• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal

How honorable. There is no reason to amke any agreements with us. And that is the lesson for Iran. The law means nothing, you simply need a nuke.

You're catching on.

There is no honor among the leadership of the world.
It is not solely limited to us by any means.
I didn't say it was ok but you, nor anyone else, will do anything about it.
 
You're catching on.

There is no honor among the leadership of the world.
It is not solely limited to us by any means.
I didn't say it was ok but you, nor anyone else, will do anything about it.

Now that may be. But no reason to accept it. Nothing work with tilting windmills.
 
Now that may be. But no reason to accept it. Nothing work with tilting windmills.

Not trying to be a jerk but that is the world.

Entanglements of convenience and all that.
There's no good reason for anyone to attempt to prosecute us over the war in Iraq, right or wrong.
Ideals get a backseat.
 
Not trying to be a jerk but that is the world.

Entanglements of convenience and all that.
There's no good reason for anyone to attempt to prosecute us over the war in Iraq, right or wrong.
Ideals get a backseat.

I am forced to disagree Harry. It's not that there's no good reason.

It's the fact it's pretty much impossible. Who's gonna prosecute the most powerful country in the world, who provides the most funding to the international governing body...

Not to mention, WHO do your prosecute. Now I may believe that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld deserve AT THE VERY LEAST a hearing. I know it is pretty much impossible even if laws were broken to get any kind of justice.
 
Kind of what many people always maintained...

BBC News - Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal

...an illegal war against an illegal regime in which no one emerged with their ethics intact. Does this put an end to the debate?

Well...hell...THATS what we were waiting for? Hans Blix to declare it illegal???

Hell...I guess those SEVENTEEN UN resolutions...they were...what...all wrong minded? Inappropriate? Why do you suppose they had to pass 17 seperate UN resolutions? Could it be because Saddam Hussein refused to comply with them? Oh of COURSE not...Hans Blix says so...

Every democrat in congress including Clinton, Gore, Madeline Albright, ALL said he had em. the first UN inspection teams said he had em. the question that he refused to answer is what HAPPENED to them.

Now MAYBE this is why Blix and his band of clowns couldnt find WMDs...

William Cohen: It becomes all the more important now that the inspectors on the ground have been evicted as such to have some oversight capability from the air. The U-2 provides that capability.
For example, I can show a number of slides here to indicate what has taken place following the Persian Gulf War when Iraq was driven out of Kuwait.
The United Nations decided that he must get rid of all of his biological and chemical weapons.
Now we discovered — the United Nations discovered — that he had immense amounts on hand.
We discovered, for example, that this is a facility that was producing — that was, in fact, producing — biological and chemical weapons that had evaded the initial discovery by the inspectors.
Now once that was discovered with the help of overhead capability—
Cokie Roberts: And this was just last year?
William Cohen: This was back in 1996

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
April 2003

And lets remember...final authority Hans Blix aside...Bush cited Iraqs refusal to comply with UN resolutions...SEVENTEEN of them.

Oh yes...this is COMPLETELY settled.
 
I am forced to disagree Harry. It's not that there's no good reason.

It's the fact it's pretty much impossible. Who's gonna prosecute the most powerful country in the world, who provides the most funding to the international governing body...

Not to mention, WHO do your prosecute. Now I may believe that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld deserve AT THE VERY LEAST a hearing. I know it is pretty much impossible even if laws were broken to get any kind of justice.

That's why there is no good reason.
Morally, I'm sure we could come up with plenty of good reasons.
Realistically, ain't gonna happen.

Remember the story a few days ago about the leader of Sudan having a warrant for his arrest.
Chad was supposed to arrest him, they didn't and no one will do anything about it.

What about the short war between Russia and Georgia.
If Russia is found to be in the wrong, no one will do anything about that either.

There are lots more examples like Pol Pot retaining a U.N. seat until his death in the 90's.
World justice is a matter of convenience.
 
Last edited:
Not trying to be a jerk but that is the world.

Entanglements of convenience and all that.
There's no good reason for anyone to attempt to prosecute us over the war in Iraq, right or wrong.
Ideals get a backseat.

Oh, you mistake me. I don't believe anyone is going to prosecute us. Don't believe that for a second.

But, we should be frank and call it what it was. We broke our agreements. If someone could prosecute us, it would be a violation of law. And doing so, breaking our agreements, has to hurt us down the road. Just as it has to hurt others who refuse to deal honestly and with honor. By tilting windmills, I simply mean we call something what it is. No acceptance of the propaganda.
 
Oh, you mistake me. I don't believe anyone is going to prosecute us. Don't believe that for a second.

But, we should be frank and call it what it was. We broke our agreements. If someone could prosecute us, it would be a violation of law. And doing so, breaking our agreements, has to hurt us down the road. Just as it has to hurt others who refuse to deal honestly and with honor. By tilting windmills, I simply mean we call something what it is. No acceptance of the propaganda.

I just don't believe that there is some sort of real world law.
It's mostly fluff, only enforced when it is convenient.
 
I just don't believe that there is some sort of real world law.
It's mostly fluff, only enforced when it is convenient.

Only enforceable when those who can enforce want it enforced. But when a bully beats up the sheriff and runs amok on a town, we don't say it wasn't illegal just because no one could stop it.
 
That's why there is no good reason.
Morally, I'm sure we could come up with plenty of good reasons.
Realistically, ain't gonna happen.

