Is the Iraq war illegal?

[DivineComedy]

But first, a few words from people in the know:



http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=73

This is from your professor:

“Armed force is permitted only in self-defense to an armed attack (UN Charter, art. 51) or with Security Council authorization (UN Charter, art. 42).”
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew107.php

As I previously said, and I repeat, we were authorized according to Chapter VII, which contains art. 42:

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;” http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/...20UNRes678.asp

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=84852&postcount=10

“ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS!” {that is yelling}

For your convenience this is from Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter:

“Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”

“Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

And I will add this:

“The report sees no need to amend Article 51 of the UN Charter, which preserves the right of all states to act in self-defence against armed attack, including the right to take pre-emptive action against an imminent threat.”
(Courage to fulfil our responsibilities By Kofi A. Annan, UN Secretary-General Published in The Economist on Thursday, 2 December 2004) http://www.un.org/secureworld/oped.html

Now I have to repeat myself again:

“There are two other legal ways to attack a country:

1) Use Article 51 to defend yourself, like from terrorist sponsoring nations that have biased supporters with a veto power in the United Nations (of tyrants too).

2) Respond to the breaking of a cease-fire, like resolution 687.”

There was no resolution removing the authorization, “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions” like the cease-fire resolution 687, there was no peace treaty, so we had the lawful right “to restore international peace and security in the area” when Iraq failed to comply with the law:

“H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

I would love to debate the opinions of others, that have their opinions copied and pasted, but to debate them without them here would be talking like talking to the principalities of the air.

 

[Billo_Really]

DevineComedy,

There's something wrong with the software or my computer so I can't copy your comments. But I will respond this way.

Do you not understand Article 51? We had neither of the "two ways". They did not attack us and we did not receive UN Security Counsel approval to attack. In addition, there is no one from the UN you could post as agreeing with your position. International lawyers have looked at this and do not agree with your allegation that this was legal.

And if your trying to say Hussein broke the cease fire by shooting at our planes in the "no-fly" zone, then your really off the deep end when you look at how much ordinance we dropped on his country. If you think someone can drop that many bombs on a country and say they have no right to try and prevent that, then your going to have a pretty bad time of it come judgement day. 'Cause that ain't right.

And if your trying to say he was a bad guy (which I completely agree that he was), it still doesn't wash. We knew all about him years ago and did nothing then. There are many tyrants running governments around the world, we don't attack them. So this arguement is bullshit.

I don't like Hussein, I think he is pure evil, but we have no right running around the world like the big bully on the block.

When you look at pictures of that country, they don't even look like there in the 20th century. And we come in there with the most modern kill machine this world has ever seen. Bombing hospitals, shooting peaceful protesters, forcing 180,000 residents in Fallujia out of there homes and living in tents because we destroyed 75% of their city.

If you want to keep bringing up those sanctions, have you ever realized that those sanctions were so harsh that they increased the infant mortality rate in that country by 50%. Those sanctions lasted 10 years. We had already bombed the shiit out of them to the point that they had no sanitition facilities, no infrastructure, no constant electricity, and you say they were a threat!

I don't buy it. I don't buy the rap.

 

[DivineComedy]

Do you not understand Article 51? We had neither of the "two ways". They did not attack us and we did not receive UN Security Counsel approval to attack. In addition, there is no one from the UN you could post as agreeing with your position. International lawyers have looked at this and do not agree with your allegation that this was legal.

If 911 was an armed attack, that got us AWACS, then it is reasonable that any ongoing terrorist attacks supported by terrorist sponsoring nations that have killed ten times the number of those killed on 911 must also be considered an armed attack. So according to Article 51 we have the right to respond collectively if an ally is attacked as well. We just happened to have an unequivocal law that authorized us to resume the WAR:

“H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

I already provided you with the text of the relevant laws, and you do not respond to the wording of those laws but give me the opinion of others that I have every reason to suspect have an irrational bias in support of Hamas, and they are not here to debate. So debate on that subject must be over until which time as you feel that you are capable enough to debate the laws yourself in your own words. I can read the propaganda of the enemy any time, but saying an opinion and actually quoting the relevant section of law to support your position is another thing. You have failed to support your position. At a time when “public use” no longer means what it did, I do not take kindly to the opinion of fools or foreign and domestic enemies. If you want to debate, and have your enfranchisement mean something, I expect you to read and interpret the law instead of being a slave to the opinion of others. I do not respect a slave.

Did International lawyers really look at my postings and do not agree with my allegation that this was legal? Get them on here to debate, what, are they cowards?

“Some voices have risen on the part of some peoples, journalists, writers, and, in a very restricted way, the voices of those who are preparing themselves, in the shadow, to replace the rulers there. Nevertheless, the latter are still hesitant voices that deal with the situation in the light of the balance of interests of the posts they expect to occupy, and of the influence of the centers of power. As for the United States, the hope in the awareness of its people is greater than it is in its Administrations…” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

On 911 I just happened to be listening to C-span and heard them calling in before the dust settled, and they are still doing what he expected them to do.

*****

Billo Really said: “And if your trying to say he was a bad guy (which I completely agree that he was), it still doesn't wash. We knew all about him years ago and did nothing then. There are many tyrants running governments around the world, we don't attack them.”

Billo Really you’re going to have to do something about that.

In the age when the divine right of kings is no longer taken seriously, and democracy is spreading, what does a tyrant have to do for job security?

1) Support a system of individualism, crime and punishment, that will be bought by the simplest of foolish philosophers, where anyone that “feels” they are being unjustly treated has a “God” given right to use civilian disguise in warfare, to take the law into their own hands “according to their own ideas” of justice:

“Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

2) Take steps to ensure the “survival of the fittest” in reaction to article one:

“I think, that you, often criticize those whom you criticize in order to weaken them, by saying that they use emergency laws, and what emergency laws, by western standards, cannot be a general rule. But now, unlike what you used to say about those whom you accuse of being dictators and despots, we see dozens of emergency laws and measures adopted by the governments of the West, with the US in the forefront, after facing one painful event.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

The feedback loop creates the job security for the tyrant‘s job description. It would have worked if your kind had been in the Whitehouse.

