Some people claim that the war with Iraq was justified.
Why was it justified ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some people claim that the war with Iraq was "a just war".
Why was it "a just war" ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some people claim that America needed to be protected from Iraq.
What threat was Iraq ?
____________________________________________________________
.
|
|
| User: "True Principles" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
30 Jul 2003 08:39:01 PM |
|
|
<DaarkSyde@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:otafiv8ei74fifejig8tgvojhe9gq47kuv@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:46:07 -0700, "Joshua Heard"
<jheard@novacron.com> wrote:
Yes. Hussein Saddamized the country for years torturing and raping its
citizens. He was evil. Hussein supported terrorist training camps used
to
train airline hijackers. He has admitted to having WMD and has violated
16
UN resolutions. The mideast region is more stable and its people more
free
now that Hussein is gone, and there is less evil in the world today.
Hahahahaha are you being mislead, the world is now more dangerous than
ever before. Where are the WMD's? Who trained the Iraqis (CIA)? Where
did he get his now destroyed WMD? (USA). Baby Bush won't be happy
until the whole world is at war.
I think you mean France in place of the US - it is common knowledge to
everyone paying attention that the majority of Iraq's weapons and nuclear
development came directly from france.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
31 Jul 2003 06:41:33 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:39:01 -0600, "True Principles"
<conservative@compassionandresponsibility.com> wrote:
<DaarkSyde@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:otafiv8ei74fifejig8tgvojhe9gq47kuv@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:46:07 -0700, "Joshua Heard"
<jheard@novacron.com> wrote:
Yes. Hussein Saddamized the country for years torturing and raping its
citizens. He was evil. Hussein supported terrorist training camps used
to
train airline hijackers. He has admitted to having WMD and has violated
16
UN resolutions. The mideast region is more stable and its people more
free
now that Hussein is gone, and there is less evil in the world today.
Hahahahaha are you being mislead, the world is now more dangerous than
ever before. Where are the WMD's? Who trained the Iraqis (CIA)? Where
did he get his now destroyed WMD? (USA). Baby Bush won't be happy
until the whole world is at war.
I think you mean France in place of the US - it is common knowledge to
everyone paying attention that the majority of Iraq's weapons and nuclear
development came directly from france.
Spoken like a true brainwashed AMERICAN MORON. Iraq was supplied with
the Chems and Bios so they could beat Iran by the Regan-Bush
administration, check your history there junior.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pieter Wenk" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
05 Aug 2003 01:04:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:39:01 -0600, "True Principles"
<conservative@compassionandresponsibility.com> wrote:
<DaarkSyde@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:otafiv8ei74fifejig8tgvojhe9gq47kuv@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:46:07 -0700, "Joshua Heard"
<jheard@novacron.com> wrote:
Yes. Hussein Saddamized the country for years torturing and raping its
citizens. He was evil. Hussein supported terrorist training camps used
to
train airline hijackers. He has admitted to having WMD and has violated
16
UN resolutions. The mideast region is more stable and its people more
free
now that Hussein is gone, and there is less evil in the world today.
Hahahahaha are you being mislead, the world is now more dangerous than
ever before. Where are the WMD's? Who trained the Iraqis (CIA)? Where
did he get his now destroyed WMD? (USA). Baby Bush won't be happy
until the whole world is at war.
I think you mean France in place of the US - it is common knowledge to
everyone paying attention that the majority of Iraq's weapons and nuclear
development came directly from france.
The nuclear reactor France built...has been bombed in the 80ties by
the Israelis.
With regards to arms....I didn't see any French arms ? Embedded
reporters would surely have shown them, no ?
France is producing an excellent tank ie. the Leclerc...Did you see
any of them in Iraq ? They are also excellent in producing RPG...with
by far better accuracy...then the old Russian stuff I could see on the
TV screen.
Be happy than France did not supply the Iraqis with their
sophisticated arms....guess why :-)
Regards
--
Pieter Wenk /CH-1800 Vevey - Rivièra Vaudoise
These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece
the people.
--Abraham Lincoln, 1837
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grantland" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
29 Jul 2003 05:27:03 PM |
|
|
"Joshua Heard" <jheard@novacron.com> intoned:
Yes. Hussein Saddamized the country for years torturing and raping its
citizens. He was evil. Hussein supported terrorist training camps used to
train airline hijackers. He has admitted to having WMD and has violated 16
UN resolutions. The mideast region is more stable and its people more free
now that Hussein is gone, and there is less evil in the world today.
Good boy! Here's your treet. <flip>
NOW:
....
ATTENTION JOSHUA!!!
<**ORDERS** follow>
YOU WILL NOW STAND UPRIGHT AWAY FROM YOUR MONITOR.
- not so far, idiot! how will you readthe instructions? -
YOU WILL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND REPEAT AFTER ME . ..
"Deck-chair"
..
:...?
"Deck-chair"
:....eh..
"DECK-CHAIR!"
: Duhh...
SAY THE WORD! :
"Deck-chair"
: Duuhh...kkchairr...
"Deck-chair!"
: Deeckkchairr...
"Deck-chair!"
: Deeckkchairr...
SAY THE WORD!
"Deck-chair!"
: Deckkchairr...
SAY THE WORD!!
"Deck-chair"
: Deckkchair...
NOW YOU'RE GETTING IT!
"Deck-chair"
: Deckkchair...
"Deck-chair"
: Deckkchair...
KEEP IT UP!!!!
"Deck-chair"
: Deckk... uh ...chair...
CLOSE ENOUGH!
GOOD PROGRESS!
NEXT TIME WE WORK ON SLAVISH OBEDIENCE WITHOUT QUESTION!
UNDERSTOOD???!!
IN THE
MEANTIME ....
: * * *
: --- !**HEY-HEY-HEY**!!!
