Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bodhi on April 06, 2003, 09:58:47 PM
-
Not only does this nation (Germany) provide the rutheless dictatorship in Iraq with most of it's technical and engineering skills and parts for Weapons of Mass Destruction, they also provide weapons and ammo during a ban on said materials. Too top it all off, their (germany) regime continuesd to turn a blind eye to the coalition, and acts as though they bear no blame, look at what their coitizens like Blitz say:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by blitz
Oh yes, i feel threatened by US foreign policy.
Your governments violation of international law is unbelievable for a democrazy. It's a 50 years stepback in political culture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it sad that a German citizen even has the gall to say any other nation has set the world back 50 years in politics, when it is your country's actions that have set the world back politically 100 years. Had your people had the balls to stand up to Hitler in '33, WW2 would not have happened, the US and Soviets would not have squared off over your country, and the cold war would never have happened. Without a cold war, there would have been no arming of horrible little third world nations, and hence the strife would be a tenth what it is in the middle east now. So in conclusion, I find it to be Germany's fault that all this is happening, and from here on out expect apologies to the rest of the world for yet another catastrophe caused by the Germans, that the US is having to finish.
Enough is enough!
:mad:
-
um what about the US supplying saddam with all those wonderfull chemical weopons in the 80's? and Photo recon of where and when to fire chemical weopons on the iranians? Sure we are fixing that mistake now, but dont be a hypocrite.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
um what about the US supplying saddam with all those wonderfull chemical weopons in the 80's? and Photo recon of where and when to fire chemical weopons on the iranians? Sure we are fixing that mistake now, but dont be a hypocrite.
Did Iraq have sanctions imposed by the UN in the 80s?
-
wow sactions were not imposed!(i wonder why?) That makes us morally superior! because our gass killed people in a war that UN didnt touch with a 10 foot pole!
-
Please tell me what chemical weapons were supplied to Iraq by the USA.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Did Iraq have sanctions imposed by the UN in the 80s?
NO!!! there was no sanctions imposed to Iraq
In the 80s, Ayatolah's IRAN and the U.S.S.R with its WARSAW PACT member countries are the main threat to the USA in the 80s
-
your right we didnt supply them with chemical weopons, just the money to buy them and military intelligence on how and where to use them. we only supplied them with biolgical weopons like anthrax and such.
-
Quit whining about morality.
The US is accusing Iraq for violating UN decisions, and right after then attacking Iraq in direct violation of the UN itself.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Quit whining about morality.
The US is accusing Iraq for violating UN decisions, and right after then attacking Iraq in direct violation of the UN itself.
What UN resolution is the US violating? Please answer ( I doubt you can)
What UN resolution is the US violating? Which resolutions have the Iraqi's violated?
I long for your answer.
-
amazing how that most important of points gets ignored.
saifs not nukes.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
amazing how that most important of points get ignored.
The most important points huh? Amazing how the facts gets ignored
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
amazing how that most important of points gets ignored.
saifs not nukes.
Which Facts are being ignored my ignorant friend?
-
this is not the 1980's, that was 20 years ago, today is today, get with the program or STFU
or if you would like to discuss historical agression, what about the norman invasion of england.
england in no way a threat to normandie, it's just redicules
-
the un wont do anything to us because we have to much power.
we are at this point a rouge nation illeagly attacking another in defiance of the un.
deny that . saying a 12 year old decision superceeds a 1 month old one is antother one of those fun "we dont need no logic"
p.s. asking a question that has nothing to do with the point and demanding an answer as if you were right is a non sequitor argument. i.e. stupid.
-
it matters when the son of the guy and a bunch of the goons that brokered the deals to supply iraq with biological agents are running our country. i would rather have a guy that lied about getting his dick sucked then people that claim to hate and dispise iraq and what it has done over the past 20 years, were shakeing hands with saddam and helping him eradicate his own people.
But it is a good thing that they are removing the dirtbag. I just cant stand the hypocricy.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
the un wont do anything to us because we have to much power.
we are at this point a rouge nation illeagly attacking another in defiance of the un.
deny that . saying a 12 year old decision superceeds a 1 month old one is antother one of those fun "we dont need no logic"
p.s. asking a question that has nothing to do with the point and demanding an answer as if you were right is a non sequitor argument. i.e. stupid.
Hey Moron, did the UN condem the US action against Iraq? What UN resolution is the US in viloation of?
Maybe it would be easier to list the UN resolutions that Iraq is in violation of.
-
Still waiting for "Lord dumb vader" to tell me what UN resolution America is in defiance of in regards to Iraq.
-
Still waiting Dumb Vader.............
Tell me what resolution the US in violation of regarding Iraq.
.
-
Lord Dumb Vader has been silenced. He cannot tell us what UN resolution the US is in violation of regarding Iraq.
Maybe he could more easily list Iraq's UN violations.
-
Lord Dumb Vader......... still waiting for you to tell us what UN resolution the US is in violation of regarding Iraq.
You go to bed or something?
-
Lord Dumb Vader has officially been put to bed.
-
were shakeing hands with saddam and helping him eradicate his own people.
You can't always put a lot into a photo of two people shaking hands. The handshake doesn't connotate anything more than a willingness to have a discussion. Heck, I've seen pictures of Arafat and Shiron shaking hands. (I know I butchered those spellings, my apologies.)
A lot of us helped supply Iraq. USA blew it when it provided some biological warfare materials to Iraq to be used in a purely self defense strategy. (Which it wasn't...duh!) Yes, that was wrong. But don't think France, Germany, China or the USSR is smelling any sweeter. Most of Iraq's military is made up of French and Soviet weapons...do a little research on your own and see just where most of his arms come from. Iraq certainly wasn't flying Eagles, Tomcats or Phantoms. The kicker though is how France sold Iraq (the #2 in oil reserves) a nuclear power plant! They didn't need the energy, you know. That was brokered by some guy named Chirac...who runs some little country way east of me. But France (and Germany, and USSR) continued to arm Saddam...possibly even to just a few months ago. Tsk, tsk, boys. Don't you be throwing any stones.
==============
Additional French corporate contacts followed, such as Protec – who furnished millions of dollars' of equipment to six separate plants for making mustard gas and nerve agents, with a capacity of hundreds of tons of nerve agent per year.[5]
Over the last thirty years Mr. Chirac has facilitated, both in and out of government office, the sale and/or transfer to Iraq of:
. . . petrochemical plants, desalinization plants, gas liquefaction complexes, housing projects, telecommunication systems, broadcasting networks, fertilizer plants, defense electronics factories, car assembly plants, a new airport, a subway system, and a navy yard, not to mention Exocet, Milan, HOT, Magic, Martel and Armat missiles; Allouette III, Gazelle, and Super-Puma helicopters; AMX 30-GCT howitzers; Tiger-G radar, and a nuclear reactor capable of making the bomb.[1]
Saddam has stated:
As for financiers, industrialists and above all those responsible for military industry, the question must be put to French politicians: Who did not benefit from these business contracts and relationships with Iraq? . . . With respect to the politicians, one need only refer back to the declarations of all the political parties of France, Right and Left. All were happy to brag about their friendship with Iraq and to refer to common interests. From Mr. Chirac [now the center-right president] to Mr. Chevenement [the socialist former defense minister] . . . politicians and economic leaders were in open competition to spend time with us and flatter us. We have now grasped the reality of the situation [of France's support for the 1991 Gulf War, a betrayal in Saddam's eyes]. If the trickery continues, we will be forced to unmask them, all of them, before the French public.[3]
-
the point i was makeing is that to condem france or germany over selling stuff to iraq is quite silly, and hypicritical. They are scummy for selling stuff to those guys ,but so are we. We are all capitalists so its all good in the long run of things.
-
Froggy,
I do agree with you that we are all guilty to differing degrees. It's those differing degrees that people will see differently.
We are all capitalists so its all good in the long run of things.
Naww, I don't think so. I hope we all learn from this. My instinct is that we won't.
-
Plenty of "Useful Idiots" in this thread....
Cabby
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
the point i was makeing is that to condem france or germany over selling stuff to iraq is quite silly, and hypicritical. They are scummy for selling stuff to those guys ,but so are we. We are all capitalists so its all good in the long run of things.
I do agree to a point. That point stopped when the UN had to take military action against Iraq. After the military action, it obviously felt Iraq was still a threat, so it imposed sanctions on it. Everyone agreed. Including France, Germany, and Russia.
Then, we find out that countries underhandedly ignored the will of the UN, and continued to sell items to Iraq that were in direct violation of the resolution those same countries had agreed upon.
That is what I'm condemning.
-
What exactly did they sale to the iraqis? is it stuff that is as nasty as biological weopons? most likely not. Un sanctions or not, that is moraly deplorable.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
What exactly did they sale to the iraqis? is it stuff that is as nasty as biological weopons? most likely not. Un sanctions or not, that is moraly deplorable.