 

[Billo_Really]

DevineComedy,

We were not attacked by Iraq. We were not attacked by any organization that was sponsored by Iraq. The 911 Commission has said so, the Bush Administration becomes a joke everytime they bring the issue up, the intelligence community told Bush months before they had nothing to do with 911, Richard Clarke said Bush was pushing for an Iraq link immediately following 911, yet you still hold on to this insanity that we have a right to attack Iraq because of 911. A country that doesn't even have 24 hour, 7 day a week electricity is a threat to the United States. This goes beyond ridiculous and right into dimentia.

Since there was no link, and no proof of a link, you cannot invoke Article 51. Period. We were not attacked by Iraq. You need to say this over and over until it sticks. Pushing this cause says a lot about who you are.

I'm sorry if my sources have not been pre-approved for you. I was using people who's job it is to interpet the information that you used as your source, as my evidence to rebut your interpetation. Which is no more or less valid than mine. But people who do this for a living (ie., international lawyers) should be considered experts in this area. I know I'm knowledgable about my line of work. I'm sure your an expert in your field too. But the fact is that many people that are authorities interpeting the sources you used to justify your position contradict what you are saying. I have also read what you posted, and feel the same.

How you can draw a link to Hamas and myself is quite irrational on your part. Go back to any post and re-read everything I've stated. You will not find Hamas or any other terrorist organization that I've admitted to supporting. And you will not find anything, because I do not support terrorism. By Hamas, Al Qaida, US or UK or any other organization that commits crimes against humanity. I am against the killing of human beings. This isn't to say I would not kill myself if I was attacked with deadly force. I believe we have every right to defend ourselves and make our country safe. But attacking Iraq did not, and will not, make our country any safer.

Because of our presence in Iraq we have de-stablized the entire world. We are no longer looked at as a peaceful nation. We are, in fact, the most hated nation on earth. We can blame the party in power, which I have, but the reality is that this is all our faults. I don't like what is being done with my tax dollars in my name. I'm trying to do something about it in the most patriotic way I know how. Which is airing my opinion in this forum, writing my representatives, paying my taxes and voting. Those are the only options I have to make a difference.

You have every right to disagree with me. I support you in that right. However, I don't appreciate you trying to speak for me, or tell me who or what I am. Or what my motivation is to a particular post. If you want to know, just ask and I will tell you exactly what I think.

If you think that everyone that speaks out against this war is just the propaganda ramblings of the enemy, you are lying to yourself. And the sooner you realize this, the better off this country will be. I caution you not to be a slave to the lunacy of your own ego.

This is the second post in a row that you have gotton my words, my way without pasting in the opinions of my so-called masters. I don't expect to see your god-damn accusations regarding this made up issue on your next post. I post statements of others to corroborate, not replace, my opinion. If this is not an acceptable method of debate for you, tough shitzki!

I welcome every word you can muster. This includes all the ones I don't expect, disagree with, choose to think of as bullshit, or ones that happen to show your lack of humanity in regards to non-Americans.

 

[DivineComedy]

How you can draw a link to Hamas and myself is quite irrational on your part.

I said: “I already provided you with the text of the relevant laws, and you do not respond to the wording of those laws but give me the opinion of others that I have every reason to suspect have an irrational bias in support of Hamas, and they are not here to debate.”

The operative words were "the opinion of others that I have reason to suspect" and "they are not here to debate."


Debate over, I win.


Since the United Nations Security Council cannot require a Member State under Article 44 to cooperate in a war, and since we were not under UN Military Staff Committee Command in the Gulf War, and since UN resolution 678 authorized “Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait” “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area,” and since according to Article 48 the Gulf War was “carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action,“ therefore, the Gulf War could not be between Iraq and the United Nations, consequently, the cease-fire was “effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait.”

Since the United States lost 293 lives in the Gulf War while France lost two and Russia and China lost none, and since H 32 was obviously put in the cease-fire resolution by the US and not Gorby, therefore the United Nations (of tyrants too) has no moral right whatsoever to be a party to the cease-fire.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/

“H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

All we needed was Kuwait, and nobody else:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm

Since your argument has devolved to a rant of emotional garbage, that obviously shows an inability to comprehend, your argument has no substance. I win the argument. I win the debate. The war was legal.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
I said: “I already provided you with the text of the relevant laws, and you do not respond to the wording of those laws but give me the opinion of others that I have every reason to suspect have an irrational bias in support of Hamas, and they are not here to debate.”

The operative words were "the opinion of others that I have reason to suspect" and "they are not here to debate."


Debate over, I win.

I have to admit, I don't have a clue as to what you are saying here. Could you explain your point a little more coherantly?

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Since the United Nations Security Council cannot require a Member State under Article 44 to cooperate in a war, and since we were not under UN Military Staff Committee Command in the Gulf War, and since UN resolution 678 authorized “Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait” “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area,” and since according to Article 48 the Gulf War was “carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action,“ therefore, the Gulf War could not be between Iraq and the United Nations, consequently, the cease-fire was “effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait.”

This is the flaw in your arguement. Now these being your words, which I am about to make you eat, I am running the risk of being accused once again of using someone else's [yours] opinion, to prove my point. But I can't pass up the opportunity.

You stated a few words back 678 which was authorization between “Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait”. NOT IRAQ! This has nothing to do with the US and IRAQ! Get over it. No matter how much you pray to Jesus to give you the right to bomb the holy shiit out of that country, it ain't gonna happen!

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Since the United States lost 293 lives in the Gulf War while France lost two and Russia and China lost none, and since H 32 was obviously put in the cease-fire resolution by the US and not Gorby, therefore the United Nations (of tyrants too) has no moral right whatsoever to be a party to the cease-fire.