: * * *
KEEP THOSE BRAINCELLS RECEPTIVE HUMANOIDS!!!
....KEEP IT UP!...
Grantland
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles Farley" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
31 Jul 2003 12:39:49 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Some people claim that the war with Iraq was justified.
"Iraq is a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use
them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized
criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed."
- President Clinton, 1998
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16407-2002Dec5.html
"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his
region, and the security of all the rest of us.
What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some
ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to
develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to
press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the
solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its
will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to
rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
- President Clinton, February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
31 Jul 2003 06:43:33 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 01:39:49 -0400, Charles Farley
<charles@farley.net> wrote:
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
Some people claim that the war with Iraq was justified.
"Iraq is a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use
them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized
criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed."
- President Clinton, 1998
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16407-2002Dec5.html
"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his
region, and the security of all the rest of us.
What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some
ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to
develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to
press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the
solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its
will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to
rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
- President Clinton, February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
LOL what a Moron
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bradly Wiebe" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
29 Jul 2003 11:43:36 PM |
|
|
Joshua Heard wrote:
Yes. Hussein Saddamized the country for years torturing and raping its
citizens.
There are many leaders currently torturing, murdering, and raping their
citizens, what has been done about them?
He was evil.
Same as above.
Hussein supported terrorist training camps used to
train airline hijackers.
This is B.S. I'd love to entertain this wild idea if you could provide a cite
proving your claims.
He has admitted to having WMD and has violated 16
UN resolutions.
Hans Blitz reported that nuclear capabilities have been removed completely.
The WMD's you state here had a 300 kilometer range, that puts it just a bit shy
of the american border.
The mideast region is more stable and its people more free
now that Hussein is gone, and there is less evil in the world today.
what kind of horse crap is this? Kuwait had been unjustly taken away from Iraq
by Britain, Hussein asked the US government what they would do if Iraq took it
back. The US government said it would stay out of it. Taking Kuwait by force
was wrong, but in the minds of many Iraqi's, it could be seen as just. As for
stability, you are kidding right? what about Iran? What about the
Israel/Palestinian problems?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pieter Wenk" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
30 Jul 2003 02:02:24 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:46:07 -0700, "Joshua Heard"
<jheard@novacron.com> wrote:
Yes. Hussein Saddamized the country for years torturing and raping its
citizens. He was evil. Hussein supported terrorist training camps used to
train airline hijackers. He has admitted to having WMD and has violated 16
UN resolutions. The mideast region is more stable and its people more free
now that Hussein is gone, and there is less evil in the world today.
Iraq free ? Are you kidding ? The region is now more stable ?
Were are you living ? On the moon ?? Perhaps you should searching the
WMD's there....
Regards
--
Pieter Wenk /CH-1800 Vevey - Rivièra Vaudoise
These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece
the people.
--Abraham Lincoln, 1837
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
30 Jul 2003 03:22:08 PM |
|
|
"Pieter Wenk" <pwenk@urbanet.ch> wrote in message
news:kd5givg1p2d2al3hi2lk00dnobb378h0pf@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:46:07 -0700, "Joshua Heard"
<jheard@novacron.com> wrote:
Yes. Hussein Saddamized the country for years torturing and raping
its
citizens. He was evil. Hussein supported terrorist training camps
used to
train airline hijackers. He has admitted to having WMD and has
violated 16
UN resolutions. The mideast region is more stable and its people
more free
now that Hussein is gone, and there is less evil in the world
today.
Iraq free ? Are you kidding ?
As opposed to a place where you could get your tongue
cut out or worse for criticizing the regime, Iraq is much
more free today than it was three months ago. There's been
an eruption of political speech, for instance, with dozens
of new newspapers being published, and political clubs
and organizations forming. If everything that is happening
in that realm can be fit into a government strong enough
to contain extremism, but open enough to tolerate all
the major and minor groups and help them find a place
at the table, it could become the most dynamic society,
and the most free society, in the Muslim world.
The region is now more stable ?
Unquestionably.
Were are you living ? On the moon ?? Perhaps you should searching
the
WMD's there....
Took a hoof to the head out at the barn this morning, did you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pieter Wenk" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
05 Aug 2003 01:25:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 20:22:08 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Pieter Wenk" <pwenk@urbanet.ch> wrote in message
news:kd5givg1p2d2al3hi2lk00dnobb378h0pf@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:46:07 -0700, "Joshua Heard"
<jheard@novacron.com> wrote:
Yes. Hussein Saddamized the country for years torturing and raping
its
citizens. He was evil. Hussein supported terrorist training camps
used to
train airline hijackers. He has admitted to having WMD and has
violated 16
UN resolutions. The mideast region is more stable and its people
more free
now that Hussein is gone, and there is less evil in the world
today.
Iraq free ? Are you kidding ?
As opposed to a place where you could get your tongue
cut out or worse for criticizing the regime, Iraq is much
more free today than it was three months ago.
I know Iraq :-) Sorry no Iraq will be occupied *for years* by an
occupation force...mainly provided by the USA/UK.
Under freedom....I understand something quite different.
There's been
an eruption of political speech, for instance, with dozens
of new newspapers being published, and political clubs
and organizations forming.
Blabla. If a newspaper is not telling exactly what's fitting P.
Bremer's ideas....US troops are just *damaging* the printing
installations. It happened a few days ago. Is this the sort of
democracy the *occupation forces* want to bring in the Middle East ?
If everything that is happening
in that realm can be fit into a government strong enough
to contain extremism, but open enough to tolerate all
the major and minor groups and help them find a place
at the table, it could become the most dynamic society,
and the most free society, in the Muslim world.
It this region the power is in the hands of clans and tribes. Wake up.
To bring democracy in such a context will need an evolution of
generations....
The region is now more stable ?