No, weapons and parts, mostly.
-
Wasn't Turkey illegally purchasing oil from Iraq?
-
Not exactly Sandman , the kurds where selling stealed Iraqi Oil to the turks :)
-
Germany owes ya an appology ? For how long is this going to continue? I wonder if the Mongols are still appologising to the Chinese for what they did 1.200 years ago!
Bunch of grumpy old men...
-
Originally posted by straffo
Not exactly Sandman , the kurds where selling stealed Iraqi Oil to the turks :)
Okay... wasn't sure of the particulars. Thanx.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Please tell me what chemical weapons were supplied to Iraq by the USA.
""US support for Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq war as a bulwark against Shi'ite militancy has been well known for some time, but using declassified government documents, the Washington Post provided new details yesterday about Mr Rumsfeld's role, and about the extent of the Reagan administration's knowledge of the use of chemical weapons.
The details will embarrass Mr Rumsfeld, who as defence secretary in the Bush administration is one of the leading hawks on Iraq, frequently denouncing it for its past use of such weapons.
The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.
Intelligence on Iranian troop movements was provided, despite detailed knowledge of Iraq's use of nerve gas. ""
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous- It's a classic bloody 'Aggression War'
When will this tough little country of Vietnam see that apology?
Americans and Vietnamese have something in common :
Their pride
-
So what you are saying is that the US did not supply Iraq with chemical weapons.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
your right we didnt supply them with chemical weopons, just the money to buy them and military intelligence on how and where to use them. we only supplied them with biolgical weopons like anthrax and such.
Soory, looks like ya government did :(
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2002/1231rumsfeld.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0117gas.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/saddam/2002/1230buildup.htm
Regards Blitz
-
"The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says. "
Originally posted by funkedup
So what you are saying is that the US did not supply Iraq with chemical weapons.
roflmao :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was plain ridiculous- It's a classic "Agression War.
When will this tough little country of Vietnam get that apology?
Americans and Vietnamese have something in common:
Their pride
-
Again, you have not shown that the USA supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. Ingredients don't mean ****. Lots of normal chemicals are ingredients for chemical weapons.
Cluster bombs are not chemical weapons at all.
-
They took David Hasselhoff
We owe them our gratitude.
-
Where is the apology plitz?
-
And as far as biological stuff, giving them strains of bacteria and viruses is not the same as giving them a weapon. There is a lot of technology required to go from a sample of virus or bacteria to something that can be used as a weapon. And lots of those strains have legitimate medical uses.
The USA was wrong for not stopping Iraq from using chemical weapons. But the assertion that the US armed Iraq with chemical and biological weapons is pure bull****.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Germany owes ya an appology ? For how long is this going to continue? I wonder if the Mongols are still appologising to the Chinese for what they did 1.200 years ago!
Bunch of grumpy old men...
I think as a species we should apologize to the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.
-
Blitz has a different opinion than yer own, is that why he should apologise, or because someone TWO generations before was a m*r*n ? You guys crack me up.
"Blitz owes you an apology in no way, it is simply redicolous"
Funked, I am starting to believe the neanderthals were not completely decimated, some specimens are still lurking on this board :)
-
But saw blitz has been arrogantly demanding an apology from the USA because we defended south vietnam aginst the agression of his heroic communist north vietnamese buddies...
Saw have you missed this in blitzes rants?
Here it is:
When will this tough little country of Vietnam get that apology?
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Not only does this nation (Germany) provide the rutheless dictatorship in Iraq with most of it's technical and engineering skills and parts for Weapons of Mass Destruction, they also provide weapons and ammo during a ban on said materials. Too top it all off, their (germany) regime continuesd to turn a blind eye to the coalition, and acts as though they bear no blame, look at what their coitizens like Blitz say:
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.
-
Saw, Grunherz has a point there. We demand that you apologize now!
-
BTW if Blitz is really wondering who armed Iraq, he can look here: http://www.softwar.net/iraq.html
"IRAQ PERCENTAGE OF EQUIPMENT
50% RUSSIA
18% PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
13% FRANCE
19% MIXED - MAINLY JORDAN/SYRIA/DOMESTIC"
-
Ah, if it's regarding that material, I agree with GRUN, I don't quite understand that line in Blitz's signature. (That still doesn't give me the right to call him a m*r*n though)
But you are right Funked, Soryyyyyyyyyyyy! :)
-
I want an apology not just from you but from the entire Fr... err Belgian people!
-
*SLAP!*
I am NOT Freedomian! How many times will I have to say it?
"We' not like fweeeedom here, we' only like Beer & Boobies!"
-
What?
You are not French, Saw?
I always guessed you were!
:D
-
I need one of those potato launching devices... :mad:
"Thump Thump Thump !"
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I think as a species we should apologize to the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.
lol funked
Blitz i must say i find your dismissal or ignoring of the actual post's topic a little frustrating to see.Just as you are trying to damage the Amercan peoples pride in their country you totally ignore the fact that your own pride in your country POST WW2 is mainly due to the USA's support of your country.America for good or bad save your country from ruins after the war.Some of the actions of aid may well have had some motive of stopping russian expansion but not all of it.You are a truelly cynical person to suppose that everything the US does is based on greed or ignorence of the laws.If I were German I would have pride in what my country has done in terms of rising from the ashes as it were but I would give credit where its due and thank the USA.I certainly would not accuse the entire nation of thinking as some members of their CIA or Government might have 20 years ago.True mistakes are made but justas you are not to blame for what went on in Germany in 1940's the modern day Americans cannot be held accountable for the actions of what they do 20 or 30 years ago.You need to step back and just re-look at what your signiture is saying and asking for.I find it offensive
As for the question put to lord vader concerning which UN resolution that Iraq has broken, NUKE have you actually listened to the news or do you watch it like its a lot of clips from the latest video game and ignore the actual words spoken?
The sole reason for the war is the breaking of resolution 1444. Iraq had to conform to the UN's inspection teams demands and show proof of the massed stores of weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was known to possess were/are being destroyed.
edit one Point here: (if as people accuse the Americans supplied the chemical weapons etc then why do you now accuse the USA of lieing about the weapons the iraqis possess? YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!)
They(saddams power base) have over the last 12 years of sanctions consistantly made the task difficult and even faced with the threat of war by the UN and all of its members Saddam still refused to bow to pressure because he had established some rather nice cards for his hand.
Since the Gulf war Iraq has used the sanctions to decrease involvement with countries like the US and INCREASED its dealings with some of the major players in the UN, ie France Germany and Russia.Saddam is no idiot, he knows once that flow of money is established those countries wont want the supply of cash to dry up.He undoubtedly used or intended the resulting greed to split the coalition over starting a new war.It seems also during this time Iraq continued to train and fund terrorist organisations (possibly continued to try to manufacture weapons of mass destruction).It seems hes linked with one group the Al-Queada, who purpetrated the Sept 11th atrocity.
Then Saddam watched the resulting clash in the UN with ive no doubt quite a smile on his face.Especially if he managed to set it all in motion by organising the sept 11th attack.
Saddam now hopes for a cease fire.Like last time he wants the world opinion to cause its end , not his useless so called elite army.He knows he has a VERY large army but not a particularly well equiped one.Think about it.
Saddam has already caused the greatest level of hostility between European leaders than anyone has for 30 years.
he has damaged the relations of a whole host of what he sees as the enemy countries.US and france uk and france germany and UK etc etc, all severely strained.He hadnt even fired a shot in anger and he managed to do what he had strove to do in the Gulf war. (split the coalition).
He has made the mistake though of thinking that the US will falter once bodies are seen and relations with more and more countries force them to consider their overall appearence to the world. The arab league wait until hostilities start before condemning the US and UK yet allowed troops in their countries.I suspect this is relevent myself but hope is not.As the war continues you will see more and more condemn it as we are fed pictures if iraqi people dieing.Its a media war and Saddam is no slouch in the bull**** department! He only has to fake a missile strike on a mosque or hospital, create some world unrest by using terrorists etc to really cause great consternation, possibly demands of the war ending from the rest of the countries of this planet of ours.
Problem is he doesnt know the Americans or the British.He hasnt realised that we intend to finish what we start and take his regime and with luck his life away before we give up or falter.He miscalculated in the first gulf war and hes make a sorry mistake this time too.He got what he wanted, opinions of the UK and US have undoubtedly been damaged but he isnt going to be in power to gloat! That you can bet on.He'll either run to the hills and lose all his power or he will die where he sits.
I see people who now, even once their country is at war, still wont support their own troops. I find it disgusting, Im sorry. I know we all want peace and dont agree on how to do it but i have not seen one of these protesters offer a valid alternative to war if like we suspect Saddam is trying his best to produce weapons with which to attack our countries with.For good or bad this Madman Saddam has to go. No one wanted it but if it isnt done he will continue to strive for his ultimate goal of destroying US/western trade and position of power in the world standings. Why? because hes a f*****g lunatic straight out of the middle ages!.