Your trying to justify attacking a country that did nothing to us and your going to comment on someone else's morality. You live in a fish bowl.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gul...facts/gulfwar/

“H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

All we needed was Kuwait, and nobody else:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm

This is the third time you have posted this information. Are you running out of things to say? Or is this the only thing you can hang your hat on? I've already commented on this, and unless you can provide an expert to agree with you, why should I comment on this again? But I will. Did you forget this part of YOUR OWN source:

RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991
Welcoming the restoration to Kuwait of its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and the return of its legitimate Government,

It's right at the beginning of the document. Did you not understand that this states it is in reference to the restoration of Kuwaiti sovereignty. Say it with me, "Kuwaiti sovereignty!" It is not in reference to "Kuwaiti sovereignty and Al Qaida's bitch about the US and its whining over Iraq's alleged involvement with 9/11". Just "Kuwaiti sovereignty". That's all.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Since your argument has devolved to a rant of emotional garbage, that obviously shows an inability to comprehend, your argument has no substance. I win the argument. I win the debate. The war was legal.

What is your definition of a rant? How can you win, when I never lose? Beating you I don't even consider it a victory. It means nothing to me. How do you like that Joe Ego?

 

[DivineComedy]

You stated a few words back 678 which was authorization between “Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait”. NOT IRAQ! This has nothing to do with the US and IRAQ!

Only a limited mental capacity could explain the inability to understand that resolution 678 authorized the largest coalition Member State of the United States while it was co-operating with Kuwait, “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions.”

The job was to “restore international peace and security in the area.” And as long as Iraq’s regime was supporting terrorism and repressing its people, in violation of the cease-fire and subsequent resolutions respectively, that could not happen. And as long as appeasers of terrorism abandon the job and refuse to help restore peace and security, and foreign and domestic enemies give moral aid an comfort to the Zarqawi type enemy by calling us criminals, the blood spilled by the terrorists is also on their hands.

February 6, 2003: “Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the intifada. And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants.” (Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.09/

“March 5, 2003: Bus bombing in Haifa. U.S. citizens killed: Abigail Leitel, 14, who was born in Lebanon, New Hampshire.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/usvictims.html

“The suicide bomber was 20 years old, a student of the Hebron Polytechnic University (from which a large number of suicide bombers have emerged) and a member of the Hamas terrorist organization.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/861590/posts

March 13, 2003: “(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: ‘The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.’“ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

Final opportunity 1441: “Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,”

Cease-fire 687: “H 32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I 33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);”

March 17, 2003: “The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

March 26, 2003: “NASIRIYA, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. Marines searching Iraqi military headquarters in this southern city that was the site of intensive fighting came across a mural depicting a plane crashing into a building complex resembling New York's twin towers, a news agency photograph showed Wednesday.”
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/index.html

The war was legal and just. The debate is over, and I won.

PS. You really need to do something about that thing on your forehead, it appears to be causing fecal encephalitis.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Only a limited mental capacity could explain the inability to understand that resolution 678 authorized the largest coalition Member State of the United States while it was co-operating with Kuwait, “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions.”

Did you go to school in a long bus, or a short bus? When you were a kid, did you have to wear hockey equipment, but you weren't on a team?

The job was to “restore international peace and security in the area.” And as long as Iraq’s regime was supporting terrorism and repressing its people, in violation of the cease-fire and subsequent resolutions respectively, that could not happen. And as long as appeasers of terrorism abandon the job and refuse to help restore peace and security, and foreign and domestic enemies give moral aid an comfort to the Zarqawi type enemy by calling us criminals, the blood spilled by the terrorists is also on their hands.

Were sure doing a lot for peace and security in that region right now, aren't we?

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
February 6, 2003: “Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the intifada. And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants.” (Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/spr...transcript.09/

Why are you trying to present as fact, the pre-war lies Powell said at the UN? Did you read the final report of the 9/11 Commission? There was no link!

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
“March 5, 2003: Bus bombing in Haifa. U.S. citizens killed: Abigail Leitel, 14, who was born in Lebanon, New Hampshire.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...usvictims.html

“The suicide bomber was 20 years old, a student of the Hebron Polytechnic University (from which a large number of suicide bombers have emerged) and a member of the Hamas terrorist organization.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/861590/posts

This is bad, and the people responsible should be brought to justice.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
March 13, 2003: “(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: ‘The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.’“ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in543981.shtml

If he gave the check to the suicide bomber before he committed suicide with his bombing, I would agree you had a case. But since he didn't, you don't. Giving money to a Palistinian family does not constitute supporting terrorism. Do you have something against families?

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Final opportunity 1441: “Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,”

Cease-fire 687: “H 32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I 33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);”

Is this the third or fourth time you have posted this? Can you take it easy on the ram? What's that saying, "If you say something enough times people will start to believe it?" Well, believe me, it ain't gonna happen here. You can post this a thousand times and it will all mean only one thing..........your opinion!

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
March 17, 2003: “The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030317-7.html

I have to admit, this is the closest time I've ever come on this board to trashing someone's souce. But "...read my lips.......not gonna do it.......no sir.......not me!"

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
March 26, 2003: “NASIRIYA, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. Marines searching Iraqi military headquarters in this southern city that was the site of intensive fighting came across a mural depicting a plane crashing into a building complex resembling New York's twin towers, a news agency photograph showed Wednesday.”
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ral/index.html

What I've learned from your post is that your against families and freedom of expression.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
The war was legal and just. The debate is over, and I won.

OK. Let's party!

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
PS. You really need to do something about that thing on your forehead, it appears to be causing fecal encephalitis.

Is that a personal attack? Are you personnally attacking me? Personally, what I think, person to person, is what's fecal encephalitis? My sister is a doctor, but she won't return my calls.

 

[DivineComedy]

This is bad, and the people responsible should be brought to justice.

If he gave the check to the suicide bomber before he committed suicide with his bombing, I would agree you had a case. But since he didn't, you don't. Giving money to a Palistinian family does not constitute supporting terrorism. Do you have something against families?

