Is the Iraq war illegal?

[DivineComedy]

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

For those that are ultimately mentally challenged I do usually have to point out that there is a principle called “consent of the governed,” that this country has held dear since July 4, 1776, which means that signing and supporting the ratification of The Rome Treaty that created the ICC would be treasonous, if we did not have a veto power. Therefore, considering the UN veto certain members possess, and how laws have to be worded as a result, your questions are just plain STUPID.

The war was legal.

 

[Tashah]

Kal-el conveniently forgets to mention one item. George W. Bush was not required to prove anything per UN resolutions. Quite the contrary...

It was Saddam Hussein who was required to prove that Iraq was in compliance with all UN Resolutions relevant to WMD programs. If Iraq possessed WMD, Saddam was required to surrender them in their entirety. If Iraq did not possess WMD, Saddam was required to turn over all documentation pertinint to their destruction and reveal the location were destroyed weapons were interred.

Saddam fulfilled neither of these mandated requirements and thus, was adjudicated to be in non-compliance with UN Resolutions.

btw Billo Really... the use of gas against the Kurds by Iraqi forces was indeed documented. Apologists for Saddam have speculated without cause that the gassing was either accidental, or initiated by Iran.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
For those that are ultimately mentally challenged I do usually have to point out that there is a principle called “consent of the governed,” that this country has held dear since July 4, 1776, which means that signing and supporting the ratification of The Rome Treaty that created the ICC would be treasonous, if we did not have a veto power. Therefore, considering the UN veto certain members possess, and how laws have to be worded as a result, your questions are just plain STUPID.

The war was legal.

First off, why don't you cut out the childish name-calling. Its a little juvenile. Second, if your going to belong to an organization, then you should follow their rules. We belong to the UN, we should respect the Resolutions.

The war was illegal.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Tashah:
Kal-el conveniently forgets to mention one item. George W. Bush was not required to prove anything per UN resolutions. Quite the contrary...

It was Saddam Hussein who was required to prove that Iraq was in compliance with all UN Resolutions relevant to WMD programs. If Iraq possessed WMD, Saddam was required to surrender them in their entirety. If Iraq did not possess WMD, Saddam was required to turn over all documentation pertinint to their destruction and reveal the location were destroyed weapons were interred.

Saddam fulfilled neither of these mandated requirements and thus, was adjudicated to be in non-compliance with UN Resolutions.

It was up to the UN Security Councel to decide the coarse of action after evaluating the reports. Besides, in light of DSM, this is all a moot point. Bush was going to attack anyway.

Originally posted by Tashah:
btw Billo Really... the use of gas against the Kurds by Iraqi forces was indeed documented. Apologists for Saddam have speculated without cause that the gassing was either accidental, or initiated by Iran.

Are you going to tell me there isn't any evidence that suggests it might have been the Iranians. Especially when its reported that autopsy's of some of the bodies showed an element in the gas that the Iraqis didn't make.

 

[kal-el]

Kal-el conveniently forgets to mention one item. George W. Bush was not required to prove anything per UN resolutions. Quite the contrary...

No, but it seemed as though the whether the UN consented or not, it was irrelevant. The UN was to rubber-stamp it, or get ignored.

It was Saddam Hussein who was required to prove that Iraq was in compliance with all UN Resolutions relevant to WMD programs. If Iraq possessed WMD, Saddam was required to surrender them in their entirety. If Iraq did not possess WMD, Saddam was required to turn over all documentation pertinint to their destruction and reveal the location were destroyed weapons were interred.

How many other countries were violating UN resolutions? And as for the UN inspections, Bush refused to indulge info about possible weapons sites with the inspectors, while at the same time, poking fun at their abilities to find them. Indeed, it was Bush's biggest fear that Saddam would fully comply. This war was long-scheduled.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by kal-el:
How many other countries were violating UN resolutions? And as for the UN inspections, Bush refused to indulge info about possible weapons sites with the inspectors, while at the same time, poking fun at their abilities to find them. Indeed, it was Bush's biggest fear that Saddam would fully comply. This war was long-scheduled.

kal-el, you rock!

