Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on January 20, 2005, 05:19:30 PM
-
I bet it would be a big hit. Just list all the logical reasons that the US went to war against Iraq. Pretty much a slam dunk.
No hype, just facts and logic.
1. Iraq invades Kuwait, threatens world oil reserves in Middle East.
2. UN passes resolution, tells Iraq to leave. Resolution ignored.
3. Bush tells world, "agression will not stand", orders military buildup in region
4. Iraq ignores threats/resolutions from UN to leave Kuwait
5. US and allies kick Iraq out of Kuwait
6. Iraq argees to terms of cease-fire.
7. Saddam tries to kill off the Kurds in north, US imposes no fly zone to protect them
8. years go by, Saddam kicks out UN inpsectors, still no compliance with cease-fire, UN helpess to do anything about it.....maybe draft another resolution or three
9. Bush II puts large US force in Middle East
10. Saddam allows inpsectors......afraid of US, not of UN
11. Saddam never fully complies with UN or inspectors
12. UN passes "LAST CHANCE" resolution for Iraq to comply
13. Iraq still does not comply by UN deadline
14. The US, having spent billions and billions screwing around with Iraq, trying to get them to comply with the UN, decides to take out Saddam and make sure Iraq complied with all cease-fire agreements. Mission accomplished.
15. Saddam taken out. Iraq in compliance with all UN resolutions and cease-fire agreement.
16. Ignornant people from around the world think the US is hellbent on war......because the US only waited 13 years for Iraq to comply.
17. No WMD found in Iraq. People then claim war was not justified, even though before the war, everybody, including France, Germany, Russia and the UN all said Iraq probably had WMD.
18. GB re-elected President of USA.
19. Free elections in Iraq. No more Saddam and 100% of the vote.
20. US forces leave Iraq a free nation.
-
LOL, it's all so simple. Thank you, Nuke, what would the world do without you?!
-
AMEN brother preach on the richious word!
-
Originally posted by SOB
LOL, it's all so simple. Thank you, Nuke, what would the world do without you?!
I never said the world needed me in any way, poop face!
I just think the logic and facts regarding the Iraq war get mixed up in the media and by liberal pukes.
If you actually take the time to reason the facts, the Iraq war was totally logical and justified.
If I write the book, can I put some of your quotes in the preface?
I'm going rich.....RICH tell you!
-
NUKE, put me in for 1 signed copy.:)
But you know this is much like living in a wealthy upscale community in kalifornia that is being hit with a rash of home invasions. The usual is no one is home, people complain to the police for protection. Finally a home is broken into and the owner is home. Faced with 2 perps carrying hand guns, he pulls out a pistol and kills one perp, wounds the other in a hail of rounds. Matter gets cleaned up, but now his neighbors are down at the courthouse crying for the dead perp and trying to get the wounded one off with probation. And they want the home owner to do time for defending himself.
Sounds lik a microcosim of world politics.;)
-
Hey NUKE that's definately sig material. Would save you a lot of typing you know :aok
-
Gscholz, what's the matter? Facts get in the way?
-
I vote that Norway, Sweden, and Denmark go a viking again and be the scourge of the christian world.:aok
-
Originally posted by GScholz
:aok
this is the only correct post I have ever seen this being post.
-
Well, I'm glad you are busy...that's a good thing.
But, the war against Iraq was justifed and I don't see how anyone can argue that it was not.
I'm going to make millions off my book.
-
If you think Iraq is gonna stay free after america leaves that is just hilarious to me. That place is a civil war waiting to happen. Who knows maybe it will be good for them.
1) what proof do you have that saddam's invasion of kuwait was a threat to the world oil reserves? how do you know he wouldnt have just kept selling it as is?
2) You forgot the US left the Kurds out to dry thereby getting a bunch of them killed in an offensive that we promised air cover for and did not provide.
3) hellbent on war....bush aint done yet he just got done saying he was bringing democracy to Muslim countries. And I dont think he means by using his diplomatic skills.
4) nice timeline though gives a good idea of things I would add bush is fixing the mistake his dad made by leaving Saddam in charge but then again thats just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No, I just have way too much work to do anything more than pop in and make a sly remark or two.
Anyways, this is what? The 100th reprint of this discussion? I'll have to make a note to make a template of all my previous posts so I can simply copy & paste.
dont bother...it'll just be the same hate filled BS you have always posted..no need to repeat it. Make 1 line that says....
I hate America and all it stands for.
That ought to JUST about do it.
-
If anyone wants in on my book, email me.....email is in my profile.
-
1. Over 1,000 U.S. Soldiers dead in Iraq.
2. Iraq was not enough of a threat to our national security to warrant invasion.
3. The gamble of getting a stable democracy set up in Iraq is not worth the lives of our soldiers.
It wasn't worth it.
-
Originally posted by SOB
1. Over 1,000 U.S. Soldiers dead in Iraq.
2. Iraq was not enough of a threat to our national security to warrant invasion.
3. The gamble of getting a stable democracy set up in Iraq is not worth the lives of our soldiers.
It wasn't worth it.
Then why did we go after Iraq in gulf war 1? Kuwait?
Did you agree with the US going after Iraq in gulf war one?
And we did not go to war against Iraq to set up a democracy.
-
WOW!
-
OIL OIL OIL
-
8. years go by, Saddam kicks out UN inpsectors, still no compliance with cease-fire,
BS.
Saddam didn't kick out the UN inspectors, they left voluntarily. And he did comply with the cease-fire for years.
13. Iraq still does not comply by UN deadline
BS.
According to UNMOVIC Saddam was in full complience before the US invaded.
14. The US, having spent billions and billions screwing around with Iraq, trying to get them to comply with the UN, decides to take out Saddam and make sure Iraq complied with all cease-fire agreements.
The US decides to spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of to invaded an Iraq that is already in full compliance.
16. Ignornant people from around the world think the US is hellbent on war......because the US only waited 13 years for Iraq to comply.
Or perhaps that the US went to war after Iraq complied.
17. No WMD found in Iraq. People then claim war was not justified, even though before the war, everybody, including France, Germany, Russia and the UN all said Iraq probably had WMD.
Or perhaps because there was an inspection system put into place that was asked for by the US, it was working, and the US ignored it.
20. US forces leave Iraq a free nation. [/B]
How the hell is this a "fact"? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
BS.