“Since many families encourage their children to volunteer to such acts given the expected financial reward from the Palestinian Authority and other Arab "charity" organizations (Saddam Hussein was known for paying the equivalent of $10,000-25,000 to families of suicide bombers, many of whom live in destitution), the act of demolishing house provides a disincentive to those who are motivated by the idea of financial gain for their families.” http://www.answers.com/topic/suicide-bombers

Thanks to the foreign and domestic enemies giving aid and comfort to suicide bombers and terrorists like Abu Musab Zarqawi (whose Al Quacka was obviously allied with Saddam’s regime), the war against terror is going to be a long hard war.

As if the satanic reward of whores is not enough, the traitor wants to make sure that the monster’s family gets financially rewarded for its service.

Hopefully nobody in the future that was motivated by the insurance for their family, or that was given moral aid and comfort by a traitor, will blow up secular French schools, monuments, or café‘s in Paris. I would hate for us to lose more blood and treasure for such an ally.

Anticipation was so sweet, that I prematurely ejaculated:

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
“Since many families encourage their children to volunteer to such acts given the expected financial reward from the Palestinian Authority and other Arab "charity" organizations (Saddam Hussein was known for paying the equivalent of $10,000-25,000 to families of suicide bombers, many of whom live in destitution), the act of demolishing house provides a disincentive to those who are motivated by the idea of financial gain for their families.” http://www.answers.com/topic/suicide-bombers

Can you post some proof of this? Otherwise, stop uploading bullshit.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Thanks to the foreign and domestic enemies giving aid and comfort to suicide bombers and terrorists like Abu Musab Zarqawi (whose Al Quacka was obviously allied with Saddam’s regime), the war against terror is going to be a long hard war.

Zarqawi did not claim allegence with Bin Laden until 2003. And it was done AFTER we attacked.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
As if the satanic reward of whores is not enough, the traitor wants to make sure that the monster’s family gets financially rewarded for its service.

Your just now realizing your arguement has no logic or relevence?

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Hopefully nobody in the future that was motivated by the insurance for their family, or that was given moral aid and comfort by a traitor, will blow up secular French schools, monuments, or café‘s in Paris. I would hate for us to lose more blood and treasure for such an ally.

In the words of one of our Presidents that used to fall asleep in Cabinet meetings, "There you go again!"

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Anticipation was so sweet, that I prematurely ejaculated:

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

I don't think you have a clue as to what a Patriot is.

 

[DivineComedy]

Can you post some proof of this? Otherwise, stop uploading bullshit.

Zarqawi did not claim allegence with Bin Laden until 2003. And it was done AFTER we attacked.

Your just now realizing your arguement has no logic or relevence?

In the words of one of our Presidents that used to fall asleep in Cabinet meetings, "There you go again!"

I don't think you have a clue as to what a Patriot is.

I saw the proof talking on public news broadcasts for the entire world to see, as more than one family of a suicide bomber has been interviewed, and even saw one father (a rarity) that was so mad his son had been misled that he could spit. There is no reason to research every incidence for proof since the philosophical concept of whether it is supporting terrorism to give such payments to suicide bomber’s families can be debated without such evidence. Such evidence would just be icing on the cake, and we can debate the criminality of the inducement, or intent, without getting into the motivations of each individual terrorist or the emotions of the criminal’s family. We compensate our troops, but they have a command over them, and they do not by known rule of warfare dress up like a student and go on a public bus to blow up.

The great Billo Really said: “Zarqawi did not claim allegence with Bin Laden until 2003. And it was done AFTER we attacked.”

Wow, Colin Powell was prescient about the breaking of the pottery, now you offer more proof of his amazing psychic powers with regard to Al Quacka. Well it walked, it talked, and it quacked like an Al Quacka...

You’re really going to have to do something about your forehead.

A scoundrel will not respond with reasoned debate to the subject at hand—the philosophical subject is that of sponsoring terrorism in violation of the law by payments to suicide bomber’s families, and the rewarding of a monster’s family financially for the criminal’s service to their cause—so the scoundrel’s allegiance is suspect, and by your every word, we are learning what side you’re on.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
I saw the proof talking on public news broadcasts for the entire world to see, as more than one family of a suicide bomber has been interviewed, and even saw one father (a rarity) that was so mad his son had been misled that he could spit. There is no reason to research every incidence for proof since the philosophical concept of whether it is supporting terrorism to give such payments to suicide bomber’s families can be debated without such evidence. Such evidence would just be icing on the cake, and we can debate the criminality of the inducement, or intent, without getting into the motivations of each individual terrorist or the emotions of the criminal’s family. We compensate our troops, but they have a command over them, and they do not by known rule of warfare dress up like a student and go on a public bus to blow up.

Fair enough, I'm not going to dog you for sources like others do on this board. Especially on a subject that I do not really disagree with. But for other issues, you'll definately need something to back up your bombast.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
The great Billo Really said: “Zarqawi did not claim allegence with Bin Laden until 2003. And it was done AFTER we attacked.”

How would you know if I was "great?" You haven't even seen my A-game.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Wow, Colin Powell...

'nuff said there.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
A scoundrel will not respond with reasoned debate to the subject at hand—the philosophical subject is that of sponsoring terrorism in violation of the law by payments to suicide bomber’s families, and the rewarding of a monster’s family financially for the criminal’s service to their cause—so the scoundrel’s allegiance is suspect, and by your every word, we are learning what side you’re on.

Who are you talking to? You can't win debates, until you start debating. Throwing out a few pronouns and declaring yourself the Lizzard King doesn't cut it. You got to have the stuff to stay.

 

[DivineComedy]

You got to have the stuff to stay.

I can’t stay long, so debate me now.

Billo Really, since in response to a Hamas suicide bombing you said “this is bad, and the people responsible should be brought to justice,” that means that in this debate it is established that the suicide bombing by Hamas was a criminal terrorist act until you say otherwise in the next exchange, and since payments were subsequently distributed to such a criminal’s family under the banner “The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein,“ therefore, Saddam was supporting the criminal’s act which he considered martyrdom, consequently, support for such criminal terrorist behavior with “distribution of blessings“ to the “Families of the Martyrs” was a violation of the law:

“H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

Billo Really was the Hamas suicide bombing in question an act of terrorism or was it legal martyrdom of a “soldier” and worthy of blessings?