 

[kal-el]

kal-el, you rock!

That's where your wrong Billo,you are the one who "rocks". Keep posting, I enjoy reading your thoughts.:2razz:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by kal-el:
That's where your wrong Billo,you are the one who "rocks". Keep posting, I enjoy reading your thoughts.

I can't attach a picture of a guy jumping from an overpass on to a big rig. That was awesome.

 

[kal-el]

I can't attach a picture of a guy jumping from an overpass on to a big rig. That was awesome.

What? Where did this take place? I wanna see it.

 

[DivineComedy]

First off, why don't you cut out the childish name-calling. Its a little juvenile. Second, if your going to belong to an organization, then you should follow their rules. We belong to the UN, we should respect the Resolutions.

The war was illegal.

First, I did not specifically call you a name, but if the shoe fits you may wear it at your leisure: that forehead of yours is more than a little juvenile to begin with.

Billo Really said: “Second, if your going to belong to an organization, then you should follow their rules. We belong to the UN, we should respect the Resolutions.”

Only a traitor would demand that we follow their rules, and a patriot would demand that we follow our rules. For the most supreme of the mentally challenged out there reading this I will reiterate what I previously said on numerous occasions about the principle of “the consent of the governed,” and the fact that we have a veto power in the UN precisely because of it: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.“ http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

There are no Men in the Peoples Republic of China. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

Once again I shall repeat that we were authorized according to Chapter VII {the rules are our rules, and we followed them}:

“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

You established that Iraq did not comply with the cease-fire when you admitted that calling the terrorist Hamas suicide bomber a “martyr” was not a condemnation; Iraq was guilty of violating the conditions of the cease-fire that the UN Security Council agreed to back in resolution 687. So when you say the war is illegal you are not respecting the resolutions, just like France and Russia did not respect them.

Giving Russia the right to veto any action, that would hold Iraq accountable for its violations of the 687 cease-fire, would be giving them a unilaterally right to renegotiate the terms of the cease-fire that were previously agreed to by the Soviet Union. Do you see the problem here? I don’t think that you do. When Gorby said “that is far enough,” it was not far enough, but that was the law at the time that the first George Bush had to comply with; the law changed with the cease-fire and demanded that Iraq not sponsor or support terrorism:

“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 ever have peace the right and just thing is to always to be able to end the conflict, the sanctions, and the containment at some point. Or we should follow the advice of George Washington and not get involved:

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

As a result I voted against the first George Bush and for Andre Marrou precisely because of the Gulf War; we either should have removed the threat to the peace or not gotten involved in the first place.

The laws were written badly from the very start because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic’s tanks performed badly in Socialist Saddam’s Iraq. That is an indisputable fact! The laws were written so the conflict could be ended peacefully, only, if all agreed that Iraq had complied with the terms or we surrendered. It is only through everyone agreeing or through war that the conflict could ever end, and it is really hard to get everyone to agree to anything. It is evil to turn a veto power into the power to renegotiate the terms of a cease-fire, so that it can only be able to guarantee that every UN authorized action can be prolonged into demonically endless lukewarm “liberal” arts of war for cheap Oil for Food.

The war was legal. The “liberals” are evil. {Again, I did not call you a name, you may wear an ass on your forehead if you want.}

 

[DivineComedy]

How many other countries were violating UN resolutions?

It is very clear:

“Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

Since there was a semicolon in the law you cannot claim only one State is violating the resolution.

The PLO Charter was a violation of that resolution up until long after the Israel-Jordan peace treaty and Oslo (that gave aid and comfort to the enemy whose known rule of warfare is to dress in civilian clothes to throw old people off cruise ships), not to mention the many States in the Arab League that support terrorism, and certainly not to mention the two hundred thousand that marched at the Hamas funeral or their charter. Only after every Al Quacka like Hamas is dead or being hunted to death will I consider that question has any relevance or intelligence behind it.

That is for another topic.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
First, I did not specifically call you a name, but ...

Don't pull my chain, we both know what your doing with these little innuendo's like:

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
Only a traitor would demand that we follow their rules, and a patriot would demand that we follow our rules.

or

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
For the most supreme of the mentally challenged out there reading this...

