Pre-war data on Iraq not solid: Powell

[Gixer]

Originally posted by LAWCobra
LOL you mean after 12 years of old SH jerkin evryone off.

Hardly compares to the jerking off going on now. But I understand your point. Since the inspectors and the UN pulled out we've been able to find the WMD"s within a year and prove that the UN inspections wern't working.

Errr. nope.



...-Gixer

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by Nilsen10
ROFL @ Rino... nice try fella. everyone knew saddam was an ahole to use that term but he was a criminal.
If the US and its allies are gonna act like judge and jury without evidence to prosecute and remove saddam with the law and morality on its side then they can't resort to lies. If they do then they break the fundamental values of the law and order they try to uphold.

Jeez...Iraq was in violation of the 91' CEASE FIRE. They continued to fire on our aircraft in the NO FLY ZONES they agreed to. This is only one of many violations of the 91' cease fire (THEY AGREED TO). The war was only a continuation of the 91' Gulf War. Not a new one.

[Gixer]

Rino,

Why do you specifiy Norway/New Zealand Aliance? I don't sum up your opinon as being that of your entire nation. If your going to make a comment try and keep it intelligent,  as it makes it alot more interesting for the rest of us.



...-Gixer

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by weaselsan
continued to fire on our aircraft in the NO FLY ZONES they agreed to.

Really, can you please point to a docuement or quote that indicates that Iraq agreed to it.  And please also indicate which document gave the US, France and the UK authority to implement the "no fly zones".

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Thrawn
NATO commenced air attacks in Yugoslavia before getting approval from the UN.  All the NATO countries that participated are just as guilty as the coalltion force for being in violation of the UN Charter.

Thrawn,

That's completely false and trying to relate that to Iraq is also completely false.

NATO involvement did have approval from the UN. This quote is from an International Law site regarding the exact subject. Whether NATO had UN approval to get involved militarily.

"The NATO action in Kosovo had the support of the Security Council. Twelve (out of fifteen) members of the Council voted to reject the Russian resolution of March 26, thereby agreeing in effect that the NATO intervention had been called for and should continue. And on June 10, the Security Council, in Resolution 1244 approving the Kosovo settlement, effectively ratified the NATO action and gave it the Council's support."


...-Gixer

[Thrawn]

NATO commenced it's bombing campaign on March 24.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by weaselsan
Jeez...Iraq was in violation of the 91' CEASE FIRE. They continued to fire on our aircraft in the NO FLY ZONES they agreed to. This is only one of many violations of the 91' cease fire (THEY AGREED TO). The war was only a continuation of the 91' Gulf War. Not a new one.

That's all totally incorrect.

The United Nations NEVER authroized the no-fly zones they were illegal.. The defence of "they continue to fire on our aircraft and therefore break UN resolutions" was dropped by the Bush administration since U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go.

 And their decision not to use either "self-defense" or violation of the UN resolution as a justification for invading Iraq is an implicit acknowledgment of that illegality.



...-Gixer

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Thrawn
NATO commenced it's bombing campaign on March 24.

Yes that bits right, what your missing is that NATO did have approval from the UN security council other then from 3 countries to do so. which i detailed in a previous post. I can paste the whole resolution if you like.  Russia and China obviously would never of agreed to it. Can't remember who the 3rd was.



...-Gixer

[Thrawn]

1. Saying you are against something doesn't explicately mean you are for another.  

2. Even if it did, NATO attacked Yugoslavia before it had UN SC approval which is contrary to the articles of the UN Charter.  The UN approving an action after the fact does not change that.


What if the UN SC passes a resolution 20 years down the road saying that the coallation is allowed to invade Iraq.  Does that mean they didn't break international law in 2003?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Apparently the UNSC (incl Syria) was convinced when they voted for 1441, and in 1441 there were some issues addressed other than WMD's.

Intresting everyone remembers WMD's and no one recalls that "end to repression" part...

Interesting that you chose to leave out the following.

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

and

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 subsequentresolutions of the Council;


What I find ironic is that 1441 was sponsored by the US government and then US government decides to ignore it.

[Holden McGroin]

 Yes that bits right, what your missing is that NATO did have approval from the UN security council other then from 3 countries to do so.

So apparently one does not need UNSC approval in order to act?  Which three countries do not count?

It is interesting that the US and UK did choose to 'ignore' 1441, due to the inability of gathering a consensus from all five permanent members for the action.

We now know that France and Russia had complete, accurate intelligence to guide them in their decision.

It is said that many pre-Columbian navigators thought the world flat and professed that idea. Were they liars? No, they were simply wrong.

Call Bush wrong on WMD's and you are stating a fact based on today's available data. Call Bush a liar on WMD's and you are taking a leap of logic based on today's evidence.

What I was trying to do was explain that decisions are made with the information at hand. After a time passes, it is easy to evaluate whether or not the decisions are correct. If one could make decisions with complete and accurate information of the aftermath many historical decisions would have been made differently.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Gixer
That's all totally incorrect.

The United Nations NEVER authroized the no-fly zones they were illegal.. The defence of "they continue to fire on our aircraft and therefore break UN resolutions" was dropped by the Bush administration since U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go.

 And their decision not to use either "self-defense" or violation of the UN resolution as a justification for invading Iraq is an implicit acknowledgment of that illegality.



...-Gixer

Iraq protested the no-fly zones and their legality in the UN multiple times. The UN never once instructed the U.S. or Great Britain to discontinue them. And their decision not to is an implicit acknowledgement of it's legality.

Nice try. I suggest a different tact other than that tried by the Iraqi Minister of "Information."

[_Schadenfreude_]

Originally posted by lazs2
People in the U.S. question authority more than any other nation...   Most of you think your leaders are gods and your government is altruistic.

You REALLY need to stop focusing on our govenrnment so much and fix your own socialist messes.

lazs

lol too funny, we THINK the leaders of the USA are lying scum, we KNOW that that our leaders are lying scum - well in the UK anyway....

[Nash]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

It is said that many pre-Columbian navigators thought the world flat and professed that idea. Were they liars? No, they were simply wrong.

Call Bush wrong on WMD's and you are stating a fact based on today's available data. Call Bush a liar on WMD's and you are taking a leap of logic based on today's evidence.

Pls don't hate me if I laff.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is said that many pre-Columbian navigators thought the world flat and professed that idea. Were they liars? No, they were simply wrong.

That's a spurious comparison.  The Bush adminstation knew that the US and British intelligence agencies did not "know" that Iraq had WMD because they told them so.  Yet both countries governments present it otherwise.