I had to ask that question for a reason:

“Howard Dean has said that Hamas’ soldiers—no one has ever called Hamas soldiers before. Howard Dean has said we don’t take sides in the Middle East. We took sides in 1948. Israel’s our ally. We always knew that. We can’t have a president who is conducting American foreign policy by press release clarification, and we’re certainly not going to beat George Bush that way.” (John Kerry Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, January 11, 2004)

“A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.” (TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR October 9, 2002)

I cannot speak for John Kerry, but due to the theme of the last sentence I have every reason to suspect that he would consider the Hamas suicide bombing in question an act of terrorism not worthy of the support of martyrdom! We are forced to choose sides because of skeptics.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
I can’t stay long, so debate me now.

I apologize for the delay, I hope you were not waiting long.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Billo Really, since in response to a Hamas suicide bombing you said “this is bad, and the people responsible should be brought to justice,” that means that in this debate it is established that the suicide bombing by Hamas was a criminal terrorist act until you say otherwise in the next exchange, and since payments were subsequently distributed to such a criminal’s family under the banner “The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein,“ therefore, Saddam was supporting the criminal’s act which he considered martyrdom, consequently, support for such criminal terrorist behavior with “distribution of blessings“ to the “Families of the Martyrs” was a violation of the law:

I do agree that suicide bombing is a criminal act, as well as an act of terrorism.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
“H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;

Do you notice the "time stamp" difference of these two statements:

since payments were subsequently distributed

and

towards commission of such acts

You cannot "subseqently distribute" "towards [a] commission". The former is after the fact, and the latter is prior too.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

This is only relevent to the first Persian Gulf war with Kuwait. Not the second between the US and Iraq.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Billo Really was the Hamas suicide bombing in question an act of terrorism or was it legal martyrdom of a “soldier” and worthy of blessings?

This is a stupid question.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
I had to ask that question for a reason:

Really!

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
“Howard Dean has said that Hamas’ soldiers—no one has ever called Hamas soldiers before. Howard Dean has said we don’t take sides in the Middle East. We took sides in 1948. Israel’s our ally. We always knew that. We can’t have a president who is conducting American foreign policy by press release clarification, and we’re certainly not going to beat George Bush that way.” (John Kerry Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, January 11, 2004)

“A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.” (TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR October 9, 2002)

Forget those two guys, you're talking to me now.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
I cannot speak for John Kerry, but due to the theme of the last sentence I have every reason to suspect that he would consider the Hamas suicide bombing in question an act of terrorism not worthy of the support of martyrdom! We are forced to choose sides because of skeptics.

The only thing I'm forced to do, is trying to understand your point, before I can respond. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

 

[DivineComedy]

I do agree that suicide bombing is a criminal act, as well as an act of terrorism.

Now, how do you “condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism” if you call the criminal Hamas terrorist suicide bombing perpetrator a martyr?

I am not going to post a thousand posts to this board, so stop being so facetious and try and say something intelligent before I go.

You said: “This is only relevent to the first Persian Gulf war with Kuwait. Not the second between the US and Iraq.”

Tell me, when did the cease-fire or the war end? Did Clinton give Iraq a peace treaty over the phone while he was getting deposed in the oval office by that ugly slut?

PS. You remind me of kid that used to hang out of the car window to hit mail boxes with a baseball bat, until he hit the one with the inch thick steel insert.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Now, how do you “condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism” if you call the criminal Hamas terrorist suicide bombing perpetrator a martyr?

I am not going to post a thousand posts to this board, so stop being so facetious and try and say something intelligent before I go.

Well, I certainly hope you stay long enough to go back and re-read my posts and find the one that I called suicide bombers martyrs. Go ahead, I'll wait. Find it yet? How about now? Take your time. No, I don't think its on that one. Try the one over there. It's not? Well, I don't know what to tell you.........except maybe.............

I didn't say that!

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
You said: “This is only relevent to the first Persian Gulf war with Kuwait. Not the second between the US and Iraq.”

Tell me, when did the cease-fire or the war end?

On the Highway of Death.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Did Clinton give Iraq a peace treaty over the phone while he was getting deposed in the oval office by that ugly slut?

You mean Oral Office. Yeah, she was no Marilyn.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
PS. You remind me of kid that used to hang out of the car window to hit mail boxes with a baseball bat, until he hit the one with the inch thick steel insert.

Was the bat "wood" or "aluminum"?

 

[DivineComedy]

Well, I certainly hope you stay long enough to go back and re-read my posts and find the one that I called suicide bombers martyrs. Go ahead, I'll wait. Find it yet? How about now? Take your time. No, I don't think its on that one. Try the one over there. It's not? Well, I don't know what to tell you.........except maybe.............

I didn't say that!

On the Highway of Death.

You mean Oral Office. Yeah, she was no Marilyn.

Was the bat "wood" or "aluminum"?

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Now, how do you ‘condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism‘ if you call the criminal Hamas terrorist suicide bombing perpetrator a martyr?”

Billo Really’s response in really big letters: “I didn’t say that!”

I know that you didn’t say or call suicide bombers “martyrs,” but you were not required under the provision of a cease-fire to “condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism,” and it was Saddam’s regime that called the criminal Hamas terrorist suicide bombing perpetrator a “martyr.”

“H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

To that you said: ‘This is only relevent to the first Persian Gulf war with Kuwait. Not the second between the US and Iraq.”

“Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

And I asked; “Tell me, when did the cease-fire or the war end?”

Billo Really‘s response: “On the Highway of Death.”