I don't know if you realize it, both this is all about you. Your talking to yourself here. I'm just waiting around to see if you want to have a conversation. You don't seem to interested in that. You just spew out garbage! And you don't know what your objecting too. What's my point? You tell me what my point is. If you don't know, why are you responding?

I want you to know I didn't read any of your next few paragraphs. And I'm not going to re-read things you keep re-posting. I don't know why you keep doing this, but I'm not going to read it again!

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
You established that Iraq did not comply with the cease-fire when you admitted that calling the terrorist Hamas suicide bomber a “martyr” was not a condemnation;

Your statement is ridiculous. And I don't agree that it was a violation of the cease-fire.

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
Iraq was guilty of violating the conditions of the cease-fire that the UN Security Council agreed to back in resolution 687. So when you say the war is illegal you are not respecting the resolutions, just like France and Russia did not respect them.

Here you use the Security Councel for your arguement, then you cast them off because...

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
...every UN authorized action can be prolonged into demonically endless lukewarm “liberal” arts of war for cheap Oil for Food.

Here again I'm not going to re-read your re-posts.

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
The laws were written badly from the very start...

So if the laws are written bad, we don't have to follow them? Is this your message?

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
It is evil...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever...

The war was...

Uh, let me guess ..........evil? ........
.......legal? ......... don't be ridiculous! Well what then? Certainly not the circus your turning it into.

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
The “liberals” are evil.

I thought you said the Russian veto power was evil, or their use was evil, or something other than "liberals" that was evil..........how about attacking a country that barely had running water and electricity with the most advanced military the world has ever seen dropping more bombs than all the bombs dropped in WWll. Now that is evil!

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
{Again, I did not call you a name, you may wear an ass on your forehead if you want.}

Talk to the hand!

 

[DivineComedy]

Your statement is ridiculous. And I don't agree that it was a violation of the cease-fire.

Talk to the hand!

Since this debate is about whether the war is legal, and not some Social Security debate, and some of our troops are dying because people believe this war is illegal, therefore I believe this comes down to one side being ignorant, mentally challenged, or a traitor. I really want you to know what I think. If I was to say what I think of the treasonous poster child for the Democratic Party that was at the International A.N.S.W.E.R. rally, the post would be instantly flagged and deleted and I would be out of here. This “conversation” takes tremendous restraint! http://www.internationalanswer.org/

You say you have a point, and you ask me what it is, well, are you hiding it? Tell me your “point!” My middle finger is raised too!

I asked a question: “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 eventually said in response: “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 then eventually said: “You established that Iraq did not comply with the cease-fire when you admitted that calling the terrorist Hamas suicide bomber a “martyr” was not a condemnation; Iraq was guilty of violating the conditions of the cease-fire that the UN Security Council agreed to back in resolution 687.”

Billo Really responded: “Your statement is ridiculous. And I don't agree that it was a violation of the cease-fire.”

Your opinion is only good if you can apply it through the rule of law, as this topic is about legality, so feel free to quote the law that supports your opinion.

The UN was informed by Iraq after 911 that they were going to continue these payments:

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

And the law did not change:

“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,” http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

And the law is clear:

“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

The "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq" did not say that Saddam’s payments did not constitute a violation of the cease-fire as the law left such determination and opinion up to the president:

“SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”

Feel free to quote the relevant resolution or law that says such payments, checks “to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber,“ that was under the banner “The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein,“ that Bush would reasonably consider support for terrorism, did not constitute a violation of the cease-fire?

Your opinion that the payments to terrorist families does not constitute a violation of the law is not in the law. You are going to have to actually quote LAWS to support your allegation that the war is illegal.

The war is legal, and I have quoted laws that substantiate my position.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
Since this debate is about whether the war is legal, and not some Social Security debate, and some of our troops are dying because people believe this war is illegal, therefore I believe this comes down to one side being ignorant, mentally challenged, or a traitor. I really want you to know what I think. If I was to say what I think of the treasonous poster child for the Democratic Party that was at the International A.N.S.W.E.R. rally, the post would be instantly flagged and deleted and I would be out of here. This “conversation” takes tremendous restraint! http://www.internationalanswer.org/

You say you have a point, and you ask me what it is, well, are you hiding it? Tell me your “point!” My middle finger is raised too!

