldn't keep climbing and climbing.
oh, and I forgot two other things - we would have Osama by now and Bush's polls wouldn't be in the toilet.

You can't base your argument that the discoveries were false on the pretense that the administration should have made a media showcase out of the event. I'm sorry that the events following those discoveries don't fit the psychological model you have for what you feel might lend them credibility, but that doesn't change anything.

These items were found and you won't find any reports or articles refuting the public statements that they indeed were found.
Yes I can and I did. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that teh "psychology" of this admin is that if they found evidence of an ongoing WMD program they'd drop fliers out of B-1 bombers all over the Earth that said, "IN YOUR FACE!!!! HE HAD THEM AND WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!."

oh, and I forgot two other things - we would have Osama by now and Bush's polls wouldn't be in the toilet.

I actually doubt we would have Osama by now.

That argument is actually debated on that link you posted and the counter argument has a point. The Uranium was in Iraq and the "seal" is basically meaningless. While that doesn't prove anything, if Saddam were still in power, that Uranium would be at his disposal for enrichment. You only need 3 kilograms of highly enriched Uranium to make a bomb. 1700 kilograms of partly enriched uranium would be enough to produce that.

But there was also Sarin gas found there. All I'm saying is that weapons were found. Whether or not they were in large quantities is not the argument. They were there.
That Uranium would have continued to have been monitored had we not gone to war. If it had gone missing, it would have been a cause for alarm. And we knew where it was. This WMD, as you call it, wasn't "found" in some secret lab.

I actually doubt we would have Osama by now.
Well, we certainly would have more of a chance if the army we had in Afghanistan were as big as the one we have in Iraq, not to mention the intelligence structure. Maybe not, but we took our eye off the prize as soon as the first tank rolled into Iraq.

Then the solution is to RULE THROUGH FEAR!!!! Half of these blasted Jihadist are cowards, and the other half can't kill you if you execute them! HUNT THEM DOWN!!! ALL OF THEM!!!

This statement has been really bugging me throughout reading this post. Terrorism is the act of using terror, or fear, to use a synonym, to achieve your goals. And so the best way to beat these "blasted jihadists" and terrorists and to show them they are wrong is to do the same?

This statement has been really bugging me throughout reading this post. Terrorism is the act of using terror, or fear, to use a synonym, to achieve your goals. And so the best way to beat these "blasted jihadists" and terrorists and to show them they are wrong is to do the same?
If you put an American flag on it, it couldn't possibly be the same.

Well, we certainly would have more of a chance if the army we had in Afghanistan were as big as the one we have in Iraq, not to mention the intelligence structure. Maybe not, but we took our eye off the prize as soon as the first tank rolled into Iraq.

Then why do we still have over 20,000 troops in Afghanistan as well as special forces looking for this guy?

Actually, I don't, because the stories you posted don't rise to the level of credibility--none of them. The Fox News story? It was about an IED made from weaponry left over from the Iran-Iraq War. The same from the Human Events Online story. And none of them deal with a discovery of any large scale discovery of biological or chemcal weapons. Sure, you can call the discovery of a single antiquated leftover bomb a WMD discovery if you want to, but you'll be mocked, just as I am mocking you. Not even the Bush administration is playing the WMD card anymore, and if they've given it up, you might as well do so also.
The fact remains Nazz is that this stuff is two years old. There is nothing new here. A shell here and a canister there.....NO cache!!

Point of interest Nazz. Last time Nerion was debating here, was back in August of last year, in a couple of threads. One was Anti-Americanism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436557)and the other had to do with comparing Iraq and Vietnam (something like that). At any rate, here is Nerion 7 months later and viola, here is Corny again. I was trying to figure out if there was a link between the two, such as "puppet" or family member. For some reason or another, I started to think that Nerion was Corny's mom. Anyways, I find that the coincidence is uncanny.

Then why do we still have over 20,000 troops in Afghanistan as well as special forces looking for this guy?
No point in arguing something neither of us can know. The truth is we have no idea what would have happened had we not gone to war. I think the overwhelming evidence is that the US would be in a much better place in the world now had we taken Saddam up on either of his offers and avoided the war and the occupation. Having said that, we could have had 100,000 troops in afghanistan right now and that country, too, could have been much more stable now wether we found Osama or not.

The fact remains Nazz is that this stuff is two years old. There is nothing new here. A shell here and a canister there.....NO cache!!

Point of interest Nazz. Last time Nerion was debating here, was back in August of last year, in a couple of threads. One was Anti-Americanism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436557)and the other had to do with comparing Iraq and Vietnam (something like that). At any rate, here is Nerion 7 months later and viola, here is Corny again. I was trying to figure out if there was a link between the two, such as "puppet" or family member. For some reason or another, I started to think that Nerion was Corny's mom. Anyways, I find that the coincidence is uncanny.

I can honestly say that Nerion is none of my family members!

Then why do we still have over 20,000 troops in Afghanistan Because it would be embarrassing if the warlords take over Kabul (or the central afghanistan, if you will) too..?

The articles state that they are finding small caches as they continue the search. They are finding them. They aren't finding HUGE stockpiles, but that's irrelevant. The fact is they are finding them.

There are no WMD in Iraq. An old artillery shell is not WMD, a hole full of defunct mortar rounds are not WMD. There are none, there were none. And don't start linking any more Worldnet stories without explaining to me why it isnt in the headlines on CNN, ABC, NBC etc and so on. And no, the blog of "Right thinking American" or some such doesnt count for fuck all either. Just so we're clear.

The articles state that they are finding small caches as they continue the search. They are finding them. They aren't finding HUGE stockpiles, but that's irrelevant. The fact is they are finding them.

There are no WMD in Iraq. An old artillery shell is not WMD, a hole full of defunct mortar rounds are not WMD. There are none, there were none. And don't start linking any more Worldnet stories without explaining to me why it isnt in the headlines on CNN, ABC, NBC etc and so on. And no, the blog of "Right thinking American" or some such doesnt count for fuck all either. Just so we're clear.
It's like finding a cell phone on somebody and then claiming that they were going to use it for this: http://67.19.222.106/inboxer/video/cellgun.mpg.

I've been wanting to use that video all day...

I can honestly say that Nerion is none of my family members!
A puppet then? The last time you two posted together was last August. Since then, Nerion has been in mothballs, and you haven't posted using your Corny "alias" in the past 5 days.

"The game is afoot"!! :eek:

And Bush isn't digging this up anymore because he doesn't have to.
He is not "digging" this up anymore is due to the fact that the issue is rather embarassing?

He's not being questioned about WMD anymore.
Because Ritter, Blix, McKay and Duelfer said there weren't any to find.

The reason *I* brought it up was because Canuckhaven made the statement that none were ever found and that was clearly false.
Not enough to go to war for. Leftovers to say the least. Certainly nothing nearly enough that posed the so called "threat" to American "streets and cities". But that was over dramatic Bush, who dismissed Blix because Blix wasn't finding ANY WMD. That would upset Bush's plan to attack Iraq to allow the inspections to continue.

You have GOT to be kidding.

The "insurgents" have openly taken credit for thousands of civilian deaths and they regularly blow away Shiite civilians every day.

I don't need some "trial" to convince me that the insurgents are terrorists too.

The insurgents who take credit for it do not need a trial, they have admitted their guilt.

But are you going to claim that an insurgent who only targets US soldiers is a terrorist too?

Remember, unless they admit it or you have proof, they're innocent of committing terrorist acts. It could easily have been someone else: there's not just one insurgent in Iraq.

You can't brush them all over with one comb and say "they're all terrorists! omgzors!"

just like you can't brush US soldiers all over with one comb and say "Omg! they all abuse prisoners and purposefully shoot unarmed civilians!"