“On 2 March the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution establishing the terms of the ceasefire…The next day, Iraqi commanders accepted the ceasefire terms formally at a meeting with US military leaders in a tent at the captured Iraqi military base of Safwan.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/ceasefire.stm

How you wind up with a cease-fire ending before it was formally accepted or at the same time as the war ended…must be some unorthodox “liberal,” or mentally ill, time warp.

I have previously run across several unorthodox “liberals” that claimed that 400 cruise missiles launched by Clinton in Desert Fox was not a war.

Now I understand what liberal Rosalind Carter meant by “Mental illness is a disease like any other.”

It is obvious from the forensic evidence that the bat must have been wood and it split in two pieces before whopping you in the head.

The war was legal and “liberal” mental illness can’t make it illegal unless the disease spreads so that the mentally ill are the only ones to write the history books.

 

[Billo_Really]

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Now, how do you ‘condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism‘ if you [Sadaam Hussein not billo] call the criminal Hamas terrorist suicide bombing perpetrator a martyr?”

Billo Really’s response in really big letters: “I didn’t say that!”

I know that you didn’t say or call suicide bombers “martyrs,” but you were not required under the provision of a cease-fire to “condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism,” and it was Saddam’s regime that called the criminal Hamas terrorist suicide bombing perpetrator a “martyr.”

So your question was to Hussein while conversing with me. If this is the case, then calling someone a "martyr" is not a condemnation.

I still don't think you have posted any evidence that gives the US the right to go in and make a regime change with someone we dislike. Were the most hated nation on earth because of this and opinions such as yours.

You go ahead and think whatever you want. You have that right, to be wrong. This war is illegal.

 

[DivineComedy]

So your question was to Hussein while conversing with me. If this is the case, then calling someone a "martyr" is not a condemnation.

Then you know Iraq violated the cease-fire after 1441 and Bush’s warning that such defiance would lead to regime change.

In the game regime change is called checkmate, and I have already posted evidence that gave us the right to go in and make a regime change. Not only is regime change a given right as old as the game, it’s also in purposes outlined in Article One of the UN Charter, “removal of threats to the peace,” and in the relevant resolutions that this Member State in cooperation with Kuwait was authorized to enforce to bring peace and security. The president warned Iraq, and the UN, that failure of Iraq to fully comply would bring regime change, and part of that quote is in the Congressional authorization for use of force, so ignorance of the law is no excuse:

“Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge‘ posed by Iraq and to ‘work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that ‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable‘;”

“My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

You know Iraq defied us again and Bush did exactly what he said he would do, even if John Kerry’s reading comprehension is so bad that he didn’t understand the implications of the word "but" in the above paragraph.

Iraq was given a parole for the murders committed in 1990, and WMD is an inanimate object, so the problem was always only the murderous terror of the regime.

What our country did was legal.

 

[Occam's Butter Knife]

You go ahead and think whatever you want. You have that right, to be wrong. This war is illegal.

That the Iraq war was legal or illegal is not a slam-dunk case either way. If there were any court that this issue was tested in, it would be a long battle with valid points on both sides.

The only two wars that were ever sanctioned by the U.N. were against North Korea and the first Gulf war. If the current Iraq war is illegal on the basis that a war must be sanctioned by a Security Council resolution, by the same logic, the actions against Kosovo were illegal.

Will this issue be tested in a court? I doubt it, because the U.S. holds a veto in the U.N. and the U.S. is not a member of the I.C.C.

Your claim that resolution 678 is only valid for the first Gulf War is simply wrong. The U.N. used 678 to threaten Saddam many, many times after the Persian Gulf. Resolution 678 is either mentioned directly or passively through other resolutions.

Many of the U.N. documents are not suitable for cut-and-paste, as they are scanned documents as images and then imported into PDF. Have they not heard of OCR technology?

Here is the list of resolutions

 

[Billo_Really]

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Then you know Iraq violated the cease-fire after 1441 and Bush’s warning that such defiance would lead to regime change.

1441 did not authorize the use of force. It clearly states that the matter would go back to the UN Security Councel to decide the appropriate action to be taken. Member states do not have the right to act on behalf of the UN unless such action is specifically directed by the Security Councel.

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
In the game regime change is called checkmate,...

This is not, nor has it ever been a game.

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
...and I have already posted evidence that gave us the right to go in and make a regime change.

The only evidence you could possibly post that would give us the "right", is Article 51 of the UN Charter. Which was absent from your evidence.

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Not only is regime change a given right as old as the game, it’s also in purposes outlined in Article One of the UN Charter, “removal of threats to the peace,” and in the relevant resolutions that this Member State in cooperation with Kuwait was authorized to enforce to bring peace and security. The president warned Iraq, and the UN, that failure of Iraq to fully comply would bring regime change, and part of that quote is in the Congressional authorization for use of force, so ignorance of the law is no excuse:

Since you agree that ignorance is not an excuse, here's the law you should not be ingnorant of:

INTERNATIONAL LAW ON THE USE OF FORCE
The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) [not Article One ] of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
“Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge‘ posed by Iraq and to ‘work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that ‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable‘;”

“My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020912-1.html

He says he's committed to working with the UN but then turns around and acts unilaterally on behalf of the UN. You know, I used to have a girlfriend that would do me favors I didn't ask for and try to throw them in my face later as favors she's done for me. I told her if I didn't ask for it, it wasn't a favor. Bush cannot decide for the UN any action to be taken. Only the Security Councel.

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
You know Iraq defied us again...

You say this as though the United States has deity.

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
and Bush did exactly what he said he would do,

Lie to a nation and kill thousands of people because he doesn't respect, nor obey, the law.

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
...even if John Kerry’s reading comprehension is so bad that he didn’t understand the implications of the word "but" in the above paragraph.

What the hell does Kerry have to do with this. He was one of a hundred Senators that was lied to by the President.

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Iraq was given a parole for the murders committed in 1990,

We knew all about Hussein 10 years before that.

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
and WMD is an inanimate object,

Since 1992 per Hans Blix final report.

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
so the problem was always only the murderous terror of the regime.