Saddam didn't kick out the UN inspectors, they left voluntarily. And he did comply with the cease-fire for years.
lol...explain.
lol
-
I only have a few more investment slots open, then the book goes into production.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
lol...explain.
lol
No. I've already explained it many a time. Why don't you first demostrate your "facts" are try by providing evidence and source information backing it up.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
No. I've already explained it many a time. Why don't you first demostrate your "facts" are try by providing evidence and source information backing it up.
in other words, you can't explain.
You said UN inspectors left Iraq voluntairily and I say you are full of chit. You come back and still can't explain, yet say you have explained it many times. Point to one time you have explained it.
If you can't, like I suspect, then just shut up forget about it.
-
gotta get into the sand selling business.
I'll make a fortune off people willing to stick there head in it.
-
You would do almost as well as the guys teaching Libs how to insert their head deep into the reccess of their ass.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
If you think Iraq is gonna stay free after america leaves that is just hilarious to me. That place is a civil war waiting to happen. Who knows maybe it will be good for them.
1) what proof do you have that saddam's invasion of kuwait was a threat to the world oil reserves? how do you know he wouldnt have just kept selling it as is?
2) You forgot the US left the Kurds out to dry thereby getting a bunch of them killed in an offensive that we promised air cover for and did not provide.
3) hellbent on war....bush aint done yet he just got done saying he was bringing democracy to Muslim countries. And I dont think he means by using his diplomatic skills.
4) nice timeline though gives a good idea of things I would add bush is fixing the mistake his dad made by leaving Saddam in charge but then again thats just my opinion.
you would have rather had a power vacume and civil war then????
How soon you people forget.
1. If you will remember the "highway of death" that was a major spark in ignighting a STOP THE WAR cry though out the world
2. Removing Sadam from power was not the coalition forces mission. It was to liberate kuwait. If you'll remember this was a coalition force acting with UN approval.
3. If the massive force would have turned north to bahgdad and started occupying a soverign nation people would have made the same arguments then as they do now about how it was un justified.
4. Yes the US left the kurds high and dry because there wasn't congressional approval to overthrow Sadam at the time and it would have been argued an illegal secret war.
5. Who cares about oil reserves the first Iraq war much like the second was totally justified.
-
4) nice timeline though gives a good idea of things I would add bush is fixing the mistake his dad made by leaving Saddam in charge but then again thats just my opinion.
Please explain how it was Bush Sr's call to take out Saddam in '91.
-
you mean "The Iraqi war by dummies"
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Please explain how it was Bush Sr's call to take out Saddam in '91.
Called being the Commander in Chief.
-
He was operating under UN resolutions, just like GWB, and he could not have taken Saddam out in 1991 without causing a major war in the region.
-
Originally posted by doobs
gotta get into the sand selling business.
I'll make a fortune off people willing to stick there head in it.
:lol
GScholz! Watch and learn!
-
Originally posted by Lizking
He was operating under UN resolutions, just like GWB, and he could not have taken Saddam out in 1991 without causing a major war in the region.
major war by whom? You mean like the one we are in now? Or do you mean with other countries in the area? I believe the only reason he ever gave for not doing it is he didnt want to lose his muslim allies in the coalition.
-
1. $225,000,000,000 in the first year alone.
2. That's nine ****ing zeros.
3. American boys and taxpayers should not be doing what Iraqi boys should be doing for themselves.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
major war by whom? You mean like the one we are in now? Or do you mean with other countries in the area? I believe the only reason he ever gave for not doing it is he didnt want to lose his muslim allies in the coalition.
Ummmmmm YEA....with out muslim support in the region the coalition would have fallen apart... it was not the mission to dethrown Sadam.......it never was. Bush Sr was one leader of many countries involved in dessert shield/storm.
After the images of the "highway of death" hit the media many people all over the world were calling for a hault in hostilities because the mission was accomplished.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Ummmmmm YEA....with out muslim support in the region the coalition would have fallen apart...
After the images of the "highway of death" hit the media many people all over the world were calling for a hault in hostilities because the mission was accomplished.
1st part is your speculation you have no idea what would have happened except the islamic countries would have gotten mad and stomped their feet,
the 2nd part is his mistake, he didn't lead he was led by public opinion.
-
So when a President works with the UN, you say he is wrong, and when h doens't work with the UN, you say he is wrong. arguing with kids is like masturbating with a baseball glove. You get tired, but that is about it.
-
You were WAY too lenient on the facts that we kept trying to send weapons inspectors there to inspect only to be told.....no you can't look there.......don't look there either.....not there......you can look over here. over and over and over again. We were way too patient. A major cripe from idiots after 9-11 is why we were not prepared for something like this. Trust me there is a reason we have not been attacked since 9-11 and it is because of the great work our military, and commander in chief has done in Afghanistan and Iraq. YES IRAQ. We now live in a world where we have to protect our own borders by going outside of our own. I couldn't imagine if "we will find those responsible-------cruise missile attack--" Clinton were in charge during 9-11. The rules have changed, the gloves are off, and we are taking it to them for the good of our nation. And quit speaking for the soldiers, they volunteered to do exactly what it is they are doing and they are doing a great job of it. They took it to us on 9-11 and we will not back down, we are taking it to them, we will prevail and the world will be a better place with Sadam Hussein on trial and (has) Bin Laden running like a rat. We cannot HOPE for peace, sometimes we have to fight for it.
Tapakeg
-
Originally posted by Lizking
So when a President works with the UN, you say he is wrong, and when h doens't work with the UN, you say he is wrong. arguing with kids is like masturbating with a baseball glove. You get tired, but that is about it.
Pfft, yer just not using the right lubrica...err, nevermind.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If anyone wants in on my book, email me.....email is in my profile.
Email sent NUKE.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Lizking
So when a President works with the UN, you say he is wrong, and when h doens't work with the UN, you say he is wrong. arguing with kids is like masturbating with a baseball glove. You get tired, but that is about it.
lol 1st 2 different presidents 2 different situations. and your right I think both bushes made mistakes handling Iraq.
as for your saying I think you showed who the child was.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
1st part is your speculation you have no idea what would have happened except the islamic countries would have gotten mad and stomped their feet,
the 2nd part is his mistake, he didn't lead he was led by public opinion.
1. mistake or opinion it does not matter. You have your forces in the arab side of the world its best not to piss them off.