Both are people, people who wage war against each other, and sometimes, some of those people go too far. In fact, waging war in the first place is going too far, but as long as those who don't want to wage war are kept as much out of it as possible, then that's good. If the US and the insurgents and the terrorists didn't fight in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess.


As far as the WMD go: Do you have any idea how many mines are left over in Iraq? Do you have any idea how many old WWII shells are left in rivers, lakes and such in Europe? Do you have any idea how many weapons you can find just lying dug down in the ground or in water in a country that has recently been at war? Remember, Iraq fought Iran with the kind of weapons that you are finding lying around. It takes skill, resources and people to clean that mess up afterwards and most of the time, they don't bother. How else do you explain that people are still being sent into lakes to find shells from WWII?

Those "WMD" are hardly a threat and probably most of them don't really function very well. Mass destruction? Only to a room maybe, but surely not a house.

Speaking of WMD, I wonder if the US is using white phosphorus in these latest air strikes at Samarra, like they did at Fallujah?

Speaking of WMD, I wonder if the US is using white phosphorus in these latest air strikes at Samarra, like they did at Fallujah?

Hey, here's an idea:

Use white phosphorus. Since it stays, just go down and find it again and say "look! WMD in Iraq!" :p

okay, that was a stupid idea.

Ok, here we go again...

1) Invasion of Iraq: Illegal. Neither resolution 1441 nor previous resolutions gave the US authority to go to war unilaterally. It was for the UN to decide if Saddam had violated the resolutions, and what would constitute proper response.

And remember, the US went to war before the UN weapons inspectors had completed their work and delivered their report to the SC.

No resolutions passed after the war has changed the fact that the war was (and is) illegal.

2) Weapons of mass destruction:

Hans Blix: "The security system of the UN was ignored and a counter-proliferation action was undertaken to identify and eliminate WMDs -- which did not exist."

The Duelfer Report (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html), as of march 2005:
# Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991.
# There was no proof of any biological weapons stocks since 1991.
# Iraq's nuclear program was terminated in 1991, at which point micrograms of enriched uranium had been produced from a single test gas centrifuge.

No one was more surprised than I that we didn't find (WMD's).

This BBC piece suggests that this was a diversion for the media because the third anniversary comes up. Well, duh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4817762.stm
But the massive press coverage was not just the result of a semantic misunderstanding.

Unusually, high-quality photographs and video footage of the initial deployment were made available to the press towards the end of Day One of what was billed as a campaign that would last several days.

Some international media were given unusually swift military embeds to the area.

This BBC piece suggests that this was a diversion for the media because the third anniversary comes up. Well, duh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4817762.stm
I agree with most of your posts on this subject, but I think that's a little too much. I'm sure the real reason is that over the past couple weeks the sectarian violence has flared up really badly, especially in that area. I think its a desperate attempt to avert a civil war. I do realize and somewhat agree, though, that there's been a civil war there the whole time.

I'm sure the real reason is that over the past couple weeks the sectarian violence has flared up really badly, especially in that area.
In that case it was a pretty spectacular failure. You could go to any given place in Iraq and find a few weapon stashes. But they didn't get any particular number of people, and chances are that most of even the 31 dudes they did get were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

While I think that perhaps there was some element of actually achieving an objective there, I also believe that a pretty deliberate strategy was chosen to make this a major media event so that they can be seen as doing something while the situation is as bad as it is right now.

As the article says, operations like this are fairly common, but this one got the big ads and the major media coverage. And that just while there is this crisis, and with the anniversary some time now. It's all a little too convenient.

In that case it was a pretty spectacular failure. You could go to any given place in Iraq and find a few weapon stashes. But they didn't get any particular number of people, and chances are that most of even the 31 dudes they did get were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

While I think that perhaps there was some element of actually achieving an objective there, I also believe that a pretty deliberate strategy was chosen to make this a major media event so that they can be seen as doing something while the situation is as bad as it is right now.

As the article says, operations like this are fairly common, but this one got the big ads and the major media coverage. And that just while there is this crisis, and with the anniversary some time now. It's all a little too convenient.
well, I'll agre with you up to a point. I'm sure it was probably a little of both. And I'll also agree that it will fail because everytime they do something like this it does.

This BBC piece suggests that this was a diversion for the media because the third anniversary comes up. Well, duh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4817762.stm
Well, can you imagine that. A little bit of propaganda here, a little deflection there, and bingo......all is well!!

Good find Leon. :)

On another note, I'm just listening now to an ex-Pentagon official who says that during the invasion commanders in the field were telling Rummy that there were terrorists in the field and that they wanted to fight them. Rummy said no. Immediately afterwards they asked for more troops to hold the country and control the looting. Instead Rummy sent less. He actually sent troops home thaa he had planned on deploying.

It's actually right here live right now if you want to listen:

http://www.kabc.com/listenlive.asp

Immediately afterwards they asked for more troops to hold the country and control the looting. Instead Rummy sent less. He actually sent troops home thaa he had planned on deploying.
The Pentagon was full of armchair generals with their transformation doctrine. Rummy just wanted to prove that his ideas about having very few troops, but heaps and heaps of planes and missiles would work (they did in Afghanistan, but only because there they had the Northern Alliance on the ground).

The whole thing is also deeply rooted in the neoconservative doctrine that basically states that democracy and freedom is the default state of a society, and as soon as you get rid of the evil dictator, everyone is happy and calm and peaceful. So the idea that democracy would not introduce itself was not even considered.

It's the classic example of ideology before reality.

The Pentagon was full of armchair generals with their transformation doctrine. Rummy just wanted to prove that his ideas about having very few troops, but heaps and heaps of planes and missiles would work (they did in Afghanistan, but only because there they had the Northern Alliance on the ground).

The whole thing is also deeply rooted in the neoconservative doctrine that basically states that democracy and freedom is the default state of a society, and as soon as you get rid of the evil dictator, everyone is happy and calm and peaceful. So the idea that democracy would not introduce itself was not even considered.

It's the classic example of ideology before reality.
We are now in complete agreement. Ideological rigidity is dangerous. When you combine it with stupidity it's downright deadly. People are dying and the whole world is facing a very dangerous future because of the stubborn stupidity of this administration. I'm so glad I do not carry the burdon of having voted for him.

I can honestly say that Nerion is none of my family members!
Considering the mild rebuke, what is the relationship between you and Nerion?

There is too much of a coincidence going on here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10591296&postcount=131

Iraq's democratic stability is paramount and at this point it must be sought for at all costs. As soon as this mess is over though I'd vote in favour of impeaching Bush for lying about Iraq and Katrina.

If the USA had real plan to rebuilt Iraq 3 years before and implemented it, you wouldn't need to go around bombing places flat like this.

Seeing as its only sane people posting I can go back under my bridge again......

Hey, here's an idea:

Use white phosphorus. Since it stays, just go down and find it again and say "look! WMD in Iraq!" :p

okay, that was a stupid idea.

It isn't even WMD to begin with...

It is just another normal weapon.

It isn't even WMD to begin with...

It is just another normal weapon.

If they found any decent amount of it belonging to Saddam, it would be WMD. Thats a "wild guess".

If they found any decent amount of it belonging to Saddam, it would be WMD. Thats a "wild guess".

Do you even know anything about it? Fuka, if Senator McCarthy had lived to see these forums he would have freaked out.

If they found any decent amount of it belonging to Saddam, it would be WMD. Thats a "wild guess".
It isn't a matter of possession of white phosphorus, it is the manner in which it is used, which would determine whether or not it is a chemical weapon.

If it is used as an illuminate, that is acceptable, but if it is used as a weapon against civilians or combatants then it is not acceptable. It was used against civilians and combatants at Fallujah.

A puppet then? The last time you two posted together was last August. Since then, Nerion has been in mothballs, and you haven't posted using your Corny "alias" in the past 5 days.