Hes thinking like a warlord and doesnt give 2 sh*ts what happens to people or countries around him.
Well the world has changed. I dont think his sort of continual underhanded and hidden attacks on our society is going to be tollerated and he will be dealt with.He pits himself against us and is going to pay the price THIS time. He wont slip out of it again.
Its started blitz. Im as sorry as you are but its time to rid the world of this lunatic.I dont want to see iraqis killed either.If there was another way to get rid of him I'd take it.BUT now its started, now there is only defeat of saddam OR humiliation and damage to UN countries and their relations even further I choose the defeat of Saddam and I'd endeavour to heal the relations with the Franch/Russian/German /US/UK once that monster is gone.You do nothing to help this happen by accusing Americans of what you have done.Hell its true the CIA etc have done some bad things but I dont for one minute suspect this is becaue of the will of the average American citizen.Just as now i Wouldnt believe what Hitler did in WW2 was in your name or that what Saddam does is a representation of the average Iraqi's attitude.Thats what biggots are for.
-
Originally posted by hazed-
If I were German I would have pride in what my country has done in terms of rising from the ashes as it were but I would give credit where its due and thank the USA.
If. Quite obvious, you're not. You have no idea how people can be made to feel pain when considering their nationality by reminding them of the mistakes of their ancestors. A real post-WW2 german isn't proud of anything that happend in germany, even after WW2. If you speak out in public, that you're proud to be a german because of
The USA did a great job rebuilding germany after WW2 (most of it anyway), but the state of the citizens minds is still damaged. Send the counsellors please.
-
you would never find germans waving little flags around in mass rallies like you would find in france america or england. brings back bad memories.
-
Sir,
Could you please delete your avitar showing the execution of a POW....it's a disturbing image that shouldn't be here, IMO.
-
hazed hit it on the head... neither American nor British troops will quit. As i said earlier... I am very glad we have the Brits fighting alongside us... I wouldn't want the germans in any case.. they may be better now but historicaly they are not at all like us. Might as well have the russians on our side staking down the peasants and running over their legs with some crappy russian tank.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hazed hit it on the head... neither American nor British troops will quit. As i said earlier... I am very glad we have the Brits fighting alongside us... I wouldn't want the germans in any case.. they may be better now but historicaly they are not at all like us. Might as well have the russians on our side staking down the peasants and running over their legs with some crappy russian tank.
lazs
You can't run over a peasants leg with a russian tank, you'll lose a track.
Well, maybe if it's a small Chechnya child. They seem to do ok with those.
-
Originally posted by hazed-
lol funked
Blitz i must say i find your dismissal or ignoring of the actual post's topic a little frustrating to see.Just as you are trying to damage the Amercan peoples pride in their country you totally ignore the fact that your own pride in your country POST WW2 is mainly due to the USA's support of your country.America for good or bad save your country from ruins after the war.Some of the actions of aid may well have had some motive of stopping russian expansion but not all of it.You are a truelly cynical person to suppose that everything the US does is based on greed or ignorence of the laws.If I were German I would have pride in what my country has done in terms of rising from the ashes as it were but I would give credit where its due and thank the USA.I certainly would not accuse the entire nation of thinking as some members of their CIA or Government might have 20 years ago.True mistakes are made but justas you are not to blame for what went on in Germany in 1940's the modern day Americans cannot be held accountable for the actions of what they do 20 or 30 years ago.You need to step back and just re-look at what your signiture is saying and asking for.I find it offensive
As for the question put to lord vader concerning which UN resolution that Iraq has broken, NUKE have you actually listened to the news or do you watch it like its a lot of clips from the latest video game and ignore the actual words spoken?
The sole reason for the war is the breaking of resolution 1444. Iraq had to conform to the UN's inspection teams demands and show proof of the massed stores of weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was known to possess were/are being destroyed.
edit one Point here: (if as people accuse the Americans supplied the chemical weapons etc then why do you now accuse the USA of lieing about the weapons the iraqis possess? YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!)
They(saddams power base) have over the last 12 years of sanctions consistantly made the task difficult and even faced with the threat of war by the UN and all of its members Saddam still refused to bow to pressure because he had established some rather nice cards for his hand.
Since the Gulf war Iraq has used the sanctions to decrease involvement with countries like the US and INCREASED its dealings with some of the major players in the UN, ie France Germany and Russia.Saddam is no idiot, he knows once that flow of money is established those countries wont want the supply of cash to dry up.He undoubtedly used or intended the resulting greed to split the coalition over starting a new war.It seems also during this time Iraq continued to train and fund terrorist organisations (possibly continued to try to manufacture weapons of mass destruction).It seems hes linked with one group the Al-Queada, who purpetrated the Sept 11th atrocity.
Then Saddam watched the resulting clash in the UN with ive no doubt quite a smile on his face.Especially if he managed to set it all in motion by organising the sept 11th attack.
Saddam now hopes for a cease fire.Like last time he wants the world opinion to cause its end , not his useless so called elite army.He knows he has a VERY large army but not a particularly well equiped one.Think about it.
Saddam has already caused the greatest level of hostility between European leaders than anyone has for 30 years.
he has damaged the relations of a whole host of what he sees as the enemy countries.US and france uk and france germany and UK etc etc, all severely strained.He hadnt even fired a shot in anger and he managed to do what he had strove to do in the Gulf war. (split the coalition).
He has made the mistake though of thinking that the US will falter once bodies are seen and relations with more and more countries force them to consider their overall appearence to the world. The arab league wait until hostilities start before condemning the US and UK yet allowed troops in their countries.I suspect this is relevent myself but hope is not.As the war continues you will see more and more condemn it as we are fed pictures if iraqi people dieing.Its a media war and Saddam is no slouch in the bull**** department! He only has to fake a missile strike on a mosque or hospital, create some world unrest by using terrorists etc to really cause great consternation, possibly demands of the war ending from the rest of the countries of this planet of ours.
Problem is he doesnt know the Americans or the British.He hasnt realised that we intend to finish what we start and take his regime and with luck his life away before we give up or falter.He miscalculated in the first gulf war and hes make a sorry mistake this time too.He got what he wanted, opinions of the UK and US have undoubtedly been damaged but he isnt going to be in power to gloat! That you can bet on.He'll either run to the hills and lose all his power or he will die where he sits.
I see people who now, even once their country is at war, still wont support their own troops. I find it disgusting, Im sorry. I know we all want peace and dont agree on how to do it but i have not seen one of these protesters offer a valid alternative to war if like we suspect Saddam is trying his best to produce weapons with which to attack our countries with.For good or bad this Madman Saddam has to go. No one wanted it but if it isnt done he will continue to strive for his ultimate goal of destroying US/western trade and position of power in the world standings. Why? because hes a f*****g lunatic straight out of the middle ages!.
Hes thinking like a warlord and doesnt give 2 sh*ts what happens to people or countries around him.
Well the world has changed. I dont think his sort of continual underhanded and hidden attacks on our society is going to be tollerated and he will be dealt with.He pits himself against us and is going to pay the price THIS time. He wont slip out of it again.
Its started blitz. Im as sorry as you are but its time to rid the world of this lunatic.I dont want to see iraqis killed either.If there was another way to get rid of him I'd take it.BUT now its started, now there is only defeat of saddam OR humiliation and damage to UN countries and their relations even further I choose the defeat of Saddam and I'd endeavour to heal the relations with the Franch/Russian/German /US/UK once that monster is gone.You do nothing to help this happen by accusing Americans of what you have done.Hell its true the CIA etc have done some bad things but I dont for one minute suspect this is becaue of the will of the average American citizen.Just as now i Wouldnt believe what Hitler did in WW2 was in your name or that what Saddam does is a representation of the average Iraqi's attitude.Thats what biggots are for.
Your government are acting as they are Gods without any sins concerning dictatorship regimes all around the world.
Looking back in ya own backyard that is ridiculous.
America is a nation like a hundred others, just bigger.
It has good people and bad ones.
Your government makes good policy sometimes, and sometimes bad .
This whole Iraq thing,though, is the worst one for a long period in american foreign policy history.
What they say to the world is: We are the good ones, with the biggest musceles and because of this we are aloud now to do anything we want, no matter what others say, no matter what international law says.
I call that an ignorant, bad behaviour that had caused harm to the international community and most likely will create a lot more terrorism. Shame on ya Mr. Bush
Regards Blitz
[/B]
Regards Blitz
btw I never said Iraq has no WMDs. Maybe they have, maybe not. There was not the slightest proof they have, though.
US goverment doesn't really wanted a dissarming of Iraq as the first goal, never.
They wanted a regime change and ya will not find a UN resolution which does support that.
-
I want an apology not just from you but from the entire Fr... err Belgian people!