2. Occupying Iraq and removing sadam WAS NOT THE MISSION SET BY THE UN!
3. It was not just public opnion it was world opinion. People did not want to see more death and destruction live on TV. They'd had enough, the MISSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED.
in addtion you have not even come close to explaining how this was Bush Sr.'s fault that the mission was as such. He was action in accordance with the UN adn coalition leaders. You want to blame somone blame the UN....they are the ones that set the mission as such.
-
(http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/edoom/Lurking.gif)
-SW
-
All i can say on this subject is how fast people forget about WWII. Hitler Invaded many countries and the League of Nations just sat there did nothing until he invaded Poland. The entire world was at war for almost 2 years before the US entered the war. Americans believed that hitler and his nazi thugs were Europes problem. I bet that if Japan didnt attack Pearl Harbor, America might not have entered the war until Britian fell, and then Hitler turned his attention to the US. How do we know that Saddam wouldnt have invaded Kuwait again and declared war on Israel. It is very possible that we may have stopped another World War.
I do realize that things arent going as planned in Iraq as Bush or anybody else wanted, but has any war in history ever gone as planned, during or after?? Personally i dont think so. Just think for a second, hypothetically if Saddam had Nukes, he would most likely have given them to Bin Laden and then there would have been another Sept 11th, but on a much larger scale. If we would have known what would have happened on Sept 11th before it happened and planned to attack Afganistan, people would be flipping out just like they are now over Iraq. People all over the world dislike the US, but if Britian or France or Russia were the sole Super Power in the world, people would hate them too.
People now days have their heads up there butts so far that they dont want war at all, no matter what happened. I still remember being at home and watching the news when the US begain the air strikes on Afganistan and watching protesters in some countries saying the US didnt have a right to attack afghanistan even though thousands of Americans were killed within 2 hours. GOD BLESS THE US and GEORGE W. BUSH
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
1. mistake or opinion it does not matter. You have your forces in the arab side of the world its best not to piss them off.
2. Occupying Iraq and removing sadam WAS NOT THE MISSION SET BY THE UN!
3. It was not just public opnion it was world opinion. People did not want to see more death and destruction live on TV. They'd had enough, the MISSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED.
in addtion you have not even come close to explaining how this was Bush Sr.'s fault that the mission was as such. He was action in accordance with the UN adn coalition leaders. You want to blame somone blame the UN....they are the ones that set the mission as such.
1) nicely put
2) never said it was. Said it was a mistake for Bush Sr. to not have got him when we could have.
3) agreed
4) He is the CIC. He makes the final call. Not the U.N., Not the soldiers, Not the public/world. Dont think so? I think Georgie jr has shown otherwise. If the U.S. does something the U.N. says such as the 1st gulf war it is because it is in our best interest, not because we take orders form them.
-
Originally posted by EagleEyes
All
Just think for a second, hypothetically if Saddam had Nukes, he would most likely have given them to Bin Laden and then there would have been another Sept 11th, but on a much larger scale.
You should read up on Bin Laden and Saddam some more. They were opposites in the Muslim world.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No, I just have way too much work to do anything more than pop in and make a sly remark or two.
Anyways, this is what? The 100th reprint of this discussion? I'll have to make a note to make a template of all my previous posts so I can simply copy & paste.
Is that that new thing called sarcasm? I must have missed that memo.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
You should read up on Bin Laden and Saddam some more. They were opposites in the Muslim world.
yes but his hatred for the US was greater. Read up on Sadam and world terrorism....here I'll give you a head start.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
-
You assume that both Saddam and Bin Laden have morals and principals. Neither does, and both would, and did use the other to their own ends (and our detriment).
-
(http://flightsims.info/nuke_1.jpg)
(http://flightsims.info/nuke_2.jpg)
(http://flightsims.info/nuke_3.jpg)
(http://flightsims.info/nuke_4.jpg)
(http://flightsims.info/nuke_5.jpg)
-
no need for a head start....none of that shows a Saddam Bin laden link....bunch of plo/israeli stuff but that is not new....The "links" to al-qaida are iffy at best and none of the links are Saddam to Osama.
p.s. might want to fact check some stuff on that site
for example, the airliner hijacking site was proven false a while back. This info and some of the other supposed links to Al-qaida given by him were given to the U.S by who? thats right the INC. The same lying bunch of guys who told us about the mobile chemical trucks and other lies to get us to go over there.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
You assume that both Saddam and Bin Laden have morals and principals. Neither does, and both would, and did use the other to their own ends (and our detriment).
No I assume Saddam wanted to live and keep his power and getting involved with Osama would seriously have jeopardized that.
Bin Laden does have principles they are just warped and fanatical.
So you have some proof of this Saddam/Osama connection that the 9/11 commission didnt find huh? lets hear it...
-
Originally posted by Raider179
no need for a head start....none of that shows a Saddam Bin laden link....bunch of plo/israeli stuff but that is not new....The "links" to al-qaida are iffy at best and none of the links are Saddam to Osama.
p.s. might want to fact check some stuff on that site
for example, the airliner hijacking site was proven false a while back. This info and some of the other supposed links to Al-qaida given by him were given to the U.S by who? thats right the INC. The same lying bunch of guys who told us about the mobile chemical trucks and other lies to get us to go over there.
ahhh I C so bin laden is the only terrorist out there that's a threat.
Man I can sleep better tonite...thx!
-
Evidently, the war on Iraq hasn't reduced terrorism.
source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Evidently, the war on Iraq hasn't reduced terrorism.
source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/)
the Iraq war was not about terrorism.
-
It's your story. Make it as big as you want.
-
Sandman, do you think the war on Iraq was about fighting terrorism?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Sandman, do you think the war on Iraq was about fighting terrorism?
I don't know what it was about. The reasons keep changing.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
you mean "The Iraqi war by dummies"
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! :rofl
-
A man who hate Bradbury creating literature? Call me skeptical.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I bet it would be a big hit. Just list all the logical reasons that the US went to war against Iraq. Pretty much a slam dunk.
No hype, just facts and logic.