"The game is afoot"!! :eek:

He isn't even a puppet of mine! Come on CH, I knowyou love conspiracies but this one is ridiculous.

Speaking of WMD, I wonder if the US is using white phosphorus in these latest air strikes at Samarra, like they did at Fallujah?

Considering that WP isn't a chemical weapon and if it were a chemical weapon then the WMD hunt should be over since we have found WP shells.

Ok, here we go again...

1) Invasion of Iraq: Illegal. Neither resolution 1441 nor previous resolutions gave the US authority to go to war unilaterally. It was for the UN to decide if Saddam had violated the resolutions, and what would constitute proper response.

And remember, the US went to war before the UN weapons inspectors had completed their work and delivered their report to the SC.

No resolutions passed after the war has changed the fact that the war was (and is) illegal.

Here we go again!

1) the War in iraq is legal because Saddam hussien has violated the UN Cease Fire by threatening Kuwait which they weren't supposed to do. They failed to give full unfettered access to the UN Weapons Inspectors, which they were supposed to do as well. And they did constitute proper response if he failed to do these things. Guess what? We followed through on it.

2) After 12 years of uncooperativeness, he still didn't cooperate. Oops.

3) Tell me what does passing a resolution AFTER a war means? I know we followed through on the UN Resolutions. And because we followed resolution 686, the war is infact, legal.

Corneliu... its a dead horse. The Iraq invasion was the greatest mess of the 21st century for all its consequences. You still believe in your retarded neoconservative chickenhawks... you're entitled to that but you are finally a minority.

[QUOTE=Nerion]The resolution said if Iraq didn't comply with said resolution, it would be subject to action to force it to comply. They did not cooperate with inspectors, so the justification is there. You can cite loopholes by claiming there was no text stating what kind of action should be taken, but by the same token, it can also be claimed that by NOT specifying the type of punitive action, that the option for action was left open.

I agree that some interpretations can call the invasion illegal, but there are plenty that can call it legal as well for the same reasons - lack of specified conditional responses.

Check this link too... http://www.nysun.com/article/27183[/Q

Yah, but no matter what it was the UN's resolution, and the UN's responsibility to enforce via member states, not a US lead "coalition of the willing".

Considering that WP isn't a chemical weapon and if it were a chemical weapon then the WMD hunt should be over since we have found WP shells.
Nice try:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9956204&postcount=45

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9951179&postcount=36

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1108/dailyUpdate.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4441902.stm

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327379.ece

Here we go again!

1) the War in iraq is legal because Saddam hussien has violated the UN Cease Fire by threatening Kuwait which they weren't supposed to do. They failed to give full unfettered access to the UN Weapons Inspectors, which they were supposed to do as well. And they did constitute proper response if he failed to do these things. Guess what? We followed through on it.

2) After 12 years of uncooperativeness, he still didn't cooperate. Oops.

3) Tell me what does passing a resolution AFTER a war means? I know we followed through on the UN Resolutions. And because we followed resolution 686, the war is infact, legal.
I think I have most of them covered right here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9854829&postcount=142

It was used against civilians and combatants at Fallujah.

I doubt that it was used against civilians and I have no problem with it being used against "combatants". It is war afterall.

It is war afterall.
I think "irregular armed conflict" is probably a better word, seeing as to how we still haven't seen a declaration of war from anyone in this.

I think "irregular armed conflict" is probably a better word, seeing as to how we still haven't seen a declaration of war from anyone in this.

Irregular armed conflict, police action, it is all just nice sounding names for war.

I doubt that it was used against civilians and I have no problem with it being used against "combatants". It is war afterall.
Well I guess you wouldn't have a problem because it wasn't you on the receiving end. Unfortunately there were civilians involved, many who were refused permission to leave Fallujah before the bombing began.

The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians.

Well I guess you wouldn't have a problem because it wasn't you on the receiving end. Unfortunately there were civilians involved, many who were refused permission to leave Fallujah before the bombing began.

The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians.

Well of course I wouldn't want to be hit by it, but I don't get upset over its use against an enemy force. As for the civilians, well it is city fighting. A damn shame, but if they insurgents hadn't been there...

Well of course I wouldn't want to be hit by it, but I don't get upset over its use against an enemy force. As for the civilians, well it is city fighting. A damn shame, but if they insurgents hadn't been there...
I guess you missed the part that the US troops didn't let the civilians leave before they began the bombardment?

I guess you missed the part that the US troops didn't let the civilians leave before they began the bombardment?

They did though. You must remember it very differently, got your news from pro-insurgent sites that week I take it?

I guess you missed the part that the US troops didn't let the civilians leave before they began the bombardment?
Of course not. It's just some damn ragheads.:rolleyes:

Of course not. It's just some damn ragheads.:rolleyes:
Yes, please forgive me my ignorance. Bombs away. Take no prisoners. :rolleyes:

Here we go again!

1) the War in iraq is legal because Saddam hussien has violated the UN Cease Fire by threatening Kuwait which they weren't supposed to do.

Here we go again indeed.
"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours," from
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY 2002

It appears the British didnt agree with your nonsense.


They failed to give full unfettered access to the UN Weapons Inspectors, which they were supposed to do as well. And they did constitute proper response if he failed to do these things. Guess what? We followed through on it..

The US had decided to go to war in 2002. The weapons inspections were to put the gloss of legality on the whole proceedings. However they failed to find anything even vaguely incriminating and weren't given the extra time they asked for.


2) After 12 years of uncooperativeness, he still didn't cooperate. Oops...

Rather besides the point, as Israel is nearing four decades in violation and "uncooperativeness" but I don't think there'll be bombers heading for Tel Aviv anytime soon.


3) Tell me what does passing a resolution AFTER a war means? I know we followed through on the UN Resolutions. And because we followed resolution 686, the war is infact, legal.

According to the UN the US acted "outside the charter" which means illegally. In addition the British went to war with grave doubts over whether or not the war was legal, and whether or not it could lead to prosecutions. I suggest at this stage you give up the ghost.

"Neocons are fucking crazies!" - Colin Powell.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1353796,00.html

1) the War in iraq is legal because Saddam hussien has violated the UN Cease Fire by threatening Kuwait which they weren't supposed to do. They failed to give full unfettered access to the UN Weapons Inspectors, which they were supposed to do as well. And they did constitute proper response if he failed to do these things. Guess what? We followed through on it.

Well, I see that CanuckHeaven (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9853402&postcount=129) has been thoroughly through most the points I wanted to present, so I'll refer you to them. I would like to add, however, that even if resolution 686 did give the US authority to restart the war, the administration relinquished this position when resolution 1441 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement) (a resolution that did not in itself give any authorization for the use of force) was passed, and Iraq was afforded "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council".

After said resolution was passed, it was up to the UNSC to decide whether or not Iraq was not in compliance, and what "serious consequences" Iraq would face for non-compliance.


2) After 12 years of uncooperativeness, he still didn't cooperate. Oops.
Largely irrelevant when directly considering the legality of the war. As I've stated, the US could not unilaterally decide that... Ah, let Mr. Blix say it:
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." And that goes for resolution 1441 as well...


3) Tell me what does passing a resolution AFTER a war means? I know we followed through on the UN Resolutions. And because we followed resolution 686, the war is infact, legal.

To understand what I'm talking about here, look at these previous posts:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10586005&postcount=67
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10586062&postcount=73

Resolution 1483 did not make the Iraqi war legal post facto.

He isn't even a puppet of mine! Come on CH, I knowyou love conspiracies but this one is ridiculous.
I don't see this as a conspiracy, I see it as an adventure. You admitted on a previous thread awhile ago that you do indeed have many puppets, and I am just trying to sort through the possibilities. :D

Your sister? Formal Dances used to post here on NS, and we don't see her? around anymore. At any rate, it is fun tracking down and busting puppets. Why anyone would need puppets to back up their posts here is beyond me. I am not accusing you of anything, but I am suspicious, especially given the coincidence surrounding you and Nerion.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10591296&postcount=131

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10593560&postcount=151

The fact remains that your Corneliu nation hadn't posted in 5 days prior to this debate.