I don't have any problem with what you think I am. I give you permission to think of me (and say as you will) anything that comes to your mind. Your statements say more about you than they do about me.

Your saying that an anti-war protester that is advocating bringing the troops home as soon as possible to get them out of harms way is endangering their lives more than someone who is pro-war and advocating keeping them in harms way. That's pretty bad.

As far as my "point", I've made it several times. You need to first have the desire to listen to others, then my point will be obvious. Did you know that listening is 75% of a conversation? You can't listen if your just waiting to speak.

I like how you quote laws then say its OK for Bush not to follow them.

The war is more than illegal. It's immoral.

PRESS RELEASE about JURY STATEMENT 27 Jun 2005
‘The attack on Iraq is an attack on justice, on liberty, on our safety, on our future, on us all’ – The Jury of Conscience

Istanbul, 27 June, 2005 - With a Jury of Conscience from 10 different countries hearing the testimonies of 54 members of the Panel of Advocates who came from across the world, including Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom, this global civil initiative came to an end with a press conference at the Hotel Armada where the chair of the Jury of Conscience, Arundathi Roy, announced the Jury’s conclusions.

The Jury defined this war as one of the most unjust in history: ‘The Bush and Blair administrations blatantly ignored the massive opposition to the war expressed by millions of people around the world. They embarked upon one of the most unjust, immoral, and cowardly wars in history. The Anglo-American occupation of Iraq of the last 27 months has led to the destruction and devastation of the Iraqi state and society. Law and order have broken down completely, resulting in a pervasive lack of human security; the physical infrastructure is in shambles; the health care delivery system is a mess; the education system has ceased to function; there is massive environmental and ecological devastation; and, the cultural and archeological heritage of the Iraqi people has been desecrated.’

On the basis of the preceding findings and recalling the Charter of the United Nations and other legal documents, the jury has established the following charges against the Governments of the US and the UK:

• Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles.
• Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure
• Using disproportionate force and indiscriminate weapon systems
• Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter
• Using deadly violence against peaceful protestors
• Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment
• Subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
• Re-writing the laws of a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied
• Willfully devastating the environment
• Actively creating conditions under which the status of Iraqi women has seriously been degraded
• Failing to protect humanity’s rich archaeological and cultural heritage in Iraq
• Obstructing the right to information, including the censoring of Iraqi media
• Redefining torture in violation of international law, to allow use of torture and illegal detentions

The Jury also established charges against the Security Council of United Nations for failing to stop war crimes and crimes against humanity among other failures, against the Governments of the Coalition of the Willing for collaborating in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, against the Governments of Other Countries for allowing the use of military bases and air space and providing other logistical support, against Private Corporations for profiting from the war, against the Major Corporate Media for disseminating deliberate falsehoods and failing to report atrocities.

The Jury also provided a number of recommendations that include recognising the right of the Iraqi people to resist the illegal occupation of their country and to develop independent institutions, and affirming that the right to resist the occupation is the right to wage a struggle for self-determination, freedom, and independence as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, we the Jury of Conscience declare our solidarity with the people of Iraq and the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the coalition forces from Iraq.

http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=93

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday September 16, 2004 The Guardian

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1305709,00.html

The war is illegal.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
http://www.internationalanswer.org/

I just wanted to say thank you for the link.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Your saying that an anti-war protester that is advocating bringing the troops home as soon as possible to get them out of harms way is endangering their lives more than someone who is pro-war and advocating keeping them in harms way. That's pretty bad.

O cmon now we both know that this is bologna. The troops have to finish the job forif they dont we could have someone there even worse than sadaam. Then we have to start all over again and that would be very bad. So it would actually save more lives if we did it right the forst time then half-a$$ it and then we have to play mr. fix-it.

The war is more than illegal. It's immoral.