1. Iraq invades Kuwait, threatens world oil reserves in Middle East.
2. UN passes resolution, tells Iraq to leave. Resolution ignored.
3. Bush tells world, "agression will not stand", orders military buildup in region
4. Iraq ignores threats/resolutions from UN to leave Kuwait
5. US and allies kick Iraq out of Kuwait
6. Iraq argees to terms of cease-fire.
7. Saddam tries to kill off the Kurds in north, US imposes no fly zone to protect them
8. years go by, Saddam kicks out UN inpsectors, still no compliance with cease-fire, UN helpess to do anything about it.....maybe draft another resolution or three
9. Bush II puts large US force in Middle East
10. Saddam allows inpsectors......afraid of US, not of UN
11. Saddam never fully complies with UN or inspectors
12. UN passes "LAST CHANCE" resolution for Iraq to comply
13. Iraq still does not comply by UN deadline
14. The US, having spent billions and billions screwing around with Iraq, trying to get them to comply with the UN, decides to take out Saddam and make sure Iraq complied with all cease-fire agreements. Mission accomplished.
15. Saddam taken out. Iraq in compliance with all UN resolutions and cease-fire agreement.
16. Ignornant people from around the world think the US is hellbent on war......because the US only waited 13 years for Iraq to comply.
17. No WMD found in Iraq. People then claim war was not justified, even though before the war, everybody, including France, Germany, Russia and the UN all said Iraq probably had WMD.
18. GB re-elected President of USA.
19. Free elections in Iraq. No more Saddam and 100% of the vote.
20. US forces leave Iraq a free nation.
Mission accomplished.
:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
ahhh I C so bin laden is the only terrorist out there that's a threat.
Man I can sleep better tonite...thx!
Dont thank me those are your words not mine. The issue we were talking about was the OSAMA and SADDAM connection not connection with other terrorists. Like I said in the last post, Saddam supporting PLO terrorists is not new. That is very old news. When you post a site to backup your argument and then it has lots of bad information on it, how is anyone gonna take it as factual? It is obvious this guy got 90% of his info(on the Al-qaida-Saddam link) from the INC and as we have found out this stuff is mostly false.
Name and date the last foriegn terrorist group to target and attack the U.S. ? Al-qaidi is #1 terrorist threat and #2 is so far down the list you really dont have to worry about it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Sandman, do you think the war on Iraq was about fighting terrorism?
This is certainly the biggest leap of denial in the entire thread.. What a joke..
Excellent answer though sandman.. The reasons do indeed keep changing.. Pity some cant understand this idea..
Great pics Rolex.. I was lmao!
-
Originally posted by doobs
gotta get into the sand selling business.
I'll make a fortune off people willing to stick there head in it.
For this BBs, better upgrade to people not sticking their head in the sand, but removing their head from their own ass.
The UN inspectors did leave voluntarily from Iraq.
Regarding Kuwait, Saddam invaded and tried to annex Kuwait, the war in 1991 was justified.
This is a different war, and we rolled the dice thinking we would go in, find a stash of WMD, and the world would be thankful that we did. Instead, it came up snake eyes.
We underestimated the validity of reports that an insurgent war would emerge, leading to possible civil war.
We overestimated our belief that a Christian group of men would be tossed rose petals my Muslim women and men from the Gulf up to Baghdad,
There will be elections, but the suckers who get elected will be treated like Black Bart from Blazing Saddles...may as well hang them now and get it over with.
Even a dog knows when it ****s on the living room floor that it made a mistake. It's too bad our leaders don't have the intellectual equivalent of rover.
SH bad guy? Why not roll in to Ruwanda next? far worse atrocities there, Nuke.
-
(http://flightsims.info/nuke_6.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
SH bad guy? Why not roll in to Ruwanda next? far worse atrocities there, Nuke.
You didn't read my post, did you?
We didn't invade Iraq to free the people from Saddam.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
This is certainly the biggest leap of denial in the entire thread.. What a joke..
Excellent answer though sandman.. The reasons do indeed keep changing.. Pity some cant understand this idea..
Great pics Rolex.. I was lmao!
Leap of denial? :lol
-
Originally posted by NUKE
We didn't invade Iraq to free the people from Saddam.
Exactly. We invaded because Iraq was a threat to the safety and security of the United States...
That's the reason. Unfortunately, it wasn't true.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Exactly. We invaded because Iraq was a threat to the safety and security of the United States...
That's the reason. Unfortunately, it wasn't true.
Why did we go after Iraq in gulf war 1?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Why did we go after Iraq in gulf war 1?
They invaded Kuwait. It also wasn't specifically a U.S. action. IIRC, it was UN Resolution 678 that authorized all member states to do so.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
They invaded Kuwait. It also wasn't specifically a U.S. action. IIRC, it was UN Resolution 678 that authorized all member states to do so.
So why did the US go to war in gulf war 1? Why did we send our troops over? Did you support that action?
-
(http://oregonstate.edu/~schnacka/saddam.jpg)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So why did the US go to war in gulf war 1? Why did we send our troops over? Did you support that action?
As a matter of fact, I did support that action... but not by choice. ;)
-
But why did the US send troops?
-
(http://flightsims.info/nuke_7.jpg)
-
Good question.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Good question.
The reason is that Iraq threatened the Middle East and the oil reserves there. That is a strategic interest to the US and the world. The area is vital to the security of the United States.
-
Nevermind that just two days before the invasion of Kuwait, the assistant Secretary of State, John Kelly testified that the U.S. had no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Nevermind that just two days before the invasion of Kuwait, the assistant Secretary of State, John Kelly testified that the U.S. had no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country.
Maybe that was true. What does that matter?
Are you going to say that we encouraged Saddam to invade next?
That has nothing to do with the reasons we sent forces to get Iraq out of Kuwait.
-
Rolex you're hard with my zygomatic muscle :D
-
A week before that, John Kelly stated that the U.S. was not obligated to come to the defense of Kuwait.
-
Sandman, that was the truth.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The area is vital to the security of the United States.
Our biggest weakness IMO (I assume you're speaking about oil).
The security of the most powerful and arguably successful nation on the Earth should not be dependent on a politically tumultuous region, overrun with terroristic religious fanatics and tin-plated dictators (or kings).
Which President warned us about 'foreign entanglements'? Was it Washington?
-
Raider I still think you are being Narrow minded here. Just because a group is not a threat now or is off the Radar does not mean they wont be a problem in the future.
Sadam and AQ did not have a working relationship so to speak but that doesnt mean givin the oppertunity to cause harm to the US through them he wouldnt jump at the chance.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Raider I still think you are being Narrow minded here. Just because a group is not a threat now or is off the Radar does not mean they wont be a problem in the future.
Sadam and AQ did not have a working relationship so to speak but that doesnt mean givin the oppertunity to cause harm to the US through them he wouldnt jump at the chance.
1) how am I narrow minded ?