Nope....The whole region is now absolutely unstable. This is also
another reason that the US troops will have to stay *for years* in
Iraq. Should they step out....you will have the opportunity finding
out how stable this region is.
Were are you living ? On the moon ?? Perhaps you should searching
the
WMD's there....
Took a hoof to the head out at the barn this morning, did you?
No....but it might be possible that Iraq moved the WMD's to the moon.
Apparently the scuds....have been improved in order making this
distance. :-)
Regards
--
Pieter Wenk /CH-1800 Vevey - Rivièra Vaudoise
These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece
the people.
--Abraham Lincoln, 1837
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
05 Aug 2003 01:51:25 PM |
|
|
"Pieter Wenk" <pwenk@urbanet.ch> wrote in message
news:t1tviv074fvo6mbaja9bqi8s43kes6c68l@4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 20:22:08 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Pieter Wenk" <pwenk@urbanet.ch> wrote in message
news:kd5givg1p2d2al3hi2lk00dnobb378h0pf@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:46:07 -0700, "Joshua Heard"
<jheard@novacron.com> wrote:
Yes. Hussein Saddamized the country for years torturing and
raping
its
citizens. He was evil. Hussein supported terrorist training
camps
used to
train airline hijackers. He has admitted to having WMD and has
violated 16
UN resolutions. The mideast region is more stable and its
people
more free
now that Hussein is gone, and there is less evil in the world
today.
Iraq free ? Are you kidding ?
As opposed to a place where you could get your tongue
cut out or worse for criticizing the regime, Iraq is much
more free today than it was three months ago.
I know Iraq :-)
Oh?
Sorry no Iraq will be occupied *for years* by an
occupation force...mainly provided by the USA/UK.
Under freedom....I understand something quite different.
I'm sure you meant something there, but I have
no idea what it is.
There's been
an eruption of political speech, for instance, with dozens
of new newspapers being published, and political clubs
and organizations forming.
Blabla.
Oh?
If a newspaper is not telling exactly what's fitting P.
Bremer's ideas....US troops are just *damaging* the printing
installations. It happened a few days ago.
There are dozens of newspapers. I believe the incident
that you are talking about had to do with a paper
that was advocating violence. I hardly think it would
be prudent for Bremer or Abizaid to allow that sort
of thing.
In any case, Iraqis can express themselves again
without being arrested and tortured.
Is this the sort of
democracy the *occupation forces* want to bring in the Middle East ?
Yes. Plenty of discourse, excluding the advocacy of violence.
If everything that is happening
in that realm can be fit into a government strong enough
to contain extremism, but open enough to tolerate all
the major and minor groups and help them find a place
at the table, it could become the most dynamic society,
and the most free society, in the Muslim world.
It this region the power is in the hands of clans and tribes. Wake
up.
To bring democracy in such a context will need an evolution of
generations....
But just above there you were implying that the U.S.
occupation isn't providing it fast enough, or thoroughly
enough, after three months.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that clans and tribes can
fit into a democratic system. Iraq has a leg, a toe at least,
in modern society, and if all the players get a seat at the
table in a well-structured federal system that gives them
local prerogatives, it can work. In fact, they have no
choice but to make it work, because if they run it down
into chaos the country can just as easily be broken
up and distributed amongst the neighbors. That was
my recommendation after 9/11 -- remove Hussein
and break Iraq up.
The region is now more stable ?
Nope....The whole region is now absolutely unstable.
Oh? If you're saying that the region has long been
unstable, then there's a good deal of truth to that. If
you're saying that the region is now more unstable because
of the removal of Hussein, there's no truth to that.
Hussein was perceived as a general threat throughout
the region, with good reason. He attacked his neighbors
and sponsored terrorism, and for good measure he
terrorized his own people.
This is also
another reason that the US troops will have to stay *for years* in
Iraq. Should they step out....you will have the opportunity finding
out how stable this region is.
Americans understand that sort of thing. That's why
we've tolerated having troops in Germany for almost
60 years. We think that the Hun has finally been
pacified and the troops can be removed, but the
Hun overlords get very nervous when we suggest
such a move..
Were are you living ? On the moon ?? Perhaps you should searching
the
WMD's there....
Took a hoof to the head out at the barn this morning, did you?
No....but it might be possible that Iraq moved the WMD's to the
moon.
Apparently the scuds....have been improved in order making this
distance. :-)
Egads. Europeans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pieter Wenk" |
|
| Title: Iraq is free |
11 Aug 2003 12:22:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:51:25 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Iraq free ? Are you kidding ?
As opposed to a place where you could get your tongue
cut out or worse for criticizing the regime, Iraq is much
more free today than it was three months ago.
I know Iraq :-)
Oh?
I traveled for something like 30 years in the Middle East...earning my
living...Next year, retired.
Sorry no Iraq will be occupied *for years* by an
occupation force...mainly provided by the USA/UK.
Under freedom....I understand something quite different.
I'm sure you meant something there, but I have
no idea what it is.
Ah yes....? Tell me what you understand under freedom.
You are certainly no dumb...and able to realize, that an occupied
country....can't be free :-)
There's been
an eruption of political speech, for instance, with dozens
of new newspapers being published, and political clubs
and organizations forming.
Blabla.
Oh?
Yes....:-)
If a newspaper is not telling exactly what's fitting P.
Bremer's ideas....US troops are just *damaging* the printing
installations. It happened a few days ago.
There are dozens of newspapers. I believe the incident
that you are talking about had to do with a paper
that was advocating violence. I hardly think it would
be prudent for Bremer or Abizaid to allow that sort
of thing.
In other words, a free press is not exactly in the idea of P. Bremer.
Great start..really :-) It's likely a US pattern of democratic values.
In any case, Iraqis can express themselves again
without being arrested and tortured.