*SLAP!*
I am NOT Freedomian! How many times will I have to say it?
"We' not like fweeeedom here, we' only like Beer & Boobies!"
Belgium is a state created in 1831, by a rebellion of a Liberal-Catholic coalition, if you can believe that, against the United Netherland government. Great Britain and the other great powers guaranteed Belgium's security, resulting in Britain's entry into the Great War in 1914 when Germany invaded Belgium in it's "get rich quick" attempt to knock France out of the war.
The population is about half Fleming (Dutchoonian), and half Wallonian, who are closely related to the Freedoomians.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
And as far as biological stuff, giving them strains of bacteria and viruses is not the same as giving them a weapon. There is a lot of technology required to go from a sample of virus or bacteria to something that can be used as a weapon. And lots of those strains have legitimate medical uses.
The USA was wrong for not stopping Iraq from using chemical weapons. But the assertion that the US armed Iraq with chemical and biological weapons is pure bull****.
"The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs ..."
Ya goverment sold this stuff for a children birtday party in Saddams backyard? :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous- It's a classic bloody 'Aggression War'
When will this tough little country of Vietnam see that apology?
Americans and Vietnamese have something in common :
Their pride
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hazed hit it on the head... neither American nor British troops will quit. As i said earlier... I am very glad we have the Brits fighting alongside us... I wouldn't want the germans in any case.. they may be better now but historicaly they are not at all like us. Might as well have the russians on our side staking down the peasants and running over their legs with some crappy russian tank.
lazs
Hey, Pappnase! Our special troops fought side by side with yours in Afganistan :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous- It's a classic bloody 'Aggression War'
When will this tough little country of Vietnam see that apology?
Americans and Vietnamese have something in common :
Their pride
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
um what about the US supplying saddam with all those wonderfull chemical weopons in the 80's? and Photo recon of where and when to fire chemical weopons on the iranians? Sure we are fixing that mistake now, but dont be a hypocrite.
We didn't sell Saddam chemical weapons. What we did sell him was dual-use components...I posted about this in another thread.
-
I have found most "special troops" of any country to be pretty good and disiplined... not sure I want the standard german or russian trooper fighting alongside us tho... Hard to imagine smiling german or russian troops shaking hands with the liberated iraqis or... handing out aid.
as for vietnam... I agree... we should appologize to the south for deserting them. We could have easily won if we had not been fighting a war of politics. After we had won... let the people decide what they wanted... If they decided that the terror and genocide of the north is what they truly prefered then so be it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have found most "special troops" of any country to be pretty good and disiplined... not sure I want the standard german or russian trooper fighting alongside us tho... Hard to imagine smiling german or russian troops shaking hands with the liberated iraqis or... handing out aid.
lazs
Mr. Bush & Co using all the support they can get, as evil it might be as it looks like, nevermind, you can change that at next election :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous- It's a classic bloody 'Aggression War'
When will this tough little country of Vietnam see that apology?
Americans and Vietnamese have something in common :
Their pride
-
Originally posted by blitz
Hey, Pappnase! Our special troops fought side by side with yours in Afganistan :D
Regards Blitz
yeah they sure did and guess what? idiotic germans like yourself were posting their id, name, address in germany on anti german special operations website in hopes that terrorist would target them at home, all in name of anti-war. i worked with some of those guys and you and your jerkwad view of the world have not a thing in common with them.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
yeah they sure did and guess what? idiotic germans like yourself were posting their id, name, address in germany on anti german special operations website in hopes that terrorist would target them at home, all in name of anti-war. i worked with some of those guys and you and your jerkwad view of the world have not a thing in common with them.
Ahh, Mr. Noname, welcome :)
I work with street kids between 17-21 and try to teach them carpentery.
Many are not good enough to earn their money with it after 3 years.
Guess what? I tell them to join the army because it's their only chance to get some money :)
Has nothing to do with it, that they know very well what i think of this war.
Regards Blitz
btw On 11/9 we had a minute of silence
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous- It's a classic bloody 'Aggression War'
When will this tough little country of Vietnam see that apology?
Americans and Vietnamese have something in common :
Their pride
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Sir,
Could you please delete your avitar showing the execution of a POW....it's a disturbing image that shouldn't be here, IMO.
My apologies good sir, I changed it now.
-
Could you please delete your avitar showing the execution of a POW....it's a disturbing image that shouldn't be here, IMO.
I agree. I almost typed something this morning but backed off. Kind of a weird thing to want as your avatar, some guy with pure terror on his face just a millisecond before a bullet is put into his head and life taken away. Kinda weird when the same person has issues with a few smileys in a post too.
Also, not sure I'd call him a POW. He was suspected of association with the enemy and some SVN General quickly questioned him and shot him.
-
Eww Rasker, look behind ya, I think it flew right over your head.
Funked could change his sig line to:
"Calling Saw a french dude since 1999"
That is all you have to look for in my reply.
And stop calling me French, grrrr...
-
Originally posted by blitz
Soory, looks like ya government did :(
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2002/1231rumsfeld.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0117gas.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/saddam/2002/1230buildup.htm
Regards Blitz
I have seen all these links before, not one of them states we sold Iraq chemical weapons. They do state we sold them *components*. One article states the components were dual-use ie military applications and civilian applications. I read somewhere that we sold them anthrax spores. I have no idea if the spores have another use besides making biological weapons. I suspect they may be used in the manufacture of Anthrax vaccine.
The third article also states Germany and Great Britain were far more invovled in selling Iraq weapons than the USA was. I have yet to see you say anything about that Blitz.
Did we know Iraq was going to use this stuff to make WMD? Only those who authorized the sale of these things to Iraq know for sure. The rest of us will never know.
-
moralize all you want blitz but guys you speak of understand difference between good and evil and i gurantee that if it was up to them theyd be prowling baghdad this very moment. if they knew your views and the false reality they based on they laugh in your face if you ever attempt to debate them on right or wrong of fighting against iraq. face it dude only reason they not there right now is your own version of clinton basically bought an election by assuring clueless and timid masses that he wont go to war even if it morally correct decision to do so. if you telling kids join army for money while you are against armed force as counter to tyranny then you are hypocrite. job description not matter if you volunteer for military service you assume responsibility for being part of organization that use lethal force at behest of controlling government. you are against war in iraq because it give you basis to attack elected government of America. this sickens me because you would prolong the suffering and slaughter of innocents for sake of your own petty political crusade. i figure youll sleep well at night until you have kids of your own to tuck into bed. then some years from now you may get flashback to stories that will be all over the place in one or two years from those who live in iraq for 20 year under hussein. you will look at your own kids safe in bed and maybe then you will get it. or you wont get it and you will keep being waste of air. best side of all this is as carpentry teacher hopefully you never in position where your skewed view of reality have overly negative impact on others.
-
that picture is nlf assassin caught minutes after he kill target during tet offensive. executioner was high rank police officer of SVN.
-
NUKE, the US is in violation of Resolution 1441 as well as the UN Charter.
-
remember this folks. at time America aid iraq iran just been overthrown by anti American forces. embassy stormed and hostages taken. iraq outnumbered by iran. if iran victorious in war balance of power middle east become very dangerous out of balance. every nation in history of world guilty of using reasoning of enemy of my enemy is my friend. if your dog get rabies you not put him down because he was your puppy 15 years ago? you let him bite kids on the street because he not always this dangerous in past?
-
pinhead wooden argument alert.
"you sold him the stuff.. you created him.. he's your puppet, etc, etc, etc".
give it up, please.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
hey i have an idea....Germany and France join to create one nation.
Call it Wannabeia..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
The UN certainly can authorise war. In fact they are the only body that legitimately can. It's right in the charter.
The US is violation of the UN Charter because it is signatory of it. In enter in to an agreement with all the member states that it would follow the charter along with them. The charter states the you can only go to war for self defence, mutual self defence or with security council approval.
That's why the Gulf War was kosher. Iraq violated the charter by attacking Kuwiat. The security council passed a resolution giving member states approval for upholding the pervious resolutions through military power.
Here's the charter.
http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/contents.html
I was suprised at how reletively short I found it.
-
I think it will be proven that we attacked the sadmans soverienty and preserved the soverienty of iraq. I believe that countries like yours would have left saddam in power out of petty petulance. your leader just about chocked when he had to say that 911 wasn't a good thing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
That's why the Gulf War was kosher. Iraq violated the charter by attacking Kuwiat. The security council passed a resolution giving member states approval for upholding the pervious resolutions through military power.
And the war never officially ended did it? There was a cease fire agreement that Iraq never complied with.
But now you have changed your argument from the US being in violation of 1441 to the US being in violation of the UN charter.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
And the war never officially ended did it? There was a cease fire agreement that Iraq never complied with.
The Iraqi governments cease fire agreement was with the UN it is up to the security council, not US to determine if Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement and if so what repercusions to impose on Iraq.