2) Your right up to the part where you say BUT...the rest of that statement is your pure speculation unless you have another website of bad information you want me to read?
ps I never said anything about him being the only terrorist out there. so why you attribute that to me I am not clear on. what I did say is that #2 is so far back you dont have to worry about them.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I bet it would be a big hit. Just list all the logical reasons that the US went to war against Iraq. Pretty much a slam dunk.
No hype, just facts and logic.
1. Iraq invades Kuwait, threatens world oil reserves in Middle East.
2. UN passes resolution, tells Iraq to leave. Resolution ignored.
3. Bush tells world, "agression will not stand", orders military buildup in region
4. Iraq ignores threats/resolutions from UN to leave Kuwait
5. US and allies kick Iraq out of Kuwait
6. Iraq argees to terms of cease-fire.
7. Saddam tries to kill off the Kurds in north, US imposes no fly zone to protect them
8. years go by, Saddam kicks out UN inpsectors, still no compliance with cease-fire, UN helpess to do anything about it.....maybe draft another resolution or three
9. Bush II puts large US force in Middle East
10. Saddam allows inpsectors......afraid of US, not of UN
11. Saddam never fully complies with UN or inspectors
12. UN passes "LAST CHANCE" resolution for Iraq to comply
13. Iraq still does not comply by UN deadline
14. The US, having spent billions and billions screwing around with Iraq, trying to get them to comply with the UN, decides to take out Saddam and make sure Iraq complied with all cease-fire agreements. Mission accomplished.
15. Saddam taken out. Iraq in compliance with all UN resolutions and cease-fire agreement.
16. Ignornant people from around the world think the US is hellbent on war......because the US only waited 13 years for Iraq to comply.
17. No WMD found in Iraq. People then claim war was not justified, even though before the war, everybody, including France, Germany, Russia and the UN all said Iraq probably had WMD.
18. GB re-elected President of USA.
19. Free elections in Iraq. No more Saddam and 100% of the vote.
20. US forces leave Iraq a free nation.
Unfortunately, the people who need to buy this, won't.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I bet it would be a big hit. Just list all the logical reasons that the US went to war against Iraq. Pretty much a slam dunk.
No hype, just facts and logic.
1. Iraq invades Kuwait, threatens world oil reserves in Middle East.
2. UN passes resolution, tells Iraq to leave. Resolution ignored.
3. Bush tells world, "agression will not stand", orders military buildup in region
4. Iraq ignores threats/resolutions from UN to leave Kuwait
5. US and allies kick Iraq out of Kuwait
6. Iraq argees to terms of cease-fire.
7. Saddam tries to kill off the Kurds in north, US imposes no fly zone to protect them
8. years go by, Saddam kicks out UN inpsectors, still no compliance with cease-fire, UN helpess to do anything about it.....maybe draft another resolution or three
9. Bush II puts large US force in Middle East
10. Saddam allows inpsectors......afraid of US, not of UN
11. Saddam never fully complies with UN or inspectors
12. UN passes "LAST CHANCE" resolution for Iraq to comply
13. Iraq still does not comply by UN deadline
14. The US, having spent billions and billions screwing around with Iraq, trying to get them to comply with the UN, decides to take out Saddam and make sure Iraq complied with all cease-fire agreements. Mission accomplished.
15. Saddam taken out. Iraq in compliance with all UN resolutions and cease-fire agreement.
16. Ignornant people from around the world think the US is hellbent on war......because the US only waited 13 years for Iraq to comply.
17. No WMD found in Iraq. People then claim war was not justified, even though before the war, everybody, including France, Germany, Russia and the UN all said Iraq probably had WMD.
18. GB re-elected President of USA.
19. Free elections in Iraq. No more Saddam and 100% of the vote.
20. US forces leave Iraq a free nation.
1-10 All true
11.5 Saddam never fully complies with UN or inspectors because he has no WMD's to hand over.
12.5 Saddam still has no WMD's
13.5 Iraq cant comply because they have no WMD's to hand over, theyve all been destroyed. If they had them, theywouldve used them.
14.5 US spent billions and billions trying to justify a trillion dollar shift of funds from the US treasury to halliburton and United defense.
15.5 Saddam taken out. Mass pandamonium, lawless country ruled by terrorists. No running water, no electricity, no medicine. Children die by the thousands.
16.5 All highly educated people are ignorant and Nuke is all-wise.
Funny thing about those ignorant people, they just dont realize how ignorant they are even when people are telling them.
17.5 Reason for war, 'saddam has WMD's!' Fact, saddam has no WMD's, therefore the reason for war was false, regardless of citizens attempt to make up other reasons after the embarrasing and costly mistake is exposed.
18.5 You break it, you buy it.
19.5 Free elections in iraq, if you can make it to the polling place without getting killed, by insurgents or by US forces, if your going to vote for the Iranian sponsered group.
20.5 After the oil is secured for Haliburton, the US forces will leave Iraq a devastated and warlord ruled country, in the year 2025.
-
Someone needs to educate themselves a little more about the content of the resolutions.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I did. The UN did not authorize military action.
They don't need to. The last I knew, the USA wasn't governed by the UN. This isn't Norway, after all.
-
congress did if I remember correctly
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Name and date the last foriegn terrorist group to target and attack the U.S. ? Al-qaidi is #1 terrorist threat and #2 is so far down the list you really dont have to worry about it.
narrow minded
-
What treaty would that be?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
They don't need to. The last I knew, the USA wasn't governed by the UN. This isn't Norway, after all.
Then it means breaking international law. And of course, this you have the full right to do, but also to take the concequnce from doing so. It might take a while to enforce...........after a second thought.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Then it means breaking international law. And of course, this you have the full right to do, but also to take the concequnce from doing so. It might take a while to enforce...........after a second thought.
International law? I don't recall the US being charged with anything by any legitimate courts.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
UN Charter.
The Charter is a treaty?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes.
No
-
Originally posted by Martlet
International law? I don't recall the US being charged with anything by any legitimate courts.
Well, it is not like Allawi will hand in a complaint. But I am sure, he is not the last one that will govern Iraq.
And to be honest, you are right, if USA was charged, it is up to USA to recognize its jurisdiction (international court of law). Then again that would also mean a serie of other things........
-
Oh..........:eek:
:rofl
-
ahhhhh.
like a warm ray of truth peeking out from behind the mushroom cloud.
i feel tingly.