Right....now they just get killed, of course by error.
Is this the sort of
democracy the *occupation forces* want to bring in the Middle East ?
Yes. Plenty of discourse, excluding the advocacy of violence.
I am getting tears, really :-)
If everything that is happening
in that realm can be fit into a government strong enough
to contain extremism, but open enough to tolerate all
the major and minor groups and help them find a place
at the table, it could become the most dynamic society,
and the most free society, in the Muslim world.
It this region the power is in the hands of clans and tribes. Wake
up.
To bring democracy in such a context will need an evolution of
generations....
But just above there you were implying that the U.S.
occupation isn't providing it fast enough, or thoroughly
enough, after three months.
No, what I am trying to explain....that the Bush administration is
absolutely not interested in bringing democracy to Iraq....It's just
not possible in this context.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that clans and tribes can
fit into a democratic system.
Try it....and you will find it out :-)
Iraq has a leg, a toe at least,
in modern society, and if all the players get a seat at the
table in a well-structured federal system that gives them
local prerogatives, it can work. In fact, they have no
choice but to make it work, because if they run it down
into chaos the country can just as easily be broken
up and distributed amongst the neighbors. That was
my recommendation after 9/11 -- remove Hussein
and break Iraq up.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And you right, they have no other
choice in making it work....I guess USA will accept a sort of Islamist
State, right ? That's an evolution you might have to take into
consideration.
The region is now more stable ?
Nope....The whole region is now absolutely unstable.
Oh? If you're saying that the region has long been
unstable, then there's a good deal of truth to that. If
you're saying that the region is now more unstable because
of the removal of Hussein, there's no truth to that.
Hussein was perceived as a general threat throughout
the region, with good reason. He attacked his neighbors
and sponsored terrorism, and for good measure he
terrorized his own people.
Right he attacked Iran with the help of the USA....guess why ?
Secondly he also invaded Kuwait....
And now, with the presence of the USA in Iraq you seriously believe
the whole region is by far more stable ?
Just wait on the next evolutions. As an exemple...if the Kurds would
move towards a too important *independent scheme*, the Turkish army
would enter into Iraq....
Their interest are the oil fields around Mossul and Kirkuk.
This is also
another reason that the US troops will have to stay *for years* in
Iraq. Should they step out....you will have the opportunity finding
out how stable this region is.
Americans understand that sort of thing. That's why
we've tolerated having troops in Germany for almost
60 years. We think that the Hun has finally been
pacified and the troops can be removed, but the
Hun overlords get very nervous when we suggest
such a move..
Germany is not Iraq....you will find it out :-)
Regards
--
Pieter Wenk /CH-1800 Vevey - Rivièra Vaudoise
These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece
the people.
--Abraham Lincoln, 1837
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq is free |
11 Aug 2003 12:21:54 PM |
|
|
"Pieter Wenk" <pwenk@urbanet.ch> wrote in message
news:13jfjvsv9j9sbn69unhplq6pqfddj7omp7@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:51:25 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Iraq free ? Are you kidding ?
As opposed to a place where you could get your tongue
cut out or worse for criticizing the regime, Iraq is much
more free today than it was three months ago.
I know Iraq :-)
Oh?
I traveled for something like 30 years in the Middle East...earning
my
living...Next year, retired.
Unfortunately, your comments don't indicate any
special understanding of the situation. So...
Sorry no Iraq will be occupied *for years* by an
occupation force...mainly provided by the USA/UK.
Under freedom....I understand something quite different.
I'm sure you meant something there, but I have
no idea what it is.
Ah yes....? Tell me what you understand under freedom.
You are certainly no dumb...and able to realize, that an occupied
country....can't be free :-)
An occupied country certainly can be free. It can be
free in relation to the tyranny that it has been liberated
from. It can be led back toward a system of self-governance
that doesn't collapse after a few years. It can be brought
to a level of civil order necessary for freedom to exist in
the first place.
Packing up and leaving and saying, "by the way, you're free
now" would condemn Iraq to civil war and eventually more
tyranny.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq is free, Marty McFly is still-borne Clueless.. |
11 Aug 2003 10:21:17 PM |
|
|
Fartin' McShillips <journal23@nyc.rr.com> whined again about: wrote:
Pieter Wenk replied to the fallacies written by:
Fartin' McShillips<journal23@nyc.rr.com> whined:
[...]
As opposed to a place where you could get your tongue
cut out or worse for criticizing the regime, Iraq is much
more free today than it was three months ago.
I know Iraq :-)
Oh?
I traveled for something like 30 years in the Middle East
...earning my living...Next year, retired.
Unfortunately, your comments don't indicate any
special understanding of the situation. So...
That's okay, Fartin.. Your comments indicate that you haven't
an iota of a clue with which to provide an estimate of some
one else's personal experience and knowledge..
Your verbarrhea about global warming and the Venusian
atmospheric dynamics was most indicative of that..
-- --
Martin McPhillips <cayenne@nyct.net>
Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:55:44 GMT news:<397F5D63.4FDBE311@nyct.net>
"Microwaves cooking your head in a microwave oven, are heat."
-- --
Martin McPhillips <journal23@nyc.rr.com>
Wed, 09 May 2001 19:53:16 GMT news:<3AF9A035.474C7287@nyc.rr.com>
"Heat, [Mr. Lochner], is the non-work transfer of energy due
to differences in temperature. All radiant energy
transfer away from Venus to space is heat loss."
-- --
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/venus.htm
</excerpt>
"Venus is scorched with a surface temperature of about
482° C (900° F). This high temperature is primarily
due to a runaway greenhouse effect caused by the heavy
atmosphere of carbon dioxide. Sunlight passes through
the atmosphere to heat the surface of the planet.
Heat is radiated out, but is trapped by the dense
atmosphere and not allowed to escape into space.
