Germany Owes the World an Apology!

[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.

[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.

[Martlet]

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.

[Martlet]

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.

[Bodhi]

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?

[blitz]

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

[GRUNHERZ]

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?

[GRUNHERZ]

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.

[wipass]

"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

[Rude]

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.

[Rude]

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.

[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!  

[Sandman]

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!  

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

[Bodhi]

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.

[Sandman]

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."