-
Now martlet, only one thing can save you from disgrace, to admit defeat or start the "namecalling game",,,,:lol
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
narrow minded
Its ok I understand you are upset I shot down your website.
Ok guns who is the #2 threat to the U.S. that we should be so worried about?
Got any particular group in mind?
Abu sayaf? Hamas? Al-ansqa?
what you call narrow minded I call focused and I can see that you are just another person on this BBS that uses name calling when they cant prove their point.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes.
"The United Nations Charter is the constitution of the United Nations. It was signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945 by the 50 original member countries. It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five founding members—the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and a majority of the other signatories.
As a treaty, all signatories are bound by international law to obey the provisions of the Charter. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945, making that nation the first to join the new international organization."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Charter
widipedia as a source? A medium where the user writes the article?
HAHAHAHA!
It's signatories are "bound by international law" but nobody else is? Heck, the user that wrote that didn't put much thought into it. Or did you just whip it up so you could post it?
Try again.
-
GS, så jävla gott att se, nu fick han så han teg...hahahahaha
-
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Führer Garanties ... I'm sorry Martlet, I'm not an Indian. I'm not buying.
You don't have to buy. It's fact. Now it's correct.
As a Charter, but not a treaty, all signatories are bound by nothing. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945, making that nation the first to join the new international organization. And GScholtz is ghey. .
See how easy that was? It came from wikipedia, it must be true.
-
Maybe you should look up the UN-Charter by your own, to see if it´s correct, Martlet?
-
Originally posted by patrone
Maybe you should look up the UN-Charter by your own, to see if it´s correct, Martlet?
I just did. Right at the link GScholtz posted, that you all took as legitimate. It specifically states that it isn't a treaty.
-
Article 102
1. Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.
2. No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph I of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.
:eek:
-
Originally posted by patrone
:eek:
I don't dispute that at all. However, it's completely different than what GScholtz claimed.
-
And there for, the UN-charter is a treaty, sorry Martlet
I like you anyway
-
Originally posted by GScholz
http://untreaty.un.org/English/guide.asp#introduction
"Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that "every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member State of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it". All treaties and international agreements registered or filed and recorded with the Secretariat since 1946 are published in the UNTS. By the terms "treaty" and "international agreement", referred to in Article 102 of the Charter, the broadest range of instruments is covered. Although the General Assembly of the UN has never laid down a precise definition for both terms and never clarified their mutual relationship, Art.1 of the General Assembly Regulations to Give Effect to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that the obligation to register applies to every treaty or international agreement "whatever its form and descriptive name". In the practice of the Secretariat under Article 102 of the UN Charter, the expressions "treaty" and "international agreement" embrace a wide variety of instruments, including unilateral commitments, such as declarations by new Member States of the UN accepting the obligations of the UN Charter, declarations of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under Art.36 (2) of its Statute and certain unilateral declarations that create binding obligations between the declaring nation and other nations. The particular designation of an international instrument is thus not decisive for the obligation incumbent on the Member States to register it."
"Charters
The term "charter" is used for particularly formal and solemn instruments, such as the constituent treaty of an international organization. The term itself has an emotive content that goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215. Well-known recent examples are the Charter of the United Nations of 1945 and the Charter of the Organization of American States of 1952."
So treaties must be registered with the UN. Old news.
I'm still waiting for you to back up that the charter is a treaty. It isn't.
-
Originally posted by patrone
And there for, the UN-charter is a treaty, sorry Martlet
I like you anyway
BZZZZZZZZ. Wrong.
Thanks for playing.
-
treaty.
:aok
not that the us has a great history of honoring those.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Don't be sorry, he's an ahole.
You're wrong, so that makes me an ahole?
I don't mind that you're an Amerihating tard, just be factual while you're doing it.
The charter isn't a treaty.
The US violated no treaties.
Your claim was bunk.
Cry about something legitimate.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So treaties must be registered with the UN. Old news.
I'm still waiting for you to back up that the charter is a treaty. It isn't.
All new treatys must be registered, to make sure they wont interfere with the original treaty, the UN-Charter.
It is what it is saying.
-
Originally posted by patrone
All new treatys must be registered, to make sure they wont interfere with the original treaty, the UN-Charter.
It is what it is saying.
BZZZZZZZ. Thanks for playing. Wrong again, though. Not interfering with the charter doesn't make it a treaty.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ok, I see you need it spoon-fed. Let uncle Sholzie show little Martlet:
"Charters
The term "charter" is used for particularly formal and solemn instruments, such as the constituent treaty of an international organization. The term itself has an emotive content that goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215. Well-known recent examples are the Charter of the United Nations of 1945 and the Charter of the Organization of American States of 1952."
Link please, Uncle Sholzie.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Look up you twit. You even quoted that passage.
May be a CONSTITUENT TREATY.
Again. The UN Charter is not a treaty.
Guess again.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
How stupid are you? Here let me post the same link AGAIN:
http://untreaty.un.org/English/guide.asp#introduction
You even quoted it.
You are a ****ing retard!
Perhaps, but I'm not claiming a constituent treaty is the same as the UN Charter.
I don't mind that you're an Amerihating tard, just be factual while you're doing it.
The charter isn't a treaty.
The US violated no treaties.
Your claim was bunk.
Cry about something legitimate.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Are there any limits to your lack of mental aptitude?
Apparenlty there aren't any limits to yours.
You cite a definition of charter, then when it says a well known example is the UN charter, and it also says it includes constituent treaties, you claim they are one and the same.
BZZZZZZZ. Thanks for playing. That isn't the case, though.
Heck, your own wikipedia quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Charter) that you cited as an example proves you wrong.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :rofl
It didn't take you long to realize you were wrong.
I don't mind that you're an Amerihating tard, just be factual while you're doing it.
The charter isn't a treaty.
The US violated no treaties.
Your claim was bunk.
Cry about something legitimate.