But now you have changed your argument from the US being in violation of 1441 to the US being in violation of the UN charter.
No I haven't. I maintained that the US was in vioaltion of both in my first post in this thread.
"NUKE, the US is in violation of Resolution 1441 as well as the UN Charter."
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The Iraqi governments cease fire agreement was with the UN it is up to the security council, not US to determine if Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement and if so what repercusions to impose on Iraq.
No I haven't. I maintained that the US was in vioaltion of both in my first post in this thread.
"NUKE, the US is in violation of Resolution 1441 as well as the UN Charter."
Can you show me specifically where the US is breaking international law, in violation of 1441, or the UN charter?
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The Iraqi governments cease fire agreement was with the UN it is up to the security council, not US to determine if Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement and if so what repercusions to impose on Iraq.
No I haven't. I maintained that the US was in vioaltion of both in my first post in this thread.
"NUKE, the US is in violation of Resolution 1441 as well as the UN Charter."
The UN didnt negotiate the cease fire in the first place...it was completely unauthorized by the UN..... we where in violation of the UN mandate for use of force against Iraq I guess.
Portions of 1441 only reaffirm portions of the UN charter ( as every UN resolution does) , so to say the US is in violation of 1441 is pointless if you only base your point/argument on the UN charter.
If the UN charter is static and states that " the UN will respect the sovereingty of nations", then any UN resolution that authorizes force would be against it's own charter by your logic.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Can you show me specifically where the US is breaking international law, in violation of 1441, or the UN charter?
Thanks.
I'm sorry no, I've already done that. I recommend you read my posts again, as it seems that NUKE could follow what as I was saying, so the problem doesn't seem to be with my explanations.
Besides, I've seen some of your other posts and you don't appear to debate in good faith.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I'm sorry no, I've already done that. I recommend you read my posts again, as it seems that NUKE could follow what as I was saying, so the problem doesn't seem to be with my explanations.
Besides, I've seen some of your other posts and you don't appear to debate in good faith.
Thrawn, explain how the UN can authorize the use of force against a sovereign nation without being in violation of the UN charter's statement of respect for a nations sovereignty.
Thrawn, I give up for tonight. I have not heard from anyone other than you that the US is in violation of 1441.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I'm sorry no, I've already done that. I recommend you read my posts again, as it seems that NUKE could follow what as I was saying, so the problem doesn't seem to be with my explanations.
Besides, I've seen some of your other posts and you don't appear to debate in good faith.
I'll take that as a big fat "well actually Martlet, it doesn't say it specifically". Thank you, please drive thru.
-
i'm still eyeballing that 'debate in good faith' line.
and waiting.
with popcorn.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
i'm still eyeballing that 'debate in good faith' line.
and waiting.
with popcorn.
I left that one alone. Didn't really understand it, and didn't want to show my ignorance.
I guess I don't debate with God on my side?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The UN didnt negotiate the cease fire in the first place...it was completely unauthorized by the UN.....
Yes it was.
"3. Further demands that Iraq:
(a) Cease hostile or provocative actions by its forces against all Member States including missile attacks and flights of combat aircraft;
(b) Designate military commanders to meet with counterparts from the forces of Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait pursuant to resolution 678 (1990) to arrange for the military aspects of a cessation of hostilities at the earliest possible time; "
During the Gulf War the US was acting as an agent for the Security Council. The US was instrumental in the war and the cease fire negotiatoins but it was acting under the auspices of the UN.
Portions of 1441 only reaffirm portions of the UN charter ( as every UN resolution does) , so to say the US is in violation of 1441 is pointless if you only base your point/argument on the UN charter.
Just because it is a redundancy doesn't make it any less valid.
If the UN charter is static and states that " the UN will respect the sovereingty of nations", then any UN resolution that authorizes force would be against it's own charter by your logic.
It says,
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
No one nation state is more or less sovereign than the other. No nation state can declare a war of agression against another, for example.
Only the security council can do that.
I would probably be easier if you just read the Charter. It's all done in very plain english.
-
Try this:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Try this:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm
lol SM, before I viewed your link I had a little repect for you.
Not one mention on that page that I read was regarding Iraq's violations.....it's ALL America's fault.
Typical I guess.
-
I don't know why you would expect any different. The GPF monitors the UN and the UN has not sanctioned the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Certainly, the stories are biased towards a more global side of the discussion. No argument there.
Of course, if you want to listen to the talking heads on CNN or Fox and go right along, be my guest.
I prefer to look at the issue from more than a single perspective.
To be clear, the GPF articles pretty much represent a single perspective. This isn't the source of my opinion. It's just another reference.
YMMV.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yes it was.
"3. Further demands that Iraq:
(a) Cease hostile or provocative actions by its forces against all Member States including missile attacks and flights of combat aircraft;
(b) Designate military commanders to meet with counterparts from the forces of Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait pursuant to resolution 678 (1990) to arrange for the military aspects of a cessation of hostilities at the earliest possible time; "
During the Gulf War the US was acting as an agent for the Security Council. The US was instrumental in the war and the cease fire negotiatoins but it was acting under the auspices of the UN.
Just because it is a redundancy doesn't make it any less valid.
It says,
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
No one nation state is more or less sovereign than the other. No nation state can declare a war of agression against another, for example.
Only the security council can do that.
I would probably be easier if you just read the Charter. It's all done in very plain english.
Did I miss the UN resolution regarding the cease fire?
1441 reaffirmed all previous Iraq resolutions. Which UN resolution is the US in Violation of again?
-
Originally posted by funkedup
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.
You know....that would be funny if it wasn't so true :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
certainly, the stories are biased towards the U.N. side of the discussion. No argument there.
/B]
LOL, which UN side of the argument? The UN has resolutions against Iraq, not the US.
the UN side???? are you freaking serious?
Where on the site can we view the UN's resolve against Iraq?
What a joke...... and sad
-
Does the U.S. have sanction from the UN Security Council for the invasion of Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Does the U.S. have sanction from the UN Security Council for the invasion of Iraq?
Does your site point out UN views and resolve against Iraq, or only anti-American BS?
SM, you seem to be a sick person and I will no longer give you the pleasure of a response on this BBS.
-
Any Americans care to view Sand Man's link and comment on his post?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Did I miss the UN resolution regarding the cease fire?
It appears so.
From Resolution 687.
"Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;
You can read the rest here: http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
1441 reaffirmed all previous Iraq resolutions.
Not quite. It recalls all previous relevant resolutions.
Which UN resolution is the US in Violation of again?
Once again, it is in violation of 1441 as well as all the others that state that the reaffirms the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States etc. Alot of the relevant resolutions include a state such as that one.
Yet again I recommend you actually read the relevant documentation before you try to debate it.
-
1441:Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling is ambiguous I guess
-
There is something I don't understand.
How is going to war with Iraq illegal? A Charter isn't a law. Unless there is someother International Law out there I am unaware of, I don't believe the USA has broken any laws.
On the other hand we did sign an agreement when we joined the UN. We did break that agreement. Quite frankly after 12 years of UN resolutions it's pretty clear to me the UN wasn't going to enforce it's own resolutions.
The more I see of how Saddam treated his own people the more I believe it doesn't matter if he had WMD or not. Leaving him in power would be a far greater crime than any *perceived* crime were are commiting now.
sorry for the edit, had a couple typos :)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yet again I recommend you actually read the relevant documentation before you try to debate it.
Why when it's so much simpler to just skim through the titles and then make personal attacks?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Why when it's so much simpler to just skim through the titles and then make personal attacks?
Personal attacks huh? point out a personal attack.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Does your site point out UN views and resolve against Iraq, or only anti-American BS?
Yes it does, but once again why don't you read the actual documentation instead of relying on unfounded assumptions.
Why is Sandman sick for doing you a favour and trying to provide you with more information about a topic that you appeared to know more about?
-
Tell all of us dim-wits on this BBS how the US is in violation of UN resolution 1441 again.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Recalling is ambiguous I guess
It's the minutes for the meeting. Not one of those resolutions authorised a change of the Iraqi government.
-
lol.. nuke.. he won't answer, he'll just dodge.
it's a french canada thing.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It's the minutes for the meeting. Not one of those resolutions authorised a change of the Iraqi government.
see?
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by NUKE
Does your site point out UN views and resolve against Iraq, or only anti-American BS?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it does, but once again why don't you read the actual documentation instead of relying on unfounded assumptions.
Why is Sandman sick for doing you a favour and trying to provide you with more information about a topic that you appeared to know more about?
so you agree that the site only points out anti-American BS then
-
Personal attacks huh? point out a personal attack.
lol SM, before I viewed your link I had a little repect for you.
SM, you seem to be a sick person and I will no longer give you the pleasure of a response on this BBS.
There are no direct insults, but these statements are about me and my character. These statements are not about the articles I linked to.