This makes Venus hotter than Mercury."
</end>
--See subject header for details..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
30 Jul 2003 02:14:32 PM |
|
|
"Pieter Wenk" <pwenk@urbanet.ch> wrote in message
news:kd5givg1p2d2al3hi2lk00dnobb378h0pf@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:46:07 -0700, "Joshua Heard"
<jheard@novacron.com> wrote:
Yes. Hussein Saddamized the country for years torturing and raping its
citizens. He was evil. Hussein supported terrorist training camps used
to
train airline hijackers. He has admitted to having WMD and has violated
16
UN resolutions. The mideast region is more stable and its people more
free
now that Hussein is gone, and there is less evil in the world today.
Iraq free ? Are you kidding ? The region is now more stable ?
Were are you living ? On the moon ?? Perhaps you should searching the
WMD's there....
Regards
In any event, just because a dictator is evil doesn't give a country the
right to invade and conquer it. Otherwise, we'd be planning invasions of a
number of countries right now. And, of course, we supported so many of
these evil thugs in the past, including Saddam, that it reeks of hypocracy
to use such a rationalization. Furthermore, given that the rationale for
the war was WMD and Iraq as a threat, it's disingenuous to shift now because
it turns out that the claims before the war were false. The idea that there
is 'less evil' in the world, or that the situation in the mideast is more
stable is absurd. America is weakened, it is learning the hard lesson that
in an era of globalization military power is of limited value, and by
thumbing its nose at the UN and engaging in an obviously illegal war against
the will of the UN Security Council (despite feeble Administration attempts
to interpret past resolutions as saying otherwise), the US is in a position
where sooner or later it'll have to recognize that unilateralism just
doesn't work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
30 Jul 2003 03:07:01 PM |
|
|
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:sOUVa.77152$3o3.5303751@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
In any event, just because a dictator is evil doesn't give a country
the
right to invade and conquer it.
In some cases it would, but that's an irrelevant question
here because that's not what happened in Iraq. The
case against Iraq was the most thoroughly adjudicated
case against a criminal regime ever. Start with
UN Security Council Resolution 660 and read
on through 678, 686, 687, 688 all the way to
1441.
That's why when we get to the post-war Resolution
1483 the Security Council has no problem, legally
or morally, endorsing the regime change and the
U.S./U.K occupation.
But you say you "teach this stuff," Boris?
Sure doesn't sould like if from this rattling on
you engage in below. What it sounds like is that
you're some kind of wannabe hanger-on at the
International Action Center.
Otherwise, we'd be planning invasions of a
number of countries right now. And, of course, we supported so many
of
these evil thugs in the past, including Saddam, that it reeks of
hypocracy
to use such a rationalization. Furthermore, given that the
rationale for
the war was WMD and Iraq as a threat, it's disingenuous to shift now
because
it turns out that the claims before the war were false. The idea
that there
is 'less evil' in the world, or that the situation in the mideast is
more
stable is absurd. America is weakened, it is learning the hard
lesson that
in an era of globalization military power is of limited value, and
by
thumbing its nose at the UN and engaging in an obviously illegal war
against
the will of the UN Security Council (despite feeble Administration
attempts
to interpret past resolutions as saying otherwise), the US is in a
position
where sooner or later it'll have to recognize that unilateralism
just
doesn't work.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pieter Wenk" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
05 Aug 2003 01:14:43 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:14:32 GMT, "Scott Erb"
<scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Pieter Wenk" <pwenk@urbanet.ch> wrote in message
news:kd5givg1p2d2al3hi2lk00dnobb378h0pf@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:46:07 -0700, "Joshua Heard"
<jheard@novacron.com> wrote:
Yes. Hussein Saddamized the country for years torturing and raping its
citizens. He was evil. Hussein supported terrorist training camps used
to
train airline hijackers. He has admitted to having WMD and has violated
16
UN resolutions. The mideast region is more stable and its people more
free
now that Hussein is gone, and there is less evil in the world today.
Iraq free ? Are you kidding ? The region is now more stable ?
Were are you living ? On the moon ?? Perhaps you should searching the
WMD's there....
Regards
In any event, just because a dictator is evil doesn't give a country the
right to invade and conquer it.
Right. Otherwise such a pattern might be applied by other countries.
Not only by the USA...but China could come to the idea invading other
nations....Or some African nations...:-)
Otherwise, we'd be planning invasions of a
number of countries right now.
Yes. Next on the list perhaps Iran ? This country has some huge oil
reserves. :-)
And, of course, we supported so many of
these evil thugs in the past, including Saddam, that it reeks of hypocracy
to use such a rationalization.
Right :-)
Furthermore, given that the rationale for
the war was WMD and Iraq as a threat, it's disingenuous to shift now because
it turns out that the claims before the war were false.
Yes. And over here in Europe we had already at the very beginning the
fealing...that G.W. Bush's claimings might not be true.
The idea that there
is 'less evil' in the world, or that the situation in the mideast is more
stable is absurd.
Presently the whole Middle East is absolutely unstable....All is
volatile.
America is weakened, it is learning the hard lesson that
in an era of globalization military power is of limited value, and by
thumbing its nose at the UN and engaging in an obviously illegal war against
the will of the UN Security Council (despite feeble Administration attempts
to interpret past resolutions as saying otherwise), the US is in a position
where sooner or later it'll have to recognize that unilateralism just
doesn't work.
Right. Should the Bush Administration move towards the US Security
Council...it might become possible, that *Old Europe* would move into
Iraq....provided under a UN mandate.....and consequently UN command.
And *Old Europe* would also be able to backup their troops with
sufficient financial means....ie. US taxpayers would not have to share
this burden :-)
Regards
--
Pieter Wenk /CH-1800 Vevey - Rivièra Vaudoise
These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece
the people.