-
Still nothing, huh? Well, better luck with your next "I hate America" troll. Maybe it will be better thought out.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
:rofl :rofl :rofl
:aok
-
Nicaragua VS USA 15-0
International court of law:
Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;
Decides that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State;
Decides that the United States of America, by directing or authorizing over Rights of Nicaraguan territory, and by the acts imputable to the United States referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State;
Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;
Decides that, by the acts referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and the Republic of Nicaragua signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;
Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect;
Decides that the United States of America, by the attacks on Nicaraguan territory referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, and by declaring a general embargo on trade with Nicaragua on 1 May 1985, has acted in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;
Decides that the United States of America is under a duty immediately to cease and to refrain from all such acts as may constitute breaches of the foregoing legal obligations;
Decides that the United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of obligations under customary international law enumerated above;
Decides that the United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;
Decides that the form and amount of such reparation, failing agreement between the Parties, will be settled by the Court, and reserves for this purpose the subsequent procedure in the case;
In order to establish whether its jurisdiction were limited by the effect of the reservation in question, the Court has to ascertain whether any third States, parties to the four multilateral treaties invoked by Nicaragua, and not parties to the proceedings, would be "affected" by the Judgment. Of these treaties, the Court considers it sufficient to examine the position under the United Nations Charter and the Charter of the Organization of American States.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
:aok
-
japp, jag tror det räcker.....nu håller han nog käften ett tag
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes.
"The United Nations Charter is the constitution of the United Nations. It was signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945 by the 50 original member countries. It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five founding members—the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and a majority of the other signatories.
As a treaty, all signatories are bound by international law to obey the provisions of the Charter. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945, making that nation the first to join the new international organization."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Charter
GScholz,
So has all of this back and forth been you avoiding saying to Martlet point blank that by the US signing the UN charter the Constitution of the United States is subservient to the UN charter? And such the United States cannot do anything in the world without UN authorization? And so because of this you are 1million% correct that the United States is wrong in all way shapes and forms for Liberating the people of Iraq(Oh! I'm sorry invading Saddam Hussen's country illegally)?
You got boaring about 12 posts ago by playing this game with Martlet. Indirect answers and intillectual evasive manuvering is not a mark of distinction. And goading people for kicks is small minded even for Aces High. I can go down to the local San Francisco chapter of PETA for this. And Martlet knows what you are infering also in the last dozen or so snarks. You guys got a problem with taking your shot and accepting the consiquences? Your exchanges ain't gonna make the New York Times Best Seller list any time soon.
-
INcredible!
-
The US has broken no treaties, though, in going to war against Iraq.
-
I think Martlet is a robot.
Tragically, a robot can never love.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The US has broken no treaties, though, in going to war against Iraq.
Hi again Martlet.
Yes, I am affraid it has "USA has broken it´s obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State"
The right to Selfdefence? Can only be claimed if Regular armed forces actully crossed your border.
You are sure you want to continue?
One thing is: No one has no made a complaint to the international court of Law yet. But you can be sure, it will be there. Maybe not within the next years, as the only one who can actully bring USA there is the State of Iraq.
Another one who could do it, is Saddam himself. As he was the "legal" president when this action accured. Thats why they keep him out of reach from Television, papers, etc, etc
Thats why they have to keep his trail cencured for the rest of the world.
-
The right to Selfdefence? Can only be claimed if Regular armed forces actully crossed your border.
Says who? You? By those standards, the entire war on terror is illegal.
You are sure you want to continue?
continue? Heck, I'm waiting for you to even start. Repeating yourself over and over isn't an argument. Let's see the facts.
One thing is: No one has no made a complaint to the international court of Law yet. But you can be sure, it will be there.
Oh, I get it. It's the old Amerihater "Just you wait and see" argument. Well, aren't you whining a little prematurely then?
Thats why they have to keep his trail cencured for the rest of the world.
Yeah. Saddam. Charged with crimes against humanity by his own people. I'm not surprised he's your hero.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
I think Martlet is a robot.
Tragically, a robot can never love.
Funny. I was thinking you closely resemble a marionette. I see the strings.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Funny. I was thinking you closely resemble a marionette. I see the strings.
Haha, relax, I'm not here to get in a pissing contest. Geez, some people are so tense.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Haha, relax, I'm not here to get in a pissing contest. Geez, some people are so tense.
Ahhh, just here to flap your gums. Then why get so upset when someone flaps back?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Says who? You? By those standards, the entire war on terror is illegal.
continue? Heck, I'm waiting for you to even start. Repeating yourself over and over isn't an argument. Let's see the facts.
Oh, I get it. It's the old Amerihater "Just you wait and see" argument. Well, aren't you whining a little prematurely then?
Yeah. Saddam. Charged with crimes against humanity by his own people. I'm not surprised he's your hero.
Well, the war on terror is supported by UN, was that a suprise?
And the only one that is not showing any actully facts and repeating himself is you, Martlet. Atleast I have something on my "feet" while making the whine. And don´t you worry, I am not gonna resort into anything "slugish" to get this tread locked, so spare the wind.
Yes, charged with crimes against humanity. Can you give me the slightest hint, why his trail needs to be cencored and all journalists banned from it?
And no: I am not a fan of Saddam Hussain, but his acts should be brought up in the light, for everyone to see and he needs to be given a fair trail. Proof has to be put up, witness speak. You guys owe this to all of his victims families.
After the trail, noone can deny his inorcense or his action, just like no one could deny the horrible acts of the Nazi Goverment, after the Nurnberg trials.
To make a "summerian process" and to take his life, will not bring anything good.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
in other words, you can't explain.
By that same logic all your "facts" are unsubstantated bull****.
You said UN inspectors left Iraq voluntairily and I say you are full of chit. You come back and still can't explain, yet say you have explained it many times. Point to one time you have explained it.
If you can't, like I suspect, then just shut up forget about it.
"16 Dec 1998 The Special Commission withdraws its staff from Iraq."
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm
God I don't know why you enjoy proving to this board how ignorant you are, but way to go on a job well done.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhh, just here to flap your gums. Then why get so upset when someone flaps back?
an admission.
ah......
-
Originally posted by patrone
Well, the war on terror is supported by UN, was that a suprise?
And the only one that is not showing any actully facts and repeating himself is you, Martlet. Atleast I have something on my "feet" while making the whine. And don´t you worry, I am not gonna resort into anything "slugish" to get this tread locked, so spare the wind.
Yes, charged with crimes against humanity. Can you give me the slightest hint, why his trail needs to be cencored and all journalists banned from it?
And no: I am not a fan of Saddam Hussain, but his acts should be brought up in the light, for everyone to see and he needs to be given a fair trail. Proof has to be put up, witness speak. You guys owe this to all of his victims families.
After the trail, noone can deny his inorcense or his action, just like no one could deny the horrible acts of the Nazi Goverment, after the Nurnberg trials.