Oh... and good to see you still can't resist responding. :D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Tell all of us dim-wits on this BBS how the US is in violation of UN resolution 1441 again.
No need to insult yourself.
Let me us plainer english.
-1441 as well as others reaffirms Iraqi sovereignty and territorial integrity.
-US invades Iraq.
-US violates Iraq terrortorial integrity.
-Iraq not sovereign (or authority) over territory held by US.
-US violates Iraqi sovereignty and territorial integrity.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
There are no direct insults, but these statements are about me and my character. These statements are not about the articles I linked to.
Oh... and good to see you still can't resist responding. :D
Personal attacks huh? What world do you hail from?
-
I define a "personal attack" as anytime the focus of a message or statement is directed toward perceived qualities of the poster, rather than content of the poster's message.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
No need to insult yourself.
Let me us plainer english.
-1441 as well as others reaffirms Iraqi sovereignty and territorial integrity.
-US invades Iraq.
-US violates Iraq terrortorial integrity.
-Iraq not sovereign (or authority) over territory held by US.
-US violates Iraqi sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Iraq is sovereign as we type.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
so you agree that the site only points out anti-American BS then
No. You misunderstood me. Unlike you I actually checked out the site so I know your assumption is unfounded and and based on your imagination. Showing a bit of paranoid tendencies.
You of course, could have put your unfounded fears to rest by taking a couple of seconds and checking out the site. But you appear to want keep your delusions about it instead.
-
If a nation is allowed under the UN Charter, to wage war in self-defense, then it also seems logical that it should be allowed to wage war on behalf of another nation victimized by aggression. In criminal law this is called the "defense of another" excuse, and the aiding party has the same right to use the same degree of force that the original victim could legally use in his/her self-defense. And could anyone claim that Kuwait had no right to do anything more than throw the aggressor over the border, that it could not carry the war all the way to Baghdad, if Kuwait had the power? So the United States in 1991, could legally have taken the war to Baghdad and done the job then. And Saddam must have realized this, or he would not have agreed to the terms of the cease-fire agreement. He has broken the terms of the agreement he signed to preserve himself in power; his probation has been revoked, and the 1990-1 War is back on again, with a final and better outcome this time, may God grant.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Iraq is sovereign as we type.
No it's not. You just don't know what the word means in this context.
If it was sovereign than the Iraqi government would have supreme authority over all terrority within it's international recognised boarders. It does not have supreme authority over territory that has been conquered by US and GB forces.
-
One reason I keep posting is to further expose these guys...
Seems to be a couple of pretty twisted folks here in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Rasker
He has broken the terms of the agreement he signed to preserve himself in power; his probation has been revoked, and the 1990-1 War is back on again, with a final and better outcome this time, may God grant.
I agree he has broken the terms. But it up to neither you, I or the US to determine that. It's up to the party to which the cease fire was agree upon. The UN security council.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
No it's not. You just don't know what the word means in this context.
If it was sovereign than the Iraqi government would have supreme authority over all terrority within it's international recognised boarders. It does not have supreme authority over territory that has been conquered by US and GB forces.
Iraq is sovereign as far as you and I know....unless you have some inside inframation.
Germany was Sovereign until they surrendered IMO
-
Thrawn, how is the US in violation of 1441?
Iraq is a sovereign nation as we speak/type ( unless you have some insider information)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
One reason I keep posting is to further expose these guys...
That has got to be one of the saddest most childish things I've seen posted in awhile.
Finally realised you don't know anthing about the topic you are debating and trying to find an out eh? And instead of taking the time to read any documention about the topic you resort to this? Pathetic.
Seems to be a couple of pretty twisted folks here in my opinion.
Oh, very twisted. That whole basing arguements on facts and quoting source material thing is getting me down. Let's hope it's catching.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Does the U.S. have sanction from the UN Security Council for the invasion of Iraq?
Look up the definition of sanctions
Originally posted by Thrawn
No it's not. You just don't know what the word means in this context.
If it was sovereign than the Iraqi government would have supreme authority over all terrority within it's international recognised boarders. It does not have supreme authority over territory that has been conquered by US and GB forces.
Look up the definition of sovereign
-
I know what the definition of sanction is.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I know what the definition of sanction is.
Then you see the obsurdity of your question. Perhaps you should edit it.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Look up the definition of sovereign
I have. It is evident that you have not and that is what I mean by that you don't debate in good faith. A sovereign state should have control both over foreign and internal policies and there should be no restrictions over land and borders, water and other resources, and their ability to determine their own economic and social development.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Then you see the obsurdity of your question. Perhaps you should edit it.
Cut and paste as you like... "formal decree" or "explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification."
-
I asked for the definition, not your interpretation of it.
Main Entry: 2sovereign
Variant(s): also sovran
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English soverain, from Middle French, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin superanus, from Latin super over, above -- more at OVER
Date: 14th century
1 a : superlative in quality : EXCELLENT b : of the most exalted kind : SUPREME c : having generalized curative powers d : of an unqualified nature : UNMITIGATED e : having undisputed ascendancy : PARAMOUNT
2 a : possessed of supreme power b : unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT
3 : relating to, characteristic of, or befitting a sovereign2 a : possessed of supreme power b : unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT
Autonomy. Something Iraq has not, and will not lose.
-
Thanks. I'll take B: for 1000 Alex.
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
"explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification."
1441 gives this.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Thanks. I'll take B: for 1000 Alex.
1441 gives this.
I disagree.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I disagree.
disagree all you'd like. You can disagree that I'm wearing a sweatshirt. Doesn't stop it from being true.
-
They do state we sold them *components*.
is this like
I did not *inhale*.
?
-
Cripes.
Originally posted by Martlet
2 a : possessed of supreme power b : unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT
Does the Iraqi government have supreme power of unlimited in extent within it's nationstate right now?
No.
Thanks for the definition, although you might want to have read it before posting it and having it prove my point.
3 : relating to, characteristic of, or befitting a sovereign2 a : possessed of supreme power b : unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT
Autonomy. Something Iraq has not, and will not lose.
What it doesn't have it but it will not lose it? Well I guess if it doesn't have it to lose in the first place.
Let's assume it was a typo and that you ment, "Something Iraq has, and will not lose."
If this is that case, then you don't know what autonomy means.
Autonomy
1. The condition or quality of being autonomous; independence.
2. a) Self-government or the right of self-government; self-determination.
B)Self-government with respect to local or internal affairs: granted autonomy to a national minority.
3. A self-governing state, community, or group.
Whelp, parts of Iraq are self govening but certainly not all of it, some is govenment by the US and GB militaries.
And hey whats the plan for Iraq after the war. Isn't the US planning on having that retired US general run it in a military governance, hmmm doesn't sound like it's going to be "self governing" now does it? Sounds like the US is going to govern it.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
disagree all you'd like. You can disagree that I'm wearing a sweatshirt. Doesn't stop it from being true.
Jesus Martlet, you can say I'm wearing a sweatshirt. Doesn't make it true. :rolleyes:
"1441 gives this."
"The sky is plaid."
-
Let me spell this out for you. Real slow. If you need help, I'll even make another 3rd grade reading level coloring book for you.
Iraq is sovereign in that it has defined borders, resources, and population. That will not change. Iraq DID NOT have "self government". They were under a totalitarianship. Saddam had sovereignity in that sense, Iraq did not.
Independence, to use your word, is also something Iraq did not have. Saddam had that, too. Iraq did not.
The UN recognizes the sovereignity of a Nation. Iraq's sovereignity is being returned to them, after it was stolen by Saddam. If the coalition annexed Iraq, as Iraq did to Kuwait, then it would have violated international law.
The UN has not declared this war illegal.
The UN has not stated the US is in violation of anything.
Is that in simple enough speak for you? This civics lesson is free of charge, the next one may cost you.
Originally posted by Thrawn
Jesus Martlet, you can say I'm wearing a sweatshirt. Doesn't make it true. :rolleyes:
"1441 gives this."
"The sky is plaid."
I don't even pretend to understand what you mean by that.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Iraq is sovereign in that it has defined borders, resources, and population.
Hey Martlet from your own definition. "possessed of supreme power b : unlimited in extent "
Right now. does the govenment of Iraq have supreme power of unlimited extent within it's defined borders, over its resources, and population?
That will not change. Iraq DID NOT have "self government". They were under a totalitarianship. Saddam had sovereignity in that sense, Iraq did not.
Independence, to use your word, is also something Iraq did not have. Saddam had that, too. Iraq did not.
Can you show me anywhere within your definition, the words totallitarianism, democracy or any form of government for that matter? A sovereign state has nothing to do with the form or type of govenment the national government takes. Its about the that state's government having absolute power over what goes with in the boarders of it.
the coalition annexed Iraq, as Iraq did to Kuwait, then it would have violated international law.