--Abraham Lincoln, 1837
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
05 Aug 2003 04:19:20 PM |
|
|
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:S4VXa.86130$3o3.5951526@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Pieter Wenk" <pwenk@urbanet.ch> wrote in message
news:bfsvivo7ipuncot0aqc4d4ae1na4vf4mse@4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:14:32 GMT, "Scott Erb"
In any event, just because a dictator is evil doesn't give a
country the
right to invade and conquer it.
Right. Otherwise such a pattern might be applied by other
countries.
Not only by the USA...but China could come to the idea invading
other
nations....Or some African nations...:-)
The reason we have the UN and attempts to develop international law
on human
rights is to avoid the kind of "might makes right" rationality that
such a
justification for war leads to.
Bush went to the UN, Boris.
And the UN passed a very strong resolution warning Iraq
that it was being given a final opportunity, which Iraq
decided not to take.
And after the war the Security Council passed another
resolution accepting the regime change and approving
the U.S./U.K. occupation until such time as Iraq
is able to govern itself.
Why do you keep pretending that the UN was not
a part of the entire matter, when it has been integral
to it since 1990? Are you some kind of liar or something?
Otherwise, we'd be planning invasions of a
number of countries right now.
Yes. Next on the list perhaps Iran ? This country has some huge
oil
reserves. :-)
I think the difficulties in Iraq and with the President's popularity
have
brought a sense of realism slowly to the White House.
The public approval of Bush's handling of Iraq is higher
than his overall job approval rating, which is pretty good,
given the sluggish economy and employment picture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
05 Aug 2003 05:24:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:19:20 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
And the UN passed a very strong resolution warning Iraq
that it was being given a final opportunity, which Iraq
decided not to take.
And so we ignroed the UN and invaded to teach Iraq it could not ignore
the UN. I got it.
_______
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
-President Teddy Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
05 Aug 2003 05:42:00 PM |
|
|
<vpolitico@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:okb0jvg5uf95vp1ae677sgok04oscrr37b@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:19:20 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
And the UN passed a very strong resolution warning Iraq
that it was being given a final opportunity, which Iraq
decided not to take.
And so we ignroed the UN and invaded to teach Iraq it could not
ignore
the UN. I got it.
Ah, no, we went to the UN and got a very strong
resolution warning Iraq that was being given a final
opportunity, which Iraq decided not to take.
And when the war was over, we went to the UN
and got a resolution that recognized the regime
change and approved the U.S./U.K. occupation
of Iraq.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
07 Aug 2003 06:06:07 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<vpolitico@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:19:20 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
And the UN passed a very strong resolution warning Iraq
that it was being given a final opportunity, which Iraq
decided not to take.
And so we ignroed the UN and invaded to teach Iraq it could not
ignore
the UN. I got it.
Ah, no, we went to the UN and got a very strong
resolution warning Iraq that was being given a final
opportunity, which Iraq decided not to take.
And when the war was over, we went to the UN
and got a resolution that recognized the regime
change and approved the U.S./U.K. occupation
of Iraq.
How much do you get paid down at MiniTrue, Martin?
I mean rewriting history that's hardly off the front
pages must be a terrible ordeal. :)
--Jeff
--
"To delight in war is a merit in the soldier,
a dangerous quality in the captain, and a
positive crime in the statesman."
George Santayana
"Bring them on."
George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
05 Aug 2003 06:44:52 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:42:00 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
<vpolitico@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:okb0jvg5uf95vp1ae677sgok04oscrr37b@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:19:20 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
And the UN passed a very strong resolution warning Iraq
that it was being given a final opportunity, which Iraq
decided not to take.
And so we ignroed the UN and invaded to teach Iraq it could not
ignore
the UN. I got it.
You are of course ignoring the whole debacle of going to the UN for
the second resolution to okay the invasion. They did not sanction the
invasion and were demanding more time for the inspectors to do their
work.
Ah, no, we went to the UN and got a very strong
resolution warning Iraq that was being given a final
opportunity, which Iraq decided not to take.
And I believe you are similarly mischaracterizing this resolution.
perhaps you'd like to post the resolution number or the text? they
did okay as I recall that the oil sold could be used for humanitarian
purposes etc, under the existing oil for food program, etc. But this
is a far cry from your characterization.
Let's see the resolution language.
And when the war was over, we went to the UN
and got a resolution that recognized the regime
change and approved the U.S./U.K. occupation
of Iraq.
_______
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
-President Teddy Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
06 Aug 2003 11:36:20 AM |
|
|
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:OsXXa.86319$3o3.5965197@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
The Bush administration did try to use old resolutions to claim
justification -- noting it was a 'final chance' and things like
that.
Ah, Scott, that's what 1441 says, and it wasn't an "old resolution."
It says "by this resolution Iraq is afforded a final opportunity
to comply." "By this resolution" doesn't mean by yet another
resolution. Earlier in 1441, as you well know, the pre-existing
authorization to use force -- as set forth in Resolution 678 --
is emphatically restated.
Of
course that does not mean invasion is allowed, and the international
community scoffed at the Bush attempt to find some lawyer's
interpretation
they could use.
Who is the "international community," Scott, and where were they
when the Security Council passed Resolution 1483 after the
war accepting the regime change and approving the U.S./U.K.
occupation of Iraq?
The Economist magazine ridiculed that as well, and they
were pro war.
So what? Is The Economist the State Department? Does
it have a vote on the Security Council? Did it vote against
1441 or 1483?
I suspect that's the route he's trying to take in his claim.
The fact is, of course, the US knew a resolution authorizing war
would be
defeated so they just tried to claim they were already authorized --
dishonest, but unsurprising.