Nerion joined the debate @ 17-03-2006, 1:39 PM
Corneliu joined the debate @ 17-03-2006, 3:13 PM
Nerion abruptly left the debate @ 17-03-2006, 4:02 PM and hasn't returned to this thread or any other for that matter since.
An hour later @ 17-03-2006, 5:07 PM I suggested to Nazz that Nerion was a "puppet" or family member.
Corneliu left the debate @ 17-03-2006, 5:10 PM, denying that Nerion was a family member.

Prior to this debate, the last time Nerion posted was last August, except one minor post, and that was in a thread where the 3 of us were going back and forth about insurgents, the illegality of the Iraq war and WMD.

I find the coincidence uncanny.

Well of course I wouldn't want to be hit by it, but I don't get upset over its use against an enemy force. As for the civilians, well it is city fighting. A damn shame, but if they insurgents hadn't been there...
So lets turn the tables--your city has been "liberated" but you don't see the invading forces as liberators, and so you are resisting. Does that mean that it's okay if they use whatever weapons they desire on your civilian neighbors? Let's make it even more relevant--you support the "liberation" but your neighbors don't, and so your neighborhood gets bombed to shit with incendiary weapons and you are denied a chance to leave the city because, oh, your brother is in the resistance or the soldiers at the checkpoint outside the city didn't have a translator with them that day and didn't want to take the chance that you were part of the insurgency. Still happy with the choice? Have some fucking empathy, why don't you--it's a human trait.

. Still happy with the choice? Have some fucking empathy, why don't you--it's a human trait.

But its un-American, left wing and possibly linked to unchristian activity too....

He is not "digging" this up anymore is due to the fact that the issue is rather embarassing?

That's your opinion.


Because Ritter, Blix, McKay and Duelfer said there weren't any to find.

They said that - doesn't change the fact that they WERE found.


Not enough to go to war for. Leftovers to say the least. Certainly nothing nearly enough that posed the so called "threat" to American "streets and cities". But that was over dramatic Bush, who dismissed Blix because Blix wasn't finding ANY WMD. That would upset Bush's plan to attack Iraq to allow the inspections to continue.

You show me where it listed a minimum amount required to be considered in violation of the resolution.

But are you going to claim that an insurgent who only targets US soldiers is a terrorist too?

They don't just target US soldiers.

Remember, unless they admit it or you have proof, they're innocent of committing terrorist acts. It could easily have been someone else: there's not just one insurgent in Iraq.

You're being ridiculous here. Did we try every Japanese soldier for the Nanking massacre? Did we try every soldier we fought in the Phillipines?

No. We aren't that stupid and neither is any other country in the world.

We bombed them. Their leaders were tried AFTER the war in cases where we found them and they were suspected of war crimes.

But they are not innocent without a trial. That's what war is. The group is killing civilians. I don't need to prove that every last insurgent has killed a civilian to label them a terrorist group.

Not every Nazi helped exterminate Jews. Yet the Nazi party of Germany went down as one of the most brutal in history. They were labelled thusly even though we all know not every last Nazi killed Jews.

You can't brush them all over with one comb and say "they're all terrorists! omgzors!"

No, you can't call them ALL terrorists. But, if as a group, they commit a lot of terrorist acts, you can call the group a terrorist group. You have this misconception that the "insurgents" are only upset at foreign troops being in their country. You forget that their BIGGEST gripe is that they are a minority now and can't install the kind of government they want. So they shoot up the citizens comprising the majority (or try to) when they vote.

You don't need a trial to call people like that terrorists and by insisting I need one to apply a monniker, you're being obtuse.



just like you can't brush US soldiers all over with one comb and say "Omg! they all abuse prisoners and purposefully shoot unarmed civilians!"

Fewer than 10 US Soldiers were implicated in that incident. You can't compare the two because the percentages aren't even on the same scale.

That's bullshit and you know. You knew it when you typed the response. Why'd you do it when you must have known how easy thsi was going to be?

Then show me the specific amount listed in the resolution. One of us is bullshitting if you are correct. If you show the text in the resolution that specifies the minimum amount, then it's me. If you DON'T - then no matter what you DO post - you're the bullshitter here and verbal tap dancing or any other direct response avoiding text OTHER than posting said minimum amount is a tacit admission on your part.

Yes I can and I did. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that teh "psychology" of this admin is that if they found evidence of an ongoing WMD program they'd drop fliers out of B-1 bombers all over the Earth that said, "IN YOUR FACE!!!! HE HAD THEM AND WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!."

That's not evidence - that's a conclusion you're basing on your own interpretation of human psychology. I've posted evidence to support my arguments. All I see from you is a lot of opinions based on your personal beliefs.

Your hot headed responses amount to nothing if no one but you has anything to say to support them.

That Uranium would have continued to have been monitored had we not gone to war. If it had gone missing, it would have been a cause for alarm. And we knew where it was. This WMD, as you call it, wasn't "found" in some secret lab.

You'd be right if they hadn't stopped letting inspectors into suspected facilities.

Well, here's a refutation about one thing found in the first article... I could probably go on but I'm more interested in eating my lunch.

Nice post, but you attacked one small piece that by itself doesn't make my argument, and certainly refuting it doesn't change the facts. Nothing you wrote refuted the fact that they found weapons in violation of the resolution.

That's your opinion.
Whatever.

They said that - doesn't change the fact that they WERE found.
Ritter, Blix, McKay, and Duelfer disagree with your opinion and since they were over there looking for them and were unable to find them, I am going to side with their reports.

You show me where it listed a minimum amount required to be considered in violation of the resolution.
Totally irrelevant. The UN inspection team had to leave Iraq because Bush was going to bomb the country regardless that no WMD had been found up to that point in time.

Then show me the specific amount listed in the resolution. One of us is bullshitting if you are correct. If you show the text in the resolution that specifies the minimum amount, then it's me. If you DON'T - then no matter what you DO post - you're the bullshitter here and verbal tap dancing or any other direct response avoiding text OTHER than posting said minimum amount is a tacit admission on your part.
That wasn't my point and you know it. My point was that the admin claimed that Iraq had a large and ongoing weapons program. I don't care what the resolution said. In fact, I never mentioned it. It was this program that they used to justify our invasion. That was my point and it was obvious in the post you quoted. You're attempting to shift the focus, but I won't shift. The aqdmin told the UN and the American people that there was a large, ongoing WMD program in Iraq in an effort to garner public support for the war. That program did not exist. The fact that a couple old shells have been found does nothing to change the fact that there was no ongoing WMD campaign. How do you think the public would have reacted if the admin said, We need to go to war with Iraq because there may be some insignificant amounts of sarin gas that we sold them left over from the Iran/Iraq war?

That's not evidence - that's a conclusion you're basing on your own interpretation of human psychology. I've posted evidence to support my arguments. All I see from you is a lot of opinions based on your personal beliefs.

Your hot headed responses amount to nothing if no one but you has anything to say to support them.
And I didn't make an evidenciary statement. I said that if they found the evidence they'd shout it from the mountain. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. Regardless, they haven't found any evidence that there was a weapons program so the point is moot. Your argument is, "We don't know if they haven't found anything because they may not be telling us." That's ridiculous.