This doesn't wash either. Do you know how many regimes around the world fit this definition? Were not out attacking them!

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
What our country did was legal.

What our country did in our name was not only illegal, but it was the most cowardly wars ever started in the history of this planet.

 

[DivineComedy]

1441 did not authorize the use of force. It clearly states that the matter would go back to the UN Security Councel to decide the appropriate action to be taken. Member states do not have the right to act on behalf of the UN unless such action is specifically directed by the Security Councel.

As I previously said, and I repeat once again for the mentally challenged, we were authorized according to Chapter VII:

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;” http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/...20UNRes678.asp

When reading the law I want you to pay attention to when there are semicolons, commas, or periods, and a period means that the article following is not connected and stands alone.

“Article 47
1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.

2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.

3. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.

4. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies.”

There is a period at the end of that article 47, and for a greater understanding look at section eight of our constitution and UN resolution 242. Try and get it through your incredibly thick head that THERE WAS NO MILITARY STAFF COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE UNDER THE SECURITY COUNCIL FOR THE STRATEGIC DIRECTION OF ANY ARMED FORCES IN THE 1990 GULF WAR!

Therefore the war was not as you said “specifically directed by the Security Councel.”

You see there just happened to be this little article:

“Article 48
The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.”

We were authorized in 678 to act directly and through our actions as the law says it “Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait…to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area!”

THERE NEVER WAS A MILITARY STAFF COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE UNDER THE SECURITY COUNCIL FOR THE STRATEGIC DIRECTION OF ANY ARMED FORCES IN THIS CONFLICT!

You are right that there are many murderous regimes around the world that sponsor terrorism, but for the mentally challenged I point out again as I did for another before the invasion of Iraq, no other nation on earth not even the armistice with North Korea has a provision that said this:

“H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

THERE WAS NO MILITARY STAFF COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE UNDER THE SECURITY COUNCIL FOR THE STRATEGIC DIRECTION OF ANY ARMED FORCES PRESENT AT THE CEASE-FIRE!

UN resolution 1441 said: “Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,"
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

Billo Really said: “1441 did not authorize the use of force. It clearly states that the matter would go back to the UN Security Councel to decide the appropriate action to be taken.”

That is absolute BULL! It does not clearly state that “the matter would go back to the UN Security Councel to decide the appropriate action to be taken!” And you cannot quote any part of the law that says that. The “assessment” was not a decision to allow them to determine appropriate action, but was only an attempt to get them on board. Considering the political climate such a provision to allow them “to decide the appropriate action to be taken” would be a tacit condition or a restriction on “full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions.” Bush would not agree to the Biden-Lugar amendment to the authorization for use of force, and he sure would not have allowed the Security Council to make such a determination!

Billo Really said: “What our country did in our name was not only illegal, but it was the most cowardly wars ever started in the history of this planet.”

This war was as just and justified and legal as any war ever fought by this nation, and it is one of the bravest wars ever fought considering the domestic and foreign enemies that our troops face.

 

[Billo_Really]

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
As I previously said, and I repeat once again for the mentally challenged [what's up with this?] , we were authorized according to Chapter VII:

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;” http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/...20UNRes678.asp

Do you know what 660 says and what subsequent relevant resolutions means? 660 says:

Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait...

As regards to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait...

Do you have any clue what that means? It is in reference to the invasion of Kuwait. You are trying to use this out of context.

And your link says "Page not found", FYI.

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Try and get it through your incredibly thick head...

Door swings both ways here.

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Therefore the war was not as you said “specifically directed by the Security Councel.”

That's right! Therefore, if it was not directed by the Security Councel, member states do not have the right to act unilaterally on behalf of the UN unless it is in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
We were authorized in 678 to act directly and through our actions as the law says it “Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait…to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area!”

678 authorizes "all necessary means" as it applies to Resolution 660 and subsequent relevent resolutions (of which you can see my comments above).

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
You are right that there are many murderous regimes around the world that sponsor terrorism, but for the mentally challenged [I don't see the relevence in our discussion for this] I point out again as I did for another before the invasion of Iraq, no other nation on earth not even the armistice with North Korea has a provision that said this:

I have no intention of re-commenting on your incessent need to keep posting what you have posted before.

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Billo Really said: “1441 did not authorize the use of force. It clearly states that the matter would go back to the UN Security Councel to decide the appropriate action to be taken.”

That is absolute BULL! It does not clearly state that “the matter would go back to the UN Security Councel to decide the appropriate action to be taken!” And you cannot quote any part of the law that says that. The “assessment” was not a decision to allow them to determine appropriate action, but was only an attempt to get them on board. Considering the political climate such a provision to allow them “to decide the appropriate action to be taken” would be a tacit condition or a restriction on “full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions.” Bush would not agree to the Biden-Lugar amendment to the authorization for use of force, and he sure would not have allowed the Security Council to make such a determination!

I don't agree. The "assessment" was to give the Security Councel the opportunity to decide the appropriate action. Read Item 10 of Resolution 1441 in reference to "member states" and their role on this issue.

“Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
Billo Really said: “What our country did in our name was not only illegal, but it was the most cowardly wars ever started in the history of this planet.”

This war was as just and justified and legal as any war ever fought by this nation, and it is one of the bravest wars ever fought considering the domestic and foreign enemies that our troops face.

One of the "...bravest wars ever fought!" Are you nuts, or just void of humanity. We have the most awesome firepower this world has ever known. We took this firepower and attacked a country that:

1. Barely had running water and electricity thanks to us bombing the holy-shiite out of them in the first Persion Gulf war in which we dropped more bombs on them than all the bombs of WWll combined.
2. Did nothing to us!
3. Because of DSM, Bush had his sites set on all along. Which negates everything you have been defending in your last few posts.

No sir, this is a cowards war, fought by heroes, for cowards.

 

[DivineComedy]

As regards to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait...

Do you have any clue what that means? It is in reference to the invasion of Kuwait. You are trying to use this out of context.