Poor Scott. Quote the resolutions from now on, Scott,
instead of talking around them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
06 Aug 2003 12:20:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:36:20 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:OsXXa.86319$3o3.5965197@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
The Bush administration did try to use old resolutions to claim
justification -- noting it was a 'final chance' and things like
that.
Ah, Scott, that's what 1441 says, and it wasn't an "old resolution."
It says "by this resolution Iraq is afforded a final opportunity
to comply." "By this resolution" doesn't mean by yet another
resolution. Earlier in 1441, as you well know, the pre-existing
authorization to use force -- as set forth in Resolution 678 --
is emphatically restated.
Come come. You were using 678 as your justification. When he calls it
an old resolution now you're shifting. The problem of course is that
the Security Council or the UN had to declare substantial
noncompliance or a breach of the duties under the resolution and they
hadn't . The US unilaterally decided they had enforcement powers.
It's not justifiable, except in some ad hoc post rationalization way.
And you're doing the best you can, but failing miserably. But its
okay. They didn't leave you much to work with.
_______
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
-President Teddy Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
06 Aug 2003 01:17:26 PM |
|
|
<vpolitico@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0td2jvc72t30q31en1mti64dat55fv4ihc@4ax.com...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:36:20 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:OsXXa.86319$3o3.5965197@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
The Bush administration did try to use old resolutions to claim
justification -- noting it was a 'final chance' and things like
that.
Ah, Scott, that's what 1441 says, and it wasn't an "old
resolution."
It says "by this resolution Iraq is afforded a final opportunity
to comply." "By this resolution" doesn't mean by yet another
resolution. Earlier in 1441, as you well know, the pre-existing
authorization to use force -- as set forth in Resolution 678 --
is emphatically restated.
Come come. You were using 678 as your justification. When he calls
it
an old resolution now you're shifting.
You're not getting it. Have you ever read 1441? Right up
front, in the fourth mini-paragraph, it emphatically restates
678 and its authorization to use force to enforce all
Iraq-relevant resolutions. Do you think that an absent-
minded Security Council just happened to make a
point of that by accident?
<<Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to
use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660
(1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to
resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security
in the area,>>
In general, 1441 is a summary and restatement of the
underlying resolutions, and all of those up to and including
1441 were all enforceable under 678. 1441 simply
restates that authorization, which was never rescinded.
In other words, 678 was fully a part of the existing
international law contained in the UN Security Council
resolutions relevant to Iraq. And restating it so
emphatically in 1441 made that abundantly clear.
The problem of course is that
the Security Council or the UN had to declare substantial
noncompliance or a breach of the duties under the resolution and
they
hadn't.
No, that's not what 1441 said. First of all, it found
Iraq to already be in material breach of the cease fire
resolution (687) and other resolutions. Then it said that
despite that it was giving Iraq another chance to
comply and demanded full and immediate compliance.
Then it says this:
<<4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the
declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure
by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the
implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material
breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for
assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;>>
Once Blix came in and said that the initial declaration
by Iraq was not complete and even more so when
he made it clear that Iraq did not even seem to
grasp its responsibilities, Iraq was in further material
breach, i.e., the "final opportunity" had passed.
What Blix proposed was that he should continue
on, but that was the old game. 1441 was a new
game, where the burden to comply fell squarely
on Iraq, not on a cat and mouse game with
inspectors. This is the point at which the U.S.
and the other members of the Security Council
parted company in the debate.
The U.S. correctly understood that under
1441 the jig was up for Iraq. The French
wanted more dithering. But Iraq was already
in further material breach. The ambiguity of
1441 came in paragraphs 11 and 12 (more
so in 12 than 11):
<< 11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the
Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any
interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any
failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including
its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a
report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to
consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of
the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international
peace and security;>>
All that the resolution requires is for the inspectors (Blix)
to report to the Council, which would then "consider"
the need for full compliance. That's the chief ambiguity
of 1441. It says nothing about another resolution being
required. But in paragraph 13 it wars Iraq one more
time:
<< 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has
repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a
result of its continued violations of its obligations;>>
Given that the resolution has already restated that
Member States have pre-existing authority to use
force to enforce all Iraq-relevant resolutions, the
ambiguity is easily overcome.
The debate over all this was settled with the
postwar Resolution 1483, which accepts the
regime change (nothing is said about it being
unauthorized or illegal) and recognizes the
U.S./U.K. occupation, and happily invites
other Member States into the pool. 1483
passed by a vote of 14-0, including the
votes of France, Russia, China, and Germany.
Syria didn't vote.
The US unilaterally decided they had enforcement powers.
That's not true factually or otherwise. It had the
support and assistance of several Member States. There
was nothing unilateral about it.
And the enforcement powers had existed since 1990,
were clearly restated in 1441, and the U.S. and U.K.
had taken the lead for the last 12 years in maintaining the
vigil around Iraq. They were the Member States left
holding the bag, and they were the Member States who
finished the job.
It's not justifiable, except in some ad hoc post rationalization
way.
Not according to 1441 and its underlying resolutions.
Maybe the diplomatic trash talk in the UN corridors
said otherwise, but the resolutions are more than clear
enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
06 Aug 2003 01:52:30 PM |
|
|
<vpolitico@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ki2jv4es3q8ppsujjc0tnnq65vii1kgj8@4ax.com...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:17:26 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a
report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to
consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of
the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international
peace and security;>>
Look at his part again. You don't see a problem?
Not when the resolution has already emphatically restated
that Member States are authorized to use force to enforce
all of the Iraq-relevant resolutions. All that paragraph
12 says is that the Council will reconvene to consider
the need for full compliance. That's fine, but in the context
of a resolution that has already restated the authorization
to Member States to use force, found Iraq in material
breach, given it a final opportunity to comply, and ends
with the admonition to Iraq that serious consequences
are on tap, I hardly think it sustains an accusation that
the U.S. and the U.K. as the Member States who had
been holding the Iraq bag for a dozen years already
were acting illegally when they removed Hussein.