Remember the story a few days ago about the leader of Sudan having a warrant for his arrest.
Chad was supposed to arrest him, they didn't and no one will do anything about it.

What about the short war between Russia and Georgia.
If Russia is found to be in the wrong, no one will do anything about that either.

There are lots more examples like Pol Pot retaining a U.N. seat until his death in the 90's.
World justice is a matter of convenience.

My friend. There are few words of truth spoken in this forum, this was one of them. However there is one point of contention I have with what you said. It was the United States fault that Pol Pots regime retained that seat in the United Nations. But other than that, you are most correct.

However. Correct as you are. If your country could put aside politics, and hold account their leaders for their failings and deceitful actions without politicizing it too much, you would truly be a shining light in the world for all to remember. I believed it 7 years ago and I believe it now. Bush and his administration lied, and people believed it.

However, like you I am a realist. I know what has to be done. But like you, I know what will be done:

**** All
 
My friend. There are few words of truth spoken in this forum, this was one of them. However there is one point of contention I have with what you said. It was the United States fault that Pol Pots regime retained that seat in the United Nations. But other than that, you are most correct.

Oh I know, we like to pick and choose our evil.
Pol pot was better than the Vietnamese for some reason.:confused:

However. Correct as you are. If your country could put aside politics, and hold account their leaders for their failings and deceitful actions without politicizing it too much, you would truly be a shining light in the world for all to remember. I believed it 7 years ago and I believe it now. Bush and his administration lied, and people believed it.

However, like you I am a realist. I know what has to be done. But like you, I know what will be done:

**** All

That's usually why I don't get into the discussions on war.
In the end, whoever wins will be right by law, whether or not they were really right.
 
Hans Brix? Oh no! Oh, herro. Great to see you again, Hans! Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. The war wasn't irregal, OK Hans? Now, stand to your reft. A rittle more. Good!

Okay, now that I got that out of the way. Wonderful for you to feel that way Mr. Blix. However while you may have a higher Q rating and respect of some in the international community, your opinion on the matter is no more relevant nor "case closing" than Bob from Kansas City's.
 
Hans Brix? Oh no! Oh, herro. Great to see you again, Hans! Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. The war wasn't irregal, OK Hans? Now, stand to your reft. A rittle more. Good!

Okay, now that I got that out of the way. Wonderful for you to feel that way Mr. Blix. However while you may have a higher Q rating and respect of some in the international community, your opinion on the matter is no more relevant nor "case closing" than Bob from Kansas City's.

Still boils down to defining illegal. If you can't make me means it was legal, OK. If legal is defined by adhering to the agreements you sign, then it was illegal. In any case, no one can enforce the law here.
 
What agreements specifically are you talking about?

I'm guessing not the numerous U.N. resolutions that allowed for action to be taken, including force, if they were not met? Like, the dozen+ of them?
 
Kind of what many people always maintained...

BBC News - Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal

...an illegal war against an illegal regime in which no one emerged with their ethics intact. Does this put an end to the debate?

No.

Blix does not write international law.

UNSCR authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq into compliance with UNSCR 660 and "all subsequent resolutions." Iraq failed to abide by a great number of the subsequent UNSC resolutions, thus violating the terms of the armistice, thus authorizing member states to reconvene hostilities.
 
No.

Blix does not write international law.

UNSCR authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq into compliance with UNSCR 660 and "all subsequent resolutions." Iraq failed to abide by a great number of the subsequent UNSC resolutions, thus violating the terms of the armistice, thus authorizing member states to reconvene hostilities.
[bold emphasis added by bubba]

would you please identify for us those resolutions in which iraq was found to have been in violation
 
[bold emphasis added by bubba]

would you please identify for us those resolutions in which iraq was found to have been in violation

Why? He ain't yo *****. You look them up if you want to know what they are. Do your own homework.
 
Last edited:
Why? He ain't yo *****. You look them up if you want to know what they are.
i don't think he will be able to find any unjustifiable violations
but since he has posted that they do exist, it is up to him to make his case by showing the documention that such violations were found
Do your own homework.
as if you would know anything about homework
 
[bold emphasis added by bubba]

would you please identify for us those resolutions in which iraq was found to have been in violation

UNSCR 686:

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;

He fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zone on nearly a daily basis, he, also, continued to plot against the U.S. with radical Islamist terror organizations (including AQ affiliates) right up until the fall of Baghdad.

UNSCR 687:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction,
removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all
related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and
manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and
related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

He had drone aircraft that had a 500 KM range, and while he didn't have the stockpiles of WMD he did not allow for the required UN supervision, he kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq and he continued to conceal items which would have been useful to reimplement his WMD programs after the sanctions were lifted:

Examples of concealment
Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

– A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to U.N. monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW (chemical biological weapons) research.

– A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW (bioweapons) agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N.

– Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

– New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the U.N.

– Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation.

– A line of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

– Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N.

– Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 km – well beyond the 150-km range limit imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

– Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-km range ballistic missiles – probably the No Dong – 300-km range anti-ship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment.

Text of Iraq weapons inspector David Kay's report *LINK*

UNSC 688:

2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to
international peace and security in the region, immediately end this
repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will
take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens
are respected;

3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international
humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of
Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations;

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/5

Saddam never ended the brutal repression of his people and in fact increased it.

The list goes on.
 
Back
Top Bottom