That wasn't my point and you know it. My point was that the admin claimed that Iraq had a large and ongoing weapons program. I don't care what the resolution said. In fact, I never mentioned it. It was this program that they used to justify our invasion. That was my point and it was obvious in the post you quoted. You're attempting to shift the focus, but I won't shift. The aqdmin told the UN and the American people that there was a large, ongoing WMD program in Iraq in an effort to garner public support for the war. That program did not exist. The fact that a couple old shells have been found does nothing to change the fact that there was no ongoing WMD campaign. How do you think the public would have reacted if the admin said, We need to go to war with Iraq because there may be some insignificant amounts of sarin gas that we sold them left over from the Iran/Iraq war?

The device that went off wasn't some shell stuck out in the middle of nowhere that got stumbled on. It was rigged as a roadside bomb and stating it was left over from some other war is a THEORY. The fact is, the device was deployed in THIS war. And that incident wasn't isolated.

And no, I did NOT know that such wasn't your point. The way you stated your piece, you said my post was BS and I knew it. You were wrong on both counts. While the administrations claim that there were large amounts of weapons could not be substantiated for whatever reason (my own OPINION is that they were carted off to Syria, but opinions aren't evidence so I'll get off that tangent), that's a seperate issue from the resolution itself, which did not have stated amounts for evidence of a violation to be stated.

And I didn't make an evidenciary statement. I said that if they found the evidence they'd shout it from the mountain. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. Regardless, they haven't found any evidence that there was a weapons program so the point is moot. Your argument is, "We don't know if they haven't found anything because they may not be telling us." That's ridiculous.


Now you admit it's just an assumption on your part so I won't harp on you for this point. And I never made the statement that we concluded something was found because we weren't told anything to the contrary. My position is that the inspection teams were not allowed to do their jobs so we pulled them out and went to war. Evidence that Iraq was in violation of the resolution was found after we went in, so I am not faulting the inspectors.

Ritter, Blix, McKay, and Duelfer disagree with your opinion and since they were over there looking for them and were unable to find them, I am going to side with their reports.

They weren't allowed in most of the suspected facilities for as long as 72 hours to allow Saddam to play a game of shells with the contents and those individuals were done before the war ever started. Their conclusions were outdated by the time these discoveries were being made.


Totally irrelevant. The UN inspection team had to leave Iraq because Bush was going to bomb the country regardless that no WMD had been found up to that point in time.

And these discoveries were made AFTER the inspection teams left. I disagree on the point of relevance since the inspection teams were not permitted to do their job by the Iraqi government.

And these discoveries were made AFTER the inspection teams left.
They were insignificant quantities and most certainly leftovers from the Iran/Iraq war.

I disagree on the point of relevance since the inspection teams were not permitted to do their job by the Iraqi government.
Blix stated that Iraqi co-operation with the inspection team was good. If the inspectors had been allowed to finish their job, there would have been no invasion of Iraq, so yes your point is irrelevant.

They were insignificant quantities and most certainly leftovers from the Iran/Iraq war.
Again your opinion. The fact is, the devices were used against us in THIS war. Neither one of us will ever be able to prove where those weapons came from. And again, the amount isn't at issue here.


Blix stated that Iraqi co-operation with the inspection team was good. If the inspectors had been allowed to finish their job, there would have been no invasion of Iraq, so yes your point is irrelevant.

He stated that, but it was a well known fact that inspectors were held up for as many as 72 hours before being allowed into a lot of these facilities. The press made it public knowledge. They had satellite pictures of trucks moving things out of those buildings before the inspectors were allowed in. Anything could have been in those trucks - my point is the inspectors were not allowed to see what was removed. So Blix's supposition that there was cooperation is faulty at best. And again, he was finished before the war started. His conclusions were stale by the time the discovery reports came in.

Saddam made a 12th hour offer to allow the US to send its own inspectors in and we turned them down. As a matter in fact, Bush turned them down without even consulting congress.

Any way you slice it this war is a catastrophy. We shouldn't have gone in, it was apparent that out posturing was enough. Once we did it was run by a complete buffoon who has no idea what the fuck he's doing. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473911) Bickering over wether a couple shells was worth an invasion is beside the point. What I'd like to see you do is make a cohesive argument that it was the right thing to do and that it is being done well.

Again your opinion. The fact is, the devices were used against us in THIS war. Neither one of us will ever be able to prove where those weapons came from. And again, the amount isn't at issue here.
The fact remains there wouldn't have been a war if the UN inspectors had been allowed to complete their job. The amounts are significant in that Bush was telling the world that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to the US. We all know that to be totally untrue now and then.

He stated that, but it was a well known fact that inspectors were held up for as many as 72 hours before being allowed into a lot of these facilities. The press made it public knowledge. They had sattelite pictures of trucks moving things out of those buildings before the inspectors were allowed in. Anything could have been in those trucks - my point is the inspectors were not allowed to see what was removed. So Blix's supposition that there was cooperation is faulty at best. And again, he was finished before the war started. His conclusions were stale by the time the discovery reports came in.
You obviously have a different Blix report, either that or you are trying to rewrite it?

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

Bush should have allowed the inspection process to be completed. Most of the world agrees.

They said that - doesn't change the fact that they WERE found.No they weren't.

Corneliu... its a dead horse.

Yes it is a dead horse. I don't know why I use facts when no one listens to them.

The Iraq invasion was the greatest mess of the 21st century for all its consequences.

I wouldn't make this claim if I were you because it is only 6 years old :D

You still believe in your retarded neoconservative chickenhawks... you're entitled to that but you are finally a minority.

I believe in the facts of the case, not the opinions that people on here have been spouting.

*snip*

Now do you have facts or just more friggin opinions?

I think I have most of them covered right here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9854829&postcount=142

AGain facts?

Irregular armed conflict, police action, it is all just nice sounding names for war.

I have to agree with this.

I guess you missed the part that the US troops didn't let the civilians leave before they began the bombardment?

Now I'll call bullshit. They were told to get out of Falujah CH. This I know for a fact.

*snip*

Can't argue the facts Nodinia. If we did, infact, go outside the charter, then where is the investigation? Why aren't we brought up before the Security Council has proscribed by the UN Charter?

International Law PREDATES the UN. Once a cease-fire is violated, as was the case in Iraq with 686 (has the latest papers that were released indicate), war picks up where it left off.

Under the Laws of Armed Conflict, we followed all proper procedure for continuance of the war because of Saddam's violation of the Cease-Fire. I'm sorry but these are the facts.

*snip*

Once again, I'll point you to Saddam's violations of the Cease-Fire. So now I'll ask you for your facts.

Who'd have thought I'd make a thread that lasted this long?

Wow.

Yes it is a dead horse. I don't know why I use facts when no one listens to them.

I wouldn't make this claim if I were you because it is only 6 years old :D

I believe in the facts of the case, not the opinions that people on here have been spouting.
I don't see any facts here....just your opinion(s).

Once again, I'll point you to Saddam's violations of the Cease-Fire. So now I'll ask you for your facts.
Invalid response. The facts have been presented that shoot your ceasefire defense down.

Can't argue the facts Nodinia. If we did, infact, go outside the charter, then where is the investigation? Why aren't we brought up before the Security Council has proscribed by the UN Charter?

International Law PREDATES the UN. Once a cease-fire is violated, as was the case in Iraq with 686 (has the latest papers that were released indicate), war picks up where it left off.

Under the Laws of Armed Conflict, we followed all proper procedure for continuance of the war because of Saddam's violation of the Cease-Fire. I'm sorry but these are the facts.
I don't see any facts here....just your opinion(s).

I don't see this as a conspiracy, I see it as an adventure. You admitted on a previous thread awhile ago that you do indeed have many puppets, and I am just trying to sort through the possibilities. :D

I do have puppets yes but I don't post with all of them.

Your sister? Formal Dances used to post here on NS, and we don't see her? around anymore.

Could it be perhaps that she has more important things to do? School is more important to her than this joint. I can see her point to.