No sir, this is a cowards war, fought by heroes, for cowards.

Once again for I shall repeat that we were authorized according to Chapter VII:

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm {Sorry, the other links I have been using since before the “fas” links became available, and from time to time they change.}

Again for the umpteenth time I will repeat things to the extremely mentally challenged that I have already said in a thousand different ways since before the invasion, and I will have to post the relevant law repeatedly just in case the post goes to another page so that the extremely mentally challenged ones will get it through their extremely thick heads... Resolution 687 was a subsequent relevant resolution to the resolution 678 that had authorized us to “implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

Since time immemorial any nation that gives blood in war and wins the conflict has a right to demand terms that the defeated must accept, therefore relevant resolution 687 contained one provision that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “the invasion of Kuwait:”

“H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

It was our RIGHT TO DEMAND, and since the cease-fire was not between the sniveling United Nations (of tyrants too) and Iraq as it was “between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait,” it is our RIGHT to act if we feel the provisions of the cease-fire have been violated!

The war “was not directed by the Security Council“ as having a Soviet General in charge using United States tanks to fight against Soviet built tanks would have been a joke, therefore the “Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,” which did not include the Soviet Union, were authorized according to “Chapter VII of the Charter,“ which contains Article 48, “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area,” so those Member States did not have to act unilaterally on behalf of the UN, they were authorized by the UN to act directly through their own actions until the JOB WAS DONE. Just because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics couldn’t keep their butt buddy Socialist Saddam from supporting terrorism it could not give the Russians the right to unilaterally to stop us from finishing the job, especially when it was according to the laws that the Soviet Union agreed to.

Anyway, you know Iraq violated the cease-fire because you said “calling someone a ‘martyr‘ is not a condemnation.”

Billo Really said: “The ‘assessment‘ was to give the Security Councel the opportunity to decide the appropriate action. Read Item 10 of Resolution 1441 in reference to ‘member states‘ and their role on this issue.”

Let‘s see what item ten actually says:

“10. Requests all Member States…”

Did you “request” something? The answer is NO, the Baath party of Syria is not going to tell you where the tractor trailers full of WMD went during the period between October 2002 and March 2003. There is nothing there in the law to back up your claim giving “the Security Councel [sic] the opportunity to decide the appropriate action.” Once again I say “you cannot quote any part of the law” to back up your false claim that 1441 “clearly states that the matter would go back to the UN Security Councel to decide the appropriate action to be taken.”

Simple common sense should tell anyone with any intelligence that 1441 did not allow a foreign power to dictate to us or place restrictions and conditions on the cease-fire, so it is clear that from resolution 687 the United Nations (of tyrants too) gave up the right to decide the appropriate action in this matter “between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait.”

Billo Really said, “No sir, this is a cowards war, fought by heroes, for cowards.”

Non-sequitur, your facts are uncoordinated. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

There are no heroes if this war is illegal as among our troops there would only be criminals, sniveling cowards, the ignorant, and the stupid people that would say “I was only following orders.” The war was legal.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
Once again for I shall repeat that we were authorized according to Chapter VII:

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm {Sorry, the other links I have been using since before the “fas” links became available, and from time to time they change.}

Again for the umpteenth time I will repeat things to the extremely mentally challenged that I have already said in a thousand different ways since before the invasion, and I will have to post the relevant law repeatedly just in case the post goes to another page so that the extremely mentally challenged ones will get it through their extremely thick heads... Resolution 687 was a subsequent relevant resolution to the resolution 678 that had authorized us to “implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

Since time immemorial any nation that gives blood in war and wins the conflict has a right to demand terms that the defeated must accept, therefore relevant resolution 687 contained one provision that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “the invasion of Kuwait:”

“H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

It was our RIGHT TO DEMAND, and since the cease-fire was not between the sniveling United Nations (of tyrants too) and Iraq as it was “between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait,” it is our RIGHT to act if we feel the provisions of the cease-fire have been violated!

The war “was not directed by the Security Council“ as having a Soviet General in charge using United States tanks to fight against Soviet built tanks would have been a joke, therefore the “Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,” which did not include the Soviet Union, were authorized according to “Chapter VII of the Charter,“ which contains Article 48, “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area,” so those Member States did not have to act unilaterally on behalf of the UN, they were authorized by the UN to act directly through their own actions until the JOB WAS DONE. Just because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics couldn’t keep their butt buddy Socialist Saddam from supporting terrorism it could not give the Russians the right to unilaterally to stop us from finishing the job, especially when it was according to the laws that the Soviet Union agreed to.

Anyway, you know Iraq violated the cease-fire because you said “calling someone a ‘martyr‘ is not a condemnation.”

Billo Really said: “The ‘assessment‘ was to give the Security Councel the opportunity to decide the appropriate action. Read Item 10 of Resolution 1441 in reference to ‘member states‘ and their role on this issue.”

Let‘s see what item ten actually says:

“10. Requests all Member States…”

Did you “request” something? The answer is NO, the Baath party of Syria is not going to tell you where the tractor trailers full of WMD went during the period between October 2002 and March 2003. There is nothing there in the law to back up your claim giving “the Security Councel [sic] the opportunity to decide the appropriate action.” Once again I say “you cannot quote any part of the law” to back up your false claim that 1441 “clearly states that the matter would go back to the UN Security Councel to decide the appropriate action to be taken.”

Simple common sense should tell anyone with any intelligence that 1441 did not allow a foreign power to dictate to us or place restrictions and conditions on the cease-fire, so it is clear that from resolution 687 the United Nations (of tyrants too) gave up the right to decide the appropriate action in this matter “between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait.”

Billo Really said, “No sir, this is a cowards war, fought by heroes, for cowards.”

Non-sequitur, your facts are uncoordinated. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

There are no heroes if this war is illegal as among our troops there would only be criminals, sniveling cowards, the ignorant, and the stupid people that would say “I was only following orders.” The war was legal

Member states of "what"? Can you mentally challenge that?
The war was illegal.