Author Topic: France ...classic again..wtg!!! (Read 2308 times)

Hristo · « **Reply #30 on:** March 28, 2004, 11:20:52 AM »

If we keep this diuscussion civilized (even though the topic title itself has prejudice about French), we might discover something new, at least to me.

Did UN specifically say that US (or anyone else) should invade Iraq if this or that condition was not met ? Did it, after the conditiones weren't met, give an official go ?

NUKE · « **Reply #31 on:** March 28, 2004, 11:24:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
Now really ? What I remember was US acting on its own, despite UN.

I may be missinformed afterall then ?! Got any link to written facts or resolutions ?

What if the UN had authorized the invasion....who would you have been pissed at in that case?

Obviously you don't like the fact that Iraq was brought into compliance of the UN resolutions.

straffo · « **Reply #32 on:** March 28, 2004, 11:24:12 AM »

That's not how things are suppose to work :

Quote

the Security Council implicitly revived the authorisation to use force which it had given in SCR 678."

In this game it suppose to be explicit not interpreted.

Btw your link is about ceasefire violation ,nothing about invasion of Iraq that's 2 different things.

AKIron · « **Reply #33 on:** March 28, 2004, 11:26:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
If we keep this diuscussion civilized (even though the topic title itself has prejudice about French), we might discover something new, at least to me.

Did UN specifically say that US (or anyone else) should invade Iraq if this or that condition was not met ? Did it, after the conditiones weren't met, give an official go ?

Iraq never satisfied the conditions of the original cease fire agreement. Any necessary force had been authorized by the UN prior, it was still in effect.

I have to say at this point, when Hussein attempted to assasinate George Bush, his position, if not his life, was forfeit at that time, regardless of what the UN or anyone else thought or said.

Hristo · « **Reply #34 on:** March 28, 2004, 11:31:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
How about this:

"There was a clear legal basis in existing Security Council Resolutions for the action we took last December. Security Council Resolution (SCR) 1154 made clear that any violation by Iraq of its obligations to allow UNSCOM and IAEA unrestricted access would have the severest consequences. Following Iraq's decision of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with UNSCOM, the Council, in SCR 1205, established that that decision was a flagrant violation of SCR 687 which laid down the conditions for the 1991 ceasefire. The Council also recalled that the effective operation of UNSCOM and the IAEA was essential for the implementation of the ceasefire resolution. By SCR 1205, therefore, the Security Council implicitly revived the authorisation to use force which it had given in SCR 678."

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg01194.html

OK, 1154 says "severe consequences". Nothing specific, one could say just a warning. And what, to my knowledge, UN inspectors with Hans Blix were in Iraq prior to US invasion and didn't find anything. In fact, even Blix himself said so.

After that 1205 implicitly authorizes the use of force. By whom ? When ? Under what circumstances ? Under UN inspectors not being able to do their job ? But they were in Iraq just then. Is someone's own interpretation of a documant a reason enough for an invasion of a country ?

AKIron · « **Reply #35 on:** March 28, 2004, 11:37:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
OK, 1154 says "severe consequences". Nothing specific, one could say just a warning. And what, to my knowledge, UN inspectors with Hans Blix were in Iraq prior to US invasion and didn't find anything. In fact, even Blix himself said so.

After that 1205 implicitly authorizes the use of force. By whom ? When ? Under what circumstances ? Under UN inspectors not being able to do their job ? But they were in Iraq just then. Is someone's own interpretation of a documant a reason enough for an invasion of a country ?

The UN was then hamstrung by France and Germany. IMO, it will never again be effective. One reason why I won't consider voting for John Kerry, he would submit us to it's authority.

Hristo · « **Reply #36 on:** March 28, 2004, 11:40:53 AM »

OK, as before, we didn't change our views at all on the subject. What looks to you "hamstrung by France or Germany" look to me like a good thing to do.

Off to some less grim topics, thanks for being civilized, AKIron.

AKIron · « **Reply #37 on:** March 28, 2004, 11:44:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
OK, as before, we didn't change our views at all on the subject. What looks to you "hamstrung by France or Germany" look to me like a good thing to do.

Off to some less grim topics, thanks for being civilized, AKIron.

Damn, did I forget to call you a moron? Hope you won't think any less of me.

maslo · « **Reply #38 on:** March 28, 2004, 12:05:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Someone arrested Bush? Awwww mannnnn!

im just wondering that nobody is trying to give him KIA status

maslo · « **Reply #39 on:** March 28, 2004, 12:08:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Your're talking about Saddam I see. How Ironic

i would guess that you dont see

maslo · « **Reply #40 on:** March 28, 2004, 12:13:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Blammo
So, you are saying Saddam was not inviolation of UN resolution 1441 (and a score of others). Are you saying he was not in violating the ceasefire agreement from the first Gulf war? Are you saying that He was not a threat to his neighbors? Are you saying he is not guilty of countless human rights violations?

I agree with you.

btw will old US president come to trail as well ? He supported SH in war against Iran.

man can you imagine that Satan Saddam has been supported by USA.

yeah yeah yeah ... i know these times he were lovely white sheep

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #41 on:** March 28, 2004, 12:21:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Capt. Pork
I'm gonna go with Ripsnort's Sig. line on this one.

perhaps not the wisest of choices...

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #42 on:** March 28, 2004, 03:29:34 PM »

Man, some people don't quite understand the power, and simplicity of putting a .45 to the front of his head and pulling the trigger.

Saddam deserves it too.

Airhead · « **Reply #43 on:** March 28, 2004, 03:50:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Man, some people don't quite understand the power, and simplicity of putting a .45 to the front of his head and pulling the trigger.

Saddam deserves it too.

LOL you aren't real bright, are you?

Arlo · « **Reply #44 on:** March 28, 2004, 05:25:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by maslo
im just wondering that nobody is trying to give him KIA status

I'm sure terrorists would like to kill the U.S. president. Or are you wondering why an American citizen hasn't attempted to assassinate him? Perhaps you'd like another "stab" at this?