No. Both countries were and are in violation of international law because they both broke faith with the charter they signed. A charter that said they would only go to war for self defence, mutual self-defence or with security council approval. The intentions of what the countries wish to do after they have already entered a state of illegal war are irrelevant.
The UN has not declared this war illegal.
The UN has not stated the US is in violation of anything.
The UN through the security council couldn't pass a resolution declaring the war illegal if it wanted to. Both the US or GB would simply veto it.
civics lesson is free of charge, the next one may cost you.
I certainly got my moneys worth.
I don't even pretend to understand what you mean by that.
You decried Sandman for making a statement and not backing it up. "I disagree."
Right after you made a statement with out backing it up. "1441 gives this."
It's hypocritical.
-
Right now. does the govenment of Iraq have supreme power of unlimited extent within it's defined borders, over its resources, and population?
No, Saddam took that away, but it will shortly.
Its about the that state's government having absolute power over what goes with in the boarders of it.
Exactly. And when Saddam made Iraq a Totalitarian state, that power went from Iraq to Saddam.
The intentions of what the countries wish to do after they have already entered a state of illegal war are irrelevant.
Agreed, however irrelevent to the contexed in which it was used. I cited it as an example, not as a point.
The UN through the security council couldn't pass a resolution declaring the war illegal if it wanted to. Both the US or GB would simply veto it.
Doesn't change the fact that it isn't.
Right after you made a statement with out backing it up. "1441 gives this."
S/RES/1441 (2002)
Items 13 + 14 in reference to Item 1
-
Like them or not Martlet, there is a place for dictatorships and totalitarian goverments in the international community and the UN specifically.
Like them or not the Ba'ath party that composes the Iraqi government is recognised as the national government by the UN and the international communitee, including the US.
You can say "not it's not" all you want. And you can try to twist the definition of sovereignty to fit your mold of, "democratically elected", or "US military controled with retired US general in charge", or what have you. But your definition that you posted doesn't say that that is what the word means.
-
Bodhi,
US has sold WMD to Iraq, been behind Saddams back and saved his arse when chemicals was used against Iran and Iran took it to UN.
Also theres several companies in US who have sold stuff to Iraq.
Maybe not military equiptment, but banned goods anyway.
So nice to know US has never done anything wrong with Iraq that germany and french have.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Like them or not Martlet, there is a place for dictatorships and totalitarian goverments in the international community and the UN specifically.
Like them or not the Ba'ath party that composes the Iraqi government is recognised as the national government by the UN and the international communitee, including the US.
You can say "not it's not" all you want. And you can try to twist the definition of sovereignty to fit your mold of, "democratically elected", or "US military controled with retired US general in charge", or what have you. But your definition that you posted doesn't say that that is what the word means.
I never said the Iraqi Gov't wasn't recognized by the UN at the time.
I never said that sovereignty meant democratically elected. I specifically posted the definition of it.
All I said, was that the US in no way violated International Law, Resolution 1441, or the UN charter. All things that you had claimed.
I have shown you that we have not. You have yet to show me that I am mistaken.
Since the UN and ICC have yet to say that it is, I'll continue to try to educate you that I am correct.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Bodhi,
US has sold WMD to Iraq, been behind Saddams back and saved his arse when chemicals was used against Iran and Iran took it to UN.
Also theres several companies in US who have sold stuff to Iraq.
Maybe not military equiptment, but banned goods anyway.
So nice to know US has never done anything wrong with Iraq that germany and french have.
As morally wrong as it may have been, it wasn't against international law or UN resolution. What France, Germany, and Russia did was.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Bodhi,
US has sold WMD to Iraq, been behind Saddams back and saved his arse when chemicals was used against Iran and Iran took it to UN.
Also theres several companies in US who have sold stuff to Iraq.
Maybe not military equiptment, but banned goods anyway.
So nice to know US has never done anything wrong with Iraq that germany and french have.
Fishu,
I specifically asked which companies sold the proposed WMD's to Iraq, not another vague confirmation of what Herr liberalpansy Blitz said. The only thing I have heard or seen is of the sale of "dual-use" products to Iraq, which they turned into Chemicals and attacked Iran with. This was done during a time when no weapons or items were banned to sell to Iraq. Germany, France, and Russia on the other hand, HAVE been selling WMD's and their components to Iraq during a UN ban on said sales of said to Iraq.
Seems to me that France, Germany, and Russia all have no interest in making the world a better, safer place in the least bit, maybe its time for the coalition to remove their corrupt regimes as well?
-
Originally posted by Puke
I agree. I almost typed something this morning but backed off. Kind of a weird thing to want as your avatar, some guy with pure terror on his face just a millisecond before a bullet is put into his head and life taken away. Kinda weird when the same person has issues with a few smileys in a post too.
Also, not sure I'd call him a POW. He was suspected of association with the enemy and some SVN General quickly questioned him and shot him.
It was the police chief of Saigon murdering a captivated vietcong fighter right on the street during the Ted 'Offensive' in Saigon.
After the war he settled down in the USA if i recall it right.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous- It's a classic bloody 'Aggression War'
When will this tough little country of Vietnam see that apology?
Americans and Vietnamese have something in common :
Their pride
-
The guy was VC assasin who just murdered the whole family of a South Vietnamse offcial.
The man who exectued him is the General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, who was police chief for all south vietnam. It was the family of one of his close friend and subordinate who was just murdered by the VC assasin.
He recently passed away in Virginia.
General Nguyen Ngoc Loan
BTW Blitz have you apologized yet?
-
Oh Puke the bullet has allready passed through his head, in fact it was seen on the other side of his head in the picture upon very close examination.
Gory detail but I wanted to point it out.
-
"Germany Owes the World an Apology"
For WWI and WWII ? Not now they don't, you can't visit the sins of the father on the son.
As for exports to Iraq since the embargo ? Then I guess we will have to wait for concrete evidence of any wrong doing,
You might like to add
UK owes (insert most countries names here) an apology
USA owes (insert a few countries names here) an apology
England owes (Scotland, Wales, Ireland and NI) an apology
You could go on forever inserting the names of countries that have suffered oppression or war by another country.
wipass
-
Originally posted by 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.
Nice try....give it another shot.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I agree he has broken the terms. But it up to neither you, I or the US to determine that. It's up to the party to which the cease fire was agree upon. The UN security council.
Now herein lies the problem......
Thrawn and others here believe the US can only act outside of it's own borders with permission from the UNSC....they seem to believe in a one world government system under which the US and it's interests are nuetered.
Americans(there are exceptions) believe and expect our government to protect us and our national interests and that the UN is not our government.
Personally, I could care less what the UN thinks....like Bush said...either act or you become irrelevant. The United States should by it's own constitution, act to protects it's sole interests...being all warm and friendly with the rest of the world is not a requirement of our constitution nor the leadership of this nation.
So, it boils down to this for little ol me....you are either our friend, an aquaintance or our enemy. It is really that simple....future behavior towards the US and the intent thereof will qualify those whom we associate with.
I know this upsets many of you, but it's best to just get over it....the US will never cowtow to the UN, the so called world community or whatever you want to label it....at least I hope it doesn't in mine or my childrens lifetimes.
We are a nation of good people who want to live in peace and prosperity just like other nations do...we have enemies....we are going to deal with them....Bush gets another four years and some of you folks are really going to get upset....this nations back is no longer turned on the rest of the world.
-
I am still waiting for the proof or links to proof on which US companies provided WMD's to Iraq???
It seems as usual these liberals are able to spout off, yet provide no proof! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I am still waiting for the proof or links to proof on which US companies provided WMD's to Iraq???
It seems as usual these liberals are able to spout off, yet provide no proof! :rolleyes:
It's not exactly what I would call proof, but it's a good place to start: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true
-
I find it to be nothing more than a liberal rag trying to cull oposition to the US position on Iraq without providing a shred of proof, just rumors. Then to top it off they say this:
In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol.
As I said before, provide proof, or stfu.
-
A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.
"It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now," says Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of "The Threatening Storm," which makes the case for war with Iraq. "My fellow [CIA] analysts and I were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We were constantly fighting the State Department."
"Fundamentally, the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio station in Prague. "We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."
In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."
-
Sandman,
those quotes mean nothing especially in the context of that article. It is more liberal jibberish from the king of liberal jibberish, the Washington Post. Umm, lets see, DOW Chemical sold them pesticides???? Gee, I can think of lots of reasons to have them, like for crops and such, and to think they could actually kill you... well wtf are pesticides supposed to do? Make ya feel good. Get better proof than this hooplah liberal spwe.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I have shown you that we have not. You have yet to show me that I am mistaken.
You have done nothing of the sort. You have attempted to debate, that the US is not in violation of 1441 because the sovereignty of Iraq belongs to it's people, while your definition clearly says nothing of the kind.
You have not even touched upon the US being in violation of UN charter.
Originally posted by Rude
Now herein lies the problem......