At any rate, it is fun tracking down and busting puppets. Why anyone would need puppets to back up their posts here is beyond me. I am not accusing you of anything, but I am suspicious, especially given the coincidence surrounding you and Nerion.

I do not need puppets to back up my claims. I know my claims are fact based unlike your which are opinion based.

The fact remains that your Corneliu nation hadn't posted in 5 days prior to this debate.

1) Schoolwork was getting in the way.

2) I have been playing on my X-Box

3) It was close to Spring Break so I was packing and making sure I had everything.

Nerion joined the debate @ 17-03-2006, 1:39 PM
Corneliu joined the debate @ 17-03-2006, 3:13 PM
Nerion abruptly left the debate @ 17-03-2006, 4:02 PM and hasn't returned to this thread or any other for that matter since.
An hour later @ 17-03-2006, 5:07 PM I suggested to Nazz that Nerion was a "puppet" or family member.
Corneliu left the debate @ 17-03-2006, 5:10 PM, denying that Nerion was a family member.

He isn't a family member. He actually showed me this thread and I read it. Saw interesting posts that I had to respond to. I have his screen name if ya want it.

Prior to this debate, the last time Nerion posted was last August, except one minor post, and that was in a thread where the 3 of us were going back and forth about insurgents, the illegality of the Iraq war and WMD.

I find the coincidence uncanny.

Life is full of coincidences CH. However, he and I are not the same person.

AGain facts?
You do not accept facts. You seem to rely solely upon your opinion.

Saddam made a 12th hour offer to allow the US to send its own inspectors in and we turned them down. As a matter in fact, Bush turned them down without even consulting congress.

May I see proof of this please?

Any way you slice it this war is a catastrophy.

Your evidence?

We shouldn't have gone in, it was apparent that out posturing was enough. Once we did it was run by a complete buffoon who has no idea what the fuck he's doing. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473911) Bickering over wether a couple shells was worth an invasion is beside the point. What I'd like to see you do is make a cohesive argument that it was the right thing to do and that it is being done well.

So much for intelligence.

I don't see any facts here....just your opinion(s).

Sorry but I have been using facts in this whole debate. Unfortunately, you have presented opinions as facts.

You do not accept facts. You seem to rely solely upon your opinion.

I rely on facts. You rely on opinions.

I rely on facts. You rely on opinions.
There is nothing factual about this statement. :p

Sorry but I have been using facts in this whole debate. Unfortunately, you have presented opinions as facts.
Again, there is nothing factual about this statement. Just your usual dosage of ad hominems.

There is nothing factual about this statement. :p

Well what do you know! Another opinion :D

Again, there is nothing factual about this statement. Just your usual dosage of ad hominems.

Yet another opinion. Where's the facts at?

Now I'll call bullshit. They were told to get out of Falujah CH. This I know for a fact.
You seem to call "bullshit" to anything that doesn't fit with your opinion. They may have been told to leave Fallujah, but the fact remains that at US checkpoints on the outskirts of Fallujah, US troops were not allowing any men older than 15 from leaving. Iraqi women who for the most part don't drive vehicles were unable to leave if accompanied by a male 15 and over. They had little alternative than to go back to Fallujah and wait for the atrocity to begin.

You seem to call "bullshit" to anything that doesn't fit with your opinion. They may have been told to leave Fallujah, but the fact remains that at US checkpoints on the outskirts of Fallujah, US troops were not allowing any men older than 15 from leaving.

Proof please? I have seen nor read anything about this on ANY news website nor in any of the papers that I do read and I read alot of them.

Iraqi women who for the most part don't drive vehicles were unable to leave if accompanied by a male 15 and over. They had little alternative than to go back to Fallujah and wait for the atrocity to begin.

The fact remains that they were told to leave by any means necessary. So I have caught you lying through your teeth.

Proof please? I have seen nor read anything about this on ANY news website nor in any of the papers that I do read and I read alot of them.
You need to do more research then? I am not going to be your gopher. I have presented many web sites to back my claims and all you do is dismiss them as opinion. You are very reluctant to post any kind of proof, and rely mostly on your opinion, which are invariably wrong.

The fact remains that they were told to leave by any means necessary. So I have caught you lying through your teeth.
Yes they may have been told to leave, yet some of the civilians were unable to leave, as I have explained. Where am I lying?

You need to do more research then? I am not going to be your gopher. I have presented many web sites to back my claims and all you do is dismiss them as opinion. You are very reluctant to post any kind of proof, and rely mostly on your opinion, which are invariably wrong.

Your right because it was opinions. I'm still waiting on factual evidence.

Yes they may have been told to leave, yet some of the civilians were unable to leave, as I have explained. Where am I lying?

There are many ways to leave CH. Car and bus are only 2 options.

"Neoconservatives are fucking crazies." - Colin Powell.

Corneliu on the other hand, is an idiot.

"Neoconservatives are fucking crazies." - Colin Powell.

Corneliu on the other hand, is an idiot.

Now this is flamebait.

No this man is presenting facts.

Here's the logic.

Whoever follows that which is "fucking crazy" must surely be an idiot.

Colin Powell says A is fucking crazy.

B follows A blindly.
B is an idiot.

Here's the logic.

Colin Powell says A is fucking crazy.

Whoever follows that which is "fucking crazy" must surely be an idiot.

B follows A blindly.
B is an idiot.

Its flamebait.

Then so be it. That is the degree of my discordance with neocon foreign policy.

Now this is flamebait.
Well, given your penchant for flaming, I guess you ought to know?

Today, you have called me a liar, a bullshitter, and brainwashed. In the past, you have called me a moron and an idiot, among other things. So what is your problem?

Oh, I know what your problem is....you have no proof to back your claims, and when others display their proof (which you constantly ask for) you attack them.

It would really be refreshing if you could actually debate the subject at hand with a modicum of decency and provide proof for your talking points.

Once again, I'll point you to Saddam's violations of the Cease-Fire. So now I'll ask you for your facts.
What facts can I offer? Resolution 1441 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)? The text of resolution 686? An explanation on how the UN works? A link to wikipedia or any other site that writes about the restrictions on the use of force by states? The reports by Mr. Blix? His later articles on the situation in Iraq?

You have to spoil the surprise and let me know what facts you are looking for if I am going to be able to accommodate your request.

What facts can I offer? Resolution 1441 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)? The text of resolution 686? An explanation on how the UN works? A link to wikipedia or any other site that writes about the restrictions on the use of force by states? The reports by Mr. Blix? His later articles on the situation in Iraq?

You have to spoil the surprise and let me know what facts you are looking for if I am going to be able to accommodate your request.

Sorry but care to show me in 1441 where it states that we needed a 2nd resolution to launch the war? There isn't one.

Under the Rules of Armed Conflict, we do not need ANYONE'S permission (outside of the president) to resume military operations against a nation that has violated the ceasefire.

Under International Law, once a nation has violated a cease-fire, war picks up where it left off, regardless of international bodies. This law has been around a hell of a lot longer than the United Nations has been around.

As to Mr. Blix, I honestly don't care what he has to say about Iraq right now. Right now, I'm waiting for all the Iraqi papers that were released to be translated into English to read. Oh and one of those papers that were already translated proved that he never turned over Kuwati prisoners as they were used as human shields. Failure to hand over Kuwaiti POWS is a violatoin of the Cease-fire agreement of Resolution 686 which means that we had clear authority to go back in there since he violated the terms of the cease-fire.

Well, given your penchant for flaming, I guess you ought to know?

Today, you have called me a liar, a bullshitter, and brainwashed. In the past, you have called me a moron and an idiot, among other things. So what is your problem?

Oh, I know what your problem is....you have no proof to back your claims, and when others display their proof (which you constantly ask for) you attack them.

It would really be refreshing if you could actually debate the subject at hand with a modicum of decency and provide proof for your talking points.