I'll now direct you again to the postwar Resolution 1483,
which accepts the regime change and blesses the
U.S./U.K. occupation. With that the already so very
thin as to be virtually non-existent claim that there was
some kind of international wrongdoing here simply
evaporates, totally.
The continuity of all the Iraq-relevant resolutions,
from 660 to 678, 686, and 687 all the way to 1441
and 1483 demonstrates that the U.S. not only
acted legally and morally, but that it and the U.K.
alone took the resolutions seriously and upheld
the authority of the UN, such as it is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
06 Aug 2003 01:37:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:17:26 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
The US unilaterally decided they had enforcement powers.
That's not true factually or otherwise. It had the
support and assistance of several Member States. There
was nothing unilateral about it.
Hair splitting. It did not have UN authorization.
_______
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
-President Teddy Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
05 Aug 2003 08:18:48 PM |
|
|
a écrit :
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:42:00 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:okb0jvg5uf95vp1ae677sgok04oscrr37b@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:19:20 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
And the UN passed a very strong resolution warning Iraq
that it was being given a final opportunity, which Iraq
decided not to take.
And so we ignroed the UN and invaded to teach Iraq it could not
ignore
the UN. I got it.
You are of course ignoring the whole debacle of going to the UN for
the second resolution to okay the invasion. They did not sanction the
invasion and were demanding more time for the inspectors to do their
work.
Ah, no, we went to the UN and got a very strong
resolution warning Iraq that was being given a final
opportunity, which Iraq decided not to take.
And I believe you are similarly mischaracterizing this resolution.
perhaps you'd like to post the resolution number or the text? they
did okay as I recall that the oil sold could be used for humanitarian
purposes etc, under the existing oil for food program, etc. But this
is a far cry from your characterization.
No mis-characterization.
Saddam broke three clauses of the resolution (687) against Kuwait by
refusing to say what happened to their POW, by refusing to give them
back their looted national archives, and by threatening to reannex them
as a province, and one about international terrorism by giving money for
terrorists murderers, all that after 1441 gave Iraq final warning.
Let's see the resolution language.
The language is clear:
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res1441.htm which is the last chance
for the application of
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res687e.htm which has always been up to
"member states associated with Kuwait" i.e. the coalition. As soon as
the others signed for 1441 there was no other second chance.
Or else the UN would have been irrelevant.
It didn't matter that they objected, only those that didn't had the
right to decide as long as it was not WMD, although he did breach WMD
clauses as well according to Blix. The clauses not concerning the
inspectors that were breached called for the serious consequences that
had been repeated numerous times in the past.
J.
And when the war was over, we went to the UN
and got a resolution that recognized the regime
change and approved the U.S./U.K. occupation
of Iraq.
_______
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
-President Teddy Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
05 Aug 2003 08:25:40 PM |
|
|
Scott Erb a écrit :
<vpolitico@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:66g0jvcm3ejdc1s12qq93r1tmc18l3beee@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:42:00 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
<vpolitico@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:okb0jvg5uf95vp1ae677sgok04oscrr37b@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:19:20 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
And the UN passed a very strong resolution warning Iraq
that it was being given a final opportunity, which Iraq
decided not to take.
And so we ignroed the UN and invaded to teach Iraq it could not
ignore
the UN. I got it.
You are of course ignoring the whole debacle of going to the UN for
the second resolution to okay the invasion. They did not sanction the
invasion and were demanding more time for the inspectors to do their
work.
Ah, no, we went to the UN and got a very strong
resolution warning Iraq that was being given a final
opportunity, which Iraq decided not to take.
And I believe you are similarly mischaracterizing this resolution.
perhaps you'd like to post the resolution number or the text? they
did okay as I recall that the oil sold could be used for humanitarian
purposes etc, under the existing oil for food program, etc. But this
is a far cry from your characterization.
The Bush administration did try to use old resolutions to claim
justification -- noting it was a 'final chance' and things like that. Of
course that does not mean invasion is allowed, and the international
Of course it did. 687e was the condition for the ceasefire. His breach
of any clause spelled invasion and regime annihilation., they tried to
change that to regime change, but the prima donna didn't want to do
anything and would rather have had the resolutions be ignored. RES
678-687-1441 is the only legislation authorizing total war force against
a nation in the UN as far as I know.
community scoffed at the Bush attempt to find some lawyer's interpretation
they could use. The Economist magazine ridiculed that as well, and they
were pro war. I suspect that's the route he's trying to take in his claim.
The fact is, of course, the US knew a resolution authorizing war would be
defeated so they just tried to claim they were already authorized --
dishonest, but unsurprising.
Assholes will always be assholes. They don't necessarily know how to
read.
The resolutions are explicit. History will debunk the losers.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: The war with Iraq was justified ??? |
05 Aug 2003 08:35:57 PM |
|
|
a écrit :
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:19:20 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
And the UN passed a very strong resolution warning Iraq
that it was being given a final opportunity, which Iraq
decided not to take.
And so we ignroed the UN and invaded to teach Iraq it could not ignore
the UN. I got it.
Nope, you got *****.
The UN resolution called for the immediate implementation of the lifting
of the ceasefire if there were any breach.
There was a clause if the breach was about WMD, which was to be referred
to UN inspectors and the SC to ponder, not so for any other kind of
breach, and there were 4 other kind of breach, there was nothing else to
do but apply the resolution. The only ones who had the decision about
the other breaches were the Member States associated to kuwait. The
others had nothing to say in the matter the minute they signed the last
chance resolution.
They should have kept quiet too rather than pretend they could oppose
the ineluctable outcome, make the UN irrelevant, and reneg on their
signature. They made a bunch of assholes out of themselves.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