Thrawn and others here believe the US can only act outside of it's own borders with permission from the UNSC....they seem to believe in a one world government system under which the US and it's interests are nuetered.
Rude, just to clarify. I realise that the US certainly can act as it is doing. What I am arguing is that the US can only go to war for the reasons stated in the UN charter because the US is a signatory of it. And if it choses not to follow the follow the UN charter than the US is in violation of international law as the Charter is an international agreement between nation states.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/us_iraq_history_1_020917.html
The U.S. supported Saddam throughout (and after) the 1980-88 war with Iran. This is fact.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/us_iraq_history_1_020917.html
The U.S. supported Saddam throughout (and after) the 1980-88 war with Iran. This is fact.
We still owe Iran an bellybutton kicking and we may have to deliver some day.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
You have done nothing of the sort. You have attempted to debate, that the US is not in violation of 1441 because the sovereignty of Iraq belongs to it's people, while your definition clearly says nothing of the kind.
You have not even touched upon the US being in violation of UN charter.
.
You sound like a broken record. I most certainly have. Arguing with you is like arguing with my 3 year old niece. When you say "no, here's why" she plugs her ears and screams, then asks "why" again.
Seriously, spring for an education.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The U.S. supported Saddam throughout (and after) the 1980-88 war with Iran. This is fact.
This has never been the argument, of course we supported Sadaam during the Iran-Iraq wars. We were stupid not too. Hell even the Russians were hesitant of support for the Iranians, and rightfully so. Had the US not supported the Iraqi military during that war, then the whole region would be one gigantic Iran, and we all know how pleasant they are?!?!
The argument that is still on the table though, is WHICH (and / or IF) US companies supplied WMD's to the Iraqi regime. And no, pesticides do not count. Christ, just because my neighbor bought 10 tons of ammonium nitrate, does not mean he plans on blowing up a building in Oklahoma City, to the educated who see he has 1900 acres of land to fertilize.... well, I can not educate a liberal.
-
It doesn't wash Bodhi. US chemical companies (DuPont etc) were selling chemical weapon precursors to Iraq before, during and after Iraq had deployed chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds. Saddam's regime was transparent in it's brutality and intentions - everyone knew how Saddam would use those chemicals.
At best, the export of the chemicals was naive. If that is the case, then it's the greatest case of naivety since the people of Troy decided that a giant wooden horse would look really cool in the centre of their city.
How Saddam Happened - Senate Proceedings (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
It doesn't wash Bodhi. US chemical companies (DuPont etc) were selling chemical weapon precursors to Iraq before, during and after Iraq had deployed chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds. Saddam's regime was transparent in it's brutality and intentions - everyone knew how Saddam would use those chemicals.
At best, the export of the chemicals was naive. If that is the case, then it's the greatest case of naivety since the people of Troy decided that a giant wooden horse would look really cool in the centre of their city.
How Saddam Happened - Senate Proceedings (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html)
Naive? With all their intelligence? Doubt that dowding.
"Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.
The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."
A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous- It's a classic bloody 'Aggression War'
When will this tough little country of Vietnam see that apology?
Americans and Vietnamese have something in common :
Their pride
-
I believe that we do owe south vietnam an apolodgy... we left them to be slaughtered by the commies.
Such a shame... we coulda done what we did in iraq there if we had had the will.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dowding
It doesn't wash Bodhi. US chemical companies (DuPont etc) were selling chemical weapon precursors to Iraq before, during and after Iraq had deployed chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds. Saddam's regime was transparent in it's brutality and intentions - everyone knew how Saddam would use those chemicals.
Yet again, no one provides a whim of proof, other than generalisations as to who, or specifically WHICH companies are responsible. And don't get me started on Blitz's paranoidical delusions. He reads one liberal article and thinks he knows who shot Kennedy.
-
Here ya go, Bodhi.
"During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests. According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:
* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.
Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.
The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984.
The American company that provided the most biological materials to Iraq in the 1980s was American Type Culture Collection of Maryland and Virginia, which made seventy shipments of the anthrax-causing germ and other pathogenic agents, according to a 1996 Newsday story.
Other American companies also provided Iraq with the chemical or biological compounds, or the facilities and equipment used to create the compounds for chemical and biological warfare. Among these suppliers were the following:
* Alcolac International, a Baltimore chemical manufacturer already linked to the illegal shipment of chemicals to Iran, shipped large quantities of thiodiglycol (used to make mustard gas) as well as other chemical and biological ingredients, according to a 1989 story in The New York Times.
* Nu Kraft Mercantile Corp. of Brooklyn (affiliated with the United Steel and Strip Corporation) also supplied Iraq with huge amounts of thiodiglycol, the Times reported.
* Celery Corp., Charlotte, NC
* Matrix-Churchill Corp., Cleveland, OH (regarded as a front for the Iraqi government, according to Representative Henry Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who quoted U.S. intelligence documents to this effect in a 1992 speech on the House floor).
The following companies were also named as chemical and biological materials suppliers in the 1992 Senate hearings on "United States export policy toward Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait":
* Mouse Master, Lilburn, GA
* Sullaire Corp., Charlotte, NC
* Pure Aire, Charlotte, NC
* Posi Seal, Inc., N. Stonington, CT
* Union Carbide, Danbury, CT
* Evapco, Taneytown, MD
* Gorman-Rupp, Mansfield, OH "
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Quit whining about morality.
The US is accusing Iraq for violating UN decisions, and right after then attacking Iraq in direct violation of the UN itself.
Pardon me but what's the direct violation of the UN you speak of? Please name it.
-
Thrawn,
I appreciate ya cutting and pasting it, but would you provide a link to where you found that information? And please tell me it was not the Washington Post....
-
Did you even read the link I posted? It's all there for you - a long detailed transcript from the Senate on the subject.
-
Dowding I read a horrible job of reporting and summarizing that was a Washington Post Article that you put up there... Get real, black and white does not mean go to the Washington Post where they quote and twist their reporting so badly even you liberals look good.
:rolleyes:
-
Clearly you have difficulty distinguishing a transcript from a journalistic report. It was a Congressional Record of Senate Proceedings, which mentioned several articles including one from Newsweek. Perhaps if you engaged your eyes instead of rolling them, you would have more success.
-
I will grant that, depending on how one chooses to construe the documents, it may be difficult to reconcile the United States' action in Iraq with the U.N. charter and 1441. Nonetheless, I'm sure that the United States will play the global political game and try to explain how what it did in Iraq was in compliance. I would rather that it did not.
Instead, I would have the U.S. simply state, as Bush has suggested in the past, that the U.N. has demonstrated a fatal lack of will and that the United States will not be bound by the collective wills of its members. The U.N. has served its purpose and may still be good for something (e.g., distributing humanitarian aid), but it has largely proved to be blundering, incompetent, and corrupt. The United States has shown its willingness to thumb its nose at the world before (for better or worse); this is one time that it did so advisedly.
I do not let my one-year-old dictate my actions, and, similarly, the United States should not allow its actions to be dictated by the likes of France, Germany, and Russia. It's not that those countries are irrelevant, it's just in some cases, like the present, the fact that they disagree with the United States is insufficient to keep us from doing what we see as being in our best interest. Furthermore, the more often that they throw up roadblocks to impede actions that unquestionably are for the good of the world--and, more importantly, in the United States' best interest--the less their opinions will matter to us. In a gross generalization, the United States cares more about what its allies think that what its enemies think. France and Germany just moved a bit on the scale away from ally and toward enemy and further similar shenanigans will result in similar shifts in our view of those countries.
France and Germany (but particularly France) saw an opportunity to thrust themselves into the center of the world stage by leading a coalition to oppoose the imperialistic Americans. It's been a long time since Napoleon, and the once-great Nation must be stinging from almost 200 years of military insignificance. France's opposition was little more than a pissing contest, and France got sprayed in the face.
The United States stands astride the globe as no other country/empire/regime in history. History tells us that this condition likely will not persist, but for now, no one should be surprised that the United States acts in its own best interest. It does so because it CAN. Any country in its position would do the same. The rest of the world should be thankful, however, that the United States views spreading democracy and basic freedom across the globe to be in its best interest. Such has not been the case with others who were in (or aspired to be in) similar positions.
One should not be deluded into thinking that the United States will be bound by or cares unduly for the U.N. The United States created that organization because, at the time, it served its interests to do so. Similarly, although the United States will continue to pay lip service to the U.N., when it serves its interests, the United States will ignore it.
You can continue to argue over whether the United States breached its U.N. obligations. It presents a somewhat interesting question of international "law." In the end, however, it just doesn't matter.
- JNOV
-
Well said LoneStarBuckeye....damn well said
And if...just IF[/i] the US was in violation of the UN or whomever....so what?
Saddam was in violation for over 11 years and what did the UN do? Mostly wring their hands and try to stop anyone who wanted to fix the problem.
-
Well said LoneStar.
-
Well said Lonestar...