Well unlike you, my proof comes from soldiers, the Rules of War and the Laws of Armed Conflict as well as the UCMJ. I could also list UN Resolution 686 here but I already know you don't care about Saddam's violations of the resolution, which inturn means he violated the Cease-Fire.

I know what I'm saying are facts of the case whereas, you only care about quoting other people's opinions and foreign courts who have no jurisdiction over US Foreign Policy.

you only care about quoting other people's opinions and foreign courts who have no jurisdiction over US Foreign Policy.
And you only care about shoring up US Foreign Policy as little as it takes in order to deflect criticism from without.

And you only care about shoring up US Foreign Policy as little as it takes in order to deflect criticism from without.

If I believe the govenrment made a mistake, I'd be the first to say it. However, I do not believe the government made a mistake by going into Iraq.

Maybe we need a D-Day.:( actually we need a V-Day

Sorry but care to show me in 1441 where it states that we needed a 2nd resolution to launch the war? There isn't one.
You're right, there is no second resolution. And there should be one to make the war legal.
As for showing you, I'd be happy to.
Resolution 1441:

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General
of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with
inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament
obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for
full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure
international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
For a further explanation, read on below...

Under the Rules of Armed Conflict, we do not need ANYONE'S permission (outside of the president) to resume military operations against a nation that has violated the ceasefire.

Under International Law, once a nation has violated a cease-fire, war picks up where it left off, regardless of international bodies. This law has been around a hell of a lot longer than the United Nations has been around.
In this case, you are quite incorrect. You see, the use of force against Iraq in Gulf War I was authorized by the UNSC in resolution 678. This resolution clearly states that "all necessary means" may be used - i.e. the use of force against the country.
That authorization is revoked by resolution 686, by noting the cease-fire agreement, and stating that for the period required for Iraq to comply with paragraph two and three in the resolution, "the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 678 remain valid". Should Iraq not comply, use of force may be implemented. (So far I think we are in agreement?)

The question now is, who can decide if Iraq is in compliance with the previous resolutions? Can the US unilaterally decide that Iraq is not fulfilling it's obligations and resume military actions? No. The interpretation and implementation of resolutions is the prerogative of the UN, specifically the UNSC.

Now, the US did indeed take the case to the UN, and thus resolution 1441 was passed. This resolution noted:1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular
through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA,
and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687
(1991);

This, however, did not mean that the US could go to war, as paragraph 2 of the resolution continued:
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this
resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under
relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced
inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the
disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent
resolutions of the Council;

With this in mind, we continue to the last paragraphs:

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General
of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with
inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament
obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for
full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure
international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Having given Iraq "a final opportunity", it is again the prerogative of the UNSC to decide whether or not Iraq has complied. A single member state has no opportunity to act alone and before the UNSC has determined the existence of a threat to peace and security under chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations - unless of course it is in self defence or another legitimate reason for the use of force. That was, however, not the case in this instance.

Note that resolution 1441 was a resolution backed by the US as well.

One could also note that the phrase "serious consequences" is a much weaker term then previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII, and could be limited to actions under article 41 and 42 of the Charter - and not article 48. But that is a minor point in this debate.

You're right, there is no second resolution. And there should be one to make the war legal.
As for showing you, I'd be happy to.
Resolution 1441:

For a further explanation, read on below...

In this case, you are quite incorrect. You see, the use of force against Iraq in Gulf War I was authorized by the UNSC in resolution 678. This resolution clearly states that "all necessary means" may be used - i.e. the use of force against the country.

That is what 678 stated and in paragraph 4 of UN Resolutoin 686, it states that Paragraph 2 of 678 will go back into force if Hussein violates 686. Guess what? Hussein violated 686. Under 686, Paragraph 4 gets invoked which means that paragraph 2 of 678 gets re-invoked. Therefore, the War in Iraq is still legal.

All other UN Resolutions don't take away from this fact. Also, 1441 does not state that a 2nd resolution is needed for the war to continue. If you notice, most if not all of their resolutions say what section 14 says.

That is what 678 stated and in paragraph 4 of UN Resolutoin 686, it states that Paragraph 2 of 678 will go back into force if Hussein violates 686. Guess what? Hussein violated 686. Under 686, Paragraph 4 gets invoked which means that paragraph 2 of 678 gets re-invoked. Therefore, the War in Iraq is still legal.

All other UN Resolutions don't take away from this fact. Also, 1441 does not state that a 2nd resolution is needed for the war to continue. If you notice, most if not all of their resolutions say what section 14 says.

Should I quote myself?

The question now is, who can decide if Iraq is in compliance with the previous resolutions? Can the US unilaterally decide that Iraq is not fulfilling it's obligations and resume military actions? No. The interpretation and implementation of resolutions is the prerogative of the UN, specifically the UNSC.
<snip>
Having given Iraq "a final opportunity", it is again the prerogative of the UNSC to decide whether or not Iraq has complied. A single member state has no opportunity to act alone and before the UNSC has determined the existence of a threat to peace and security under chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations - unless of course it is in self defence or another legitimate reason for the use of force. That was, however, not the case in this instance.

Note that resolution 1441 was a resolution backed by the US as well.

Should I quote myself?

I know 1441 was a resolution backed by the US. However, what you seem to forget is that International Law has been around longer than the United Nations.

Do you know what the Law is in the international realm if you violate a cease-fire?

I know what the answer to this is and we followed it when we went back into Iraq. You cannot manuever yourself out of the fact that he violated 686 paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. Since he did that, Paragraph 4 automatically gets invoked regardless of other resolutions. The UN Doesn't have to invoke it as they also know what the law is in regards to cease-fire violations. If they wanted to control the act of going back to war, they would've put it into their resolution and they didn't.

Under International Law, once a cease-fire is broken, war resumes where it left off. That is the law. You cannot argue this fact as this has been the human norm for over a millenium.

UN Resolution 1441 never stated that a 2nd resolution was necessary for the resumption of action. It was his last chance and he blew it. Therefor, under 1441, serious consequences shall occur.

After 12 years of putting up with Saddam Hussein's violations of International Law, he is now being tried for his crimes and it is thanks to the Coalition that he is finally in a prison cell. If the coalition hadn't followed International Law and waited for the UN to act, and we all know they wouldn't have, he would still be sitting in Baghdad torturing, raping, and making people who oppose him disappear and would still be ruling by a reign of terror.

I know 1441 was a resolution backed by the US. However, what you seem to forget is that International Law has been around longer than the United Nations.

Do you know what the Law is in the international realm if you violate a cease-fire?
Yes, you have a choice to go back to war - it is not a forced, automatic event. And so it was up to the UN to decide what they wanted to do.

It is the job of the Security Council as a whole—and not individual member states—to determine when a resolution had been breached and how to enforce it. No member state has the right to act independently on the United Nations' behalf, as the US would be doing under this rationale.

And even if the US could have done so, that was changed with the passing of resolution 1441.


I know what the answer to this is and we followed it when we went back into Iraq. You cannot manuever yourself out of the fact that he violated 686 paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. Since he did that, Paragraph 4 automatically gets invoked regardless of other resolutions. The UN Doesn't have to invoke it as they also know what the law is in regards to cease-fire violations. If they wanted to control the act of going back to war, they would've put it into their resolution and they didn't.

Maybe not, but the UN had to come to the conclusion that he was in violation. They did so when passing resolution 1441 - and at the same time giving him a final opportunity, an opportunity that never got the chance to be fulfilled, because the US invaded before the final report of the weapons inspectors was ready and presented.


Under International Law, once a cease-fire is broken, war resumes where it left off. That is the law. You cannot argue this fact as this has been the human norm for over a millenium.
No. This claim is not accurate. Se above.