To make a "summerian process" and to take his life, will not bring anything good.
agreed.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The US has broken no treaties, though, in going to war against Iraq.
So the USA only broke a "charter"* they almost wrote and endorsed as they signed it.
Is that really different than breaking a "treaty" ?
What credibility it give to the word of USA ?
Nota bene , the past Indian treaty should have been a good indication of the value of this word.**
* note I didn't wrote "treaty" to please you :p
** that's the harsh part I'm supposed to add as an americkunn stalker.
-
Yes Saddam and Bin Laden didnt like eachother but both HATED america and would have had no problems using nukes!
-
Originally posted by patrone
Well, the war on terror is supported by UN, was that a suprise?
And the only one that is not showing any actully facts and repeating himself is you, Martlet. Atleast I have something on my "feet" while making the whine. And don´t you worry, I am not gonna resort into anything "slugish" to get this tread locked, so spare the wind.
Yes, charged with crimes against humanity. Can you give me the slightest hint, why his trail needs to be cencored and all journalists banned from it?
And no: I am not a fan of Saddam Hussain, but his acts should be brought up in the light, for everyone to see and he needs to be given a fair trail. Proof has to be put up, witness speak. You guys owe this to all of his victims families.
After the trail, noone can deny his inorcense or his action, just like no one could deny the horrible acts of the Nazi Goverment, after the Nurnberg trials.
To make a "summerian process" and to take his life, will not bring anything good.
How is that the fault of the US? The Iraqi gov't has charged him and put him on trial. Take it up with them. Redirecting your attack from the topic at hand only exemplifies the extent you'll go to while furthering your Ameribash. At least try to whine about something factual.
Originally posted by JB88
an admission.
ah......
Hey! The peanut gallery!
Originally posted by straffo
So the USA only broke a "charter"* they almost wrote and endorsed as they signed it.
Is that really different than breaking a "treaty" ?
What credibility it give to the word of USA ?
Nota bene , the past Indian treaty should have been a good indication of the value of this word.**
* note I didn't wrote "treaty" to please you :p
** that's the harsh part I'm supposed to add as an americkunn stalker.
It is different. It also wasn't broken. Many UN members participated.
They just decided to carry out Item 11. There was no UN objection. (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
How is that the fault of the US? The Iraqi gov't has charged him and put him on trial. Take it up with them. Redirecting your attack from the topic at hand only exemplifies the extent you'll go to while furthering your Ameribash. At least try to whine about something factual.
They just decided to carry out Item 11. There was no UN objection. (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm)
Oh, I see, the Iraq was the ones that Captured him? You know that every single word I have uttered in this tread it the absolut truth,, .......Ouch,, that must really hurt, Martlet.
Kisses to you for trying
Rumsfeild to scared to go to Germany (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1465263,00.html)
-
Originally posted by patrone
Oh, I see, the Iraq was the ones that Captured him? You know that every single word I have uttered in this tread it the absolut truth,, .......Ouch,, that must really hurt, Martlet.
Kisses to you for trying
Rumsfeild to scared to go to Germany (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1465263,00.html)
Actually, it's all bunk.
Who captures him has absolutely nothing to do with who's jurisdiction he is tried under. zip. zero. nada. Criminals are caught by authorities, or even bounty hunters, all the time, and turned over.
Such is the case with Saddam.
Nice of you to be concerned with him, though. That's what I don't get about Amerihaters. They'd rather see the absolute worst scenario if it makes the US look bad.
You'd like nothing more than to see Saddam go free or the US fail in Iraq just so you can come to a BBS and go "naa naaa".
-
Originally posted by EagleEyes
Yes Saddam and Bin Laden didnt like eachother but both HATED america and would have had no problems using nukes!
oh really? you have some proof that Saddam wanted to nuke us? he had vx which he could have used and he didnt. He had sarin which he could have used and didnt. He had anthrax which he could have used and didnt.
As for Bin Laden he recently(2003) got permission (religous fatwa) that said it was ok for him to strike us with nukes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/12/60minutes/main655407.shtml
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It is different. It also wasn't broken. Many UN members participated.
They just decided to carry out Item 11. There was no UN objection. (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm)
With 2 permament council members it would have been very surprising to see any objection ... it would have been as efficient as peeing in Violin*
Sorry I don't know the correct translation of "Pisser dans un violon" :D
-
Originally posted by straffo
With 2 permament council members it would have been very surprising to see any objection ... it would have been as efficient as peeing in Violin*
Sorry I don't know the correct translation of "Pisser dans un violon" :D
Change the rules, then.
We played by them. Wah.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"16 Dec 1998 The Special Commission withdraws its staff from Iraq."
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm
God I don't know why you enjoy proving to this board how ignorant you are, but way to go on a job well done.
31 Oct 1998 Iraq announces that it will cease all forms of interaction with UNSCOM and its Chairman and to halt all UNSCOM’s activities inside Iraq, including monitoring. The Security Council, in a statement to the press, unanimously condemn Iraq’s decision to cease all cooperation with UNSCOM
You are so clever Thrawn....... you tried to make it sound like UN had a choice.
That's a great sight by the way. It shows how Iraq never cooperated fully with inspectors. Every other paragraph has the words "The UN demands Iraq cooperate with..."
That's a great page to read so people can understand that Saddam could never be trusted.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You are so clever Thrawn....... you tried to make it sound like UN had a choice.
How did I make it "sound" like anything I posted a direct quote from the inpectors own documation. The UN did have a choice, stay or go. They didn't see any point in staying so they choose to leave. Saddam didn't force them to leave or "kick them out" as you posted as a so-called fact.
That's a great sight by the way. It shows how Iraq never cooperated fully with inspectors. Every other paragraph has the words "The UN demands Iraq cooperate with..."
Indeed, but that has nothing to do with you posting disinformation as fact.
-
LOL, okay, you got me on a technicality. Kinda like "depends on what "is" is
The fact is that Saddam stopped UN inspections in Iraq.
and to halt all UNSCOM’s activities inside Iraq, including monitoring.
I guess they didn't have to leave afterall. They could have stayed and opend a hotdog stand or something.
What a pathetic argument you have made, Thrawn. You are the one who is shown to be ignorant on the matter.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What a pathetic argument you have made, Thrawn. You are the one who is shown to be ignorant on the matter.
...says the man who makes claims about UNSCOM inspections and had never even read their documentaion. If my arguement is so pathetic, yet you concede the point, than what type of arguement was yours?