Germany Owes the World an Apology!

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Thrawn
NUKE, the US is in violation of Resolution 1441 as well as the UN Charter.

I've read 1441, but I'll bite. How is the US in violation of 1441?

[Curval]

Quote from a Blitz source:  Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare.

Pesticides eh?

Hmmm...well, Dow Chemical sold 'em, Iraq made them into chemical weapons, and at the time there was no UN ban on such exports.

Assuming this IS the case, then I am more and more interested in what the US found in this recent agricultural storage facilty.

I am also going to save this source for when all of the pesticides are found around Iraq....you know, the ones the UN said Sadaam should NOT have now and the ones he said he destroyed...ones that can be made into chemical weapons.  The ones that are not just for agricultural use.

[lazs2]

blitz... now that I know how germany feels about the U.S. and about the sadmans regime... I know I don't want you guys fighting alongside our guys.   sheesh... might as well use french guys.
lazs

[N1kPaz]

hey i have an idea....Germany and France join to create one nation.

Call it Wannabeia..

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Duedel
If this is right - yes the German (like the US and French and Russian and ...) companies that sell materials directly to Iraq owe the world an BIG apology!!! But NOT the German government and NOT the German citizens.

You prove directly which companies in the US have sold weapons, ammo, and / or military hardware to the Iraquis, and I guarantee you find a company "Out of Business"!  There are no weapons and or ammo in Iraq made by the US, unless it was not sold to another principal first.  

End the witch hunt in the US, and look at Germany France China and the Russians... they are the world'd potatoS anyways.

[funkedup]

Originally posted by Curval
Quote from a Blitz source:  Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare.

Pesticides eh?

Hmmm...well, Dow Chemical sold 'em, Iraq made them into chemical weapons, and at the time there was no UN ban on such exports.

Assuming this IS the case, then I am more and more interested in what the US found in this recent agricultural storage facilty.

I am also going to save this source for when all of the pesticides are found around Iraq....you know, the ones the UN said Sadaam should NOT have now and the ones he said he destroyed...ones that can be made into chemical weapons.  The ones that are not just for agricultural use.

Yes,

If the USA sells pesticides to Iraq then they are terrible inhumane chemical weapons and the USA should apologize.

But if we find pesticides in Iraq, then they are not weapons of mass destruction and Iraq was no threat to the USA, it's redikilus.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by NUKE
I've read 1441, but I'll bite. How is the US in violation of 1441?

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

Apparently Canada has a few officers over there as well so we would be in breach of this resolution as well as the others that reaffirm the sovereignty of Iraq.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Thrawn
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"

Apparently Canada has a few officers over there as well so we would be in breach of this resolution as well as the others that reaffirm the sovereignty of Iraq.

That's a very thin argument Thrawn.... you can't be serious.

I suspected you would find a very ambiguous and you did.

The point of 1441 is that Iraq must honor all previous resolutions begining with the original cease fire agreement. 1441 threatens serious consequences if Iraq does not comply.

You think that 1441 contradicts itself by saying that because we "Reaffirm the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States," that war is never an option due to this phrase?

If you believe that we are in violation because of this phrase, you are mistaken.

by the way, can you prove that the US is not commited to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States??  I

[Thrawn]

Ambiguous?  Surely not.  What do consider ambiguous in the statement?  It's certainly less ambiguous then say, "serious consequences".



"by the way, can you prove that the US is not commited to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States?? I"

Come now you must be joking.  Hmmm let me think, oh yes, I believe the US happened to INVADE Iraq recently.  I recommend you look up the word sovereignty.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Ambiguous?  Surely not.  What do consider ambiguous in the statement?  It's certainly less ambiguous then say, "serious consequences".



"by the way, can you prove that the US is not commited to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States?? I"

Come now you must be joking.  Hmmm let me think, oh yes, I believe the US happened to INVADE Iraq recently.  I recommend you look up the word sovereignty.

Ambiguous yes. "reaffirming a commitment" is a lot different than "there shall be no infringment of sovergeingty" or other such language.

And yes, the US is committed to maintaining the sovereingty of Iraq . After this military action, Iraq will be soveriegn and will have maintained it's territory.

Iraq is sovereign even as we speak by the way, we just happen to be attacking them and enforcing our original cease fire agreement.

[Thrawn]

Please. So the US is going to break international law, but then mean to follow it?

That like some one saying well I'm going to rob so and so, but then I promise not to. It doesn't undo the crime.

Is your belief that US isn't breaking international law so necessary that you will attempt to defend it with such weak arguements.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Please.  So the US is going to break international law, but then mean to follow it?

That like some one saying well I'm going to rob so and so, but then I promise not to.  It doesn't undo the crime.

Is your belief that US isn't breaking international law so necessary that you will attempt to defend it with such weak arguements.

Is Iraq not sovereign as we speak?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Thrawn
It reaffirms what is in the UN charter.  That member states are sovereign nations.

Please.  So the US is going to break international law, but then mean to follow it?

That like some one saying well I'm going to rob so and so, but then I promise not to.  It doesn't undo the crime.

What international law is the US in violation of?

[Thrawn]

No, because it doesn't have authority over all it's territory.


PS: sorry about the edit.



"What international law is the US in violation of?"

The UN Charter and sections of the Geneva convention.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Thrawn
It reaffirms what is in the UN charter.  That member states are sovereign nations.

So the UN can never authorize military force because it would violate the UN charter?

Now I think I get it.