UN Resolution 1441 never stated that a 2nd resolution was necessary for the resumption of action. It was his last chance and he blew it. Therefor, under 1441, serious consequences shall occur.
Yes, but again it is not up to the individual member states to decide what serious consequences that should occur. And even if it did not state that a second resolution was necessary, it follows from the system itself that another resolution was needed.


After 12 years of putting up with Saddam Hussein's violations of International Law, he is now being tried for his crimes and it is thanks to the Coalition that he is finally in a prison cell. If the coalition hadn't followed International Law and waited for the UN to act, and we all know they wouldn't have, he would still be sitting in Baghdad torturing, raping, and making people who oppose him disappear and would still be ruling by a reign of terror.
Irrelevant, and I disagree. The coalition did not follow international law, but rather broke it and conducted a war of agression - a war crime.

Yes, you have a choice to go back to war - it is not a forced, automatic event. And so it was up to the UN to decide what they wanted to do.

No it wasn't. Not under 686 it wasn't. I see you really do not have a grasp on International Law as well as the Rules of Armed Combat.

It is the job of the Security Council as a whole—and not individual member states—to determine when a resolution had been breached and how to enforce it. No member state has the right to act independently on the United Nations' behalf, as the US would be doing under this rationale.

Last time I checked, the UNSC does not dictate foreign policy of other nations. Last time I checked, the UN is not a World Legislative Body. The UN cannot trump the sovereignty of another nation nor did the UN take away ANY nation's right to wage war on another. All it is, is a place to bring concerns and problems before to be mediated. That's it.

And even if the US could have done so, that was changed with the passing of resolution 1441.

Wrong.

Maybe not, but the UN had to come to the conclusion that he was in violation.

And they have. Numerous Times.

They did so when passing resolution 1441 - and at the same time giving him a final opportunity, an opportunity that never got the chance to be fulfilled, because the US invaded before the final report of the weapons inspectors was ready and presented.

It wasn't going to be fulfilled anyway as he was already stonewalling even this last attempt and we all know it. Even Hans Blix said so in his speeches.

No. This claim is not accurate. Se above.

Study up on International Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict.

Yes, but again it is not up to the individual member states to decide what serious consequences that should occur. And even if it did not state that a second resolution was necessary, it follows from the system itself that another resolution was needed.

Sorry buddy but it is inaccurate. A nation reserves the right to go to war with another nation at anytime. Especially if said nation violated a cease-fire.

Irrelevant, and I disagree. The coalition did not follow international law, but rather broke it and conducted a war of agression - a war crime.

Sorry but no. We didn't violate International Law by attacking Iraq.

Oh, I'm sorry, here I thought you were interested in a debate on this issue. My mistake.
No it wasn't. Not under 686 it wasn't. I see you really do not have a grasp on International Law as well as the Rules of Armed Combat.
Obviously I have no grasp, because you say so - without presenting any arguement whatsoever! :rolleyes:

Last time I checked, the UNSC does not dictate foreign policy of other nations. Last time I checked, the UN is not a World Legislative Body. The UN cannot trump the sovereignty of another nation nor did the UN take away ANY nation's right to wage war on another. All it is, is a place to bring concerns and problems before to be mediated. That's it.
* The customary international law regulating the use of force by states does not allow wars of agression.
* Article 2 of the United Nations Charter is a part of international law and does not allow wars of agression.
* The UN is a vital part in creating international law.
* Resolutions passed by the UNSC regarding threats to international peace and security most definitely trumps the sovereignty of any member state.


Wrong.
Because you say so, again...


And they have. Numerous Times.

And then they had to decide how to respond. Not doing anything is also a response.


It wasn't going to be fulfilled anyway as he was already stonewalling even this last attempt and we all know it. Even Hans Blix said so in his speeches.
You're welcome to back up that statement - especially a quote from Mr. Blix - but it doesn't matter much anyway. It is a question of legality, not practicality.


Study up on International Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict.
:rolleyes:
Funny, I would recomend that you did the same. You haven't presented much in ways of arguements here.


Sorry buddy but it is inaccurate. A nation reserves the right to go to war with another nation at anytime. Especially if said nation violated a cease-fire.
*sigh*
No.
See the restrictions on the use of force by states. International law, you know. For your convenience, I'll link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_by_states) to the article on Wikipedia.


Sorry but no. We didn't violate International Law by attacking Iraq.
Again, you've not presented much of an arguement. But that's OK, you can argue that it wasn't a violation of international law because you say so as much as you want. Have fun :)

*snip*

Why don't we just agree to disagree on this. I believe we followed International law to the letter. You disagree and that is your right.

At least you and I didn't hurl insults at one another. That's a first :D

Why don't we just agree to disagree on this. I believe we followed International law to the letter. You disagree and that is your right.

At least you and I didn't hurl insults at one another. That's a first :D

Seems like a nice compromise. And it's always refreshing when insults are avoided, isn't it? :p

Seems like a nice compromise. And it's always refreshing when insults are avoided, isn't it? :p

very refreshing. In truth, we both could use the resolutions till we are blue in the face and it won't change anything. Its nice debate material though, I'll give it that :)

Under International Law, once a cease-fire is broken, war resumes where it left off. That is the law. You cannot argue this fact as this has been the human norm for over a millenium.

LOL
You'll lose Gravlen. Give it up already. You can't fight the facts this wunderkind of foreign relations has to offer.

They said that - doesn't change the fact that they WERE found.
.

No WMD were found, thats what it says in the report because (and try to conceptualise this) none were found. If you feel like typing that "no, they were", just back-hand yourself across the chops a few times till the urge passes.

My position is that the inspection teams were not allowed to do their jobs so we pulled them out and went to war.
.

Goody for you. Why then is it contained in British cabinet papers that Bush had decided to go to war before this occurred, and regardless of whether or not the inspectors found anything?

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
from "IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY" of 2002.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html


In addition to this we have the authenticated leaked details of a meeting between Bush and Blair which further underline this -

"Channel 4 News tonight reveals extraordinary details of George Bush and Tony Blair's pre-war meeting in January 2003 at which they discussed plans to begin military action on March 10th 2003, irrespective of whether the United Nations had passed a new resolution authorising the use of force.

Channel 4 News has seen minutes from that meeting, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. The two leaders discussed the possibility of securing further UN support, but President Bush made it clear that he had already decided to go to war. The details are contained in a new version of the book 'Lawless World' written by a leading British human rights lawyer, Philippe Sands QC.

President Bush said that:

"The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.'''
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661


Can't argue the facts Nodinia. If we did, infact, go outside the charter, then where is the investigation? Why aren't we brought up before the Security Council has proscribed by the UN Charter?.

See above, In addition ,the same reasons that Reagan was able to ignore all efforts to keep the US off Nicaragua, and the same reasons that Israel can be in violation for four decades. It would require the West to move as a body against the US, and we know that thats not going to happen.

I find it ironic you're on about facts, as you have ignored them consistently. If you want to talk facts, explain the memo and minutes above.

LOL
You'll lose Gravlen. Give it up already. You can't fight the facts this wunderkind of foreign relations has to offer.
I'm sure I don't know what you mean.

Yeah? Well, that's unfortunate.

Not only is Corneliu ignorant of UN and international law but he is one of those sad individuals that believes that the War in Iraq had something to do with UN cease-fire protocols to begin with.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out he also belongs to those 40% of Americans that still believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

Not only is Corneliu ignorant of UN and international law but he is one of those sad individuals that believes that the War in Iraq had something to do with UN cease-fire protocols to begin with.

Actually it did have something to do with the UN Cease-fire. It also had a humanitarian aspect as well. This is all a matter or public record. Also, I do know about international law as well as the UN.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out he also belongs to those 40% of Americans that still believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

Oh get off it Canada6. I don't care if he had anything to do with 9/11 or not.