Under what laws? Yours? I think even the UN it prohibits genocide and the not abiding of Inter law. Which he has repeatedly broken so in those offenses right there this war is legal even by international pretentions. How many times do I have to tell you this?

Also it is moral in every aspect and form. Yes accidents happen in war. But sadaam seems to provide more accidents than when we went in. AlSo it was mral in the fact of freeing a nation from a tyrant. So that argument is dead again like it always has been.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by SKILMATIC:
Also it is moral in every aspect and form. Yes accidents happen in war. But sadaam seems to provide more accidents than when we went in. AlSo it was mral in the fact of freeing a nation from a tyrant. So that argument is dead again like it always has been.

DSM say's your wrong!

 

[SKILMATIC]

DSM say's your wrong!

Well the DSM aint my daddy now is he? :lol: :rofl

 

[kal-el]

originally posted by SKILMATIC
Also it is moral in every aspect and form

O man Skilly, didn't you tell me a while ago that every war is immoral?

 

[hotie747]

yes the iraqi war is lega;/right. if we didn't go to war with Iraq, u might have nuclear weapons in the hands of thugs like Osama bin Laden. He and Saddam Hussein worked together. they were allies. If we didn't remove Hussein, we would havebeen nuked. Besides, he was raping innocent women, killing his own citizens. it was considered genocide. he killed hundreds of innocent people. think of all the people we rescued from tyranny, and from a communist government. besides, he lied to us. if we hadn't stopped him, we would have weapons in terrorist hands.

 

[kal-el]

yes the iraqi war is lega;/right. if we didn't go to war with Iraq, u might have nuclear weapons in the hands of thugs like Osama bin Laden. He and Saddam Hussein worked together. they were allies. If we didn't remove Hussein, we would havebeen nuked. Besides, he was raping innocent women, killing his own citizens. it was considered genocide. he killed hundreds of innocent people. think of all the people we rescued from tyranny, and from a communist government. besides, he lied to us. if we hadn't stopped him, we would have weapons in terrorist hands.

Allies? I don't think so.Look, Osama and Saddam despised eachother. Saddam was a secularist. Bin Laden is a fundamentalist. I highly doubt we'd have been nuked if we didn't launch this attack. All the soliders and inspectors since '98failed to find anything even resembling nukes. IAEA inspectors visited and tested all of Saddams "alleged" nuke sites, and concluded that their was no evidence Iraq had re-started it's nuke program.

 

[VTA]

Allies? I don't think so.Look, Osama and Saddam despised eachother. Saddam was a secularist. Bin Laden is a fundamentalist. I highly doubt we'd have been nuked if we didn't launch this attack. All the soliders and inspectors since '98failed to find anything even resembling nukes. IAEA inspectors visited and tested all of Saddams "alleged" nuke sites, and concluded that their was no evidence Iraq had re-started it's nuke program.

While it was convenient, they could hate each other, but with the same goal in mind (hitting America), common ground could be found in supporting the ideology.

Is the war illegal? No. The terms of the cease fire were repeatedly comrpomised, and many of our "allies" were on the take. There existed an 'out' for all involved with the poorly chosen WMD argument and the deposing a dictator motive, but there were very few takers.

Sadaam could have made a fool of the U.S. and publically allowed all inspectors in for a detailed search and proven he had nothing. He chose to bluff, he got a war.

Iraq makes the most sense strategically, as a way to fight the war on terror, break up the oil for food party and insure that Iran doesn't slip into a failing Iraq and control a greater region to support terrorism.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by hotie747:
yes the iraqi war is lega;/right. if we didn't go to war with Iraq, u might have nuclear weapons in the hands of thugs like Osama bin Laden. He and Saddam Hussein worked together. they were allies. If we didn't remove Hussein, we would havebeen nuked. Besides, he was raping innocent women, killing his own citizens. it was considered genocide. he killed hundreds of innocent people. think of all the people we rescued from tyranny, and from a communist government. besides, he lied to us. if we hadn't stopped him, we would have weapons in terrorist hands.

Welcome to debate politics. You and I will lock horns in a little while.

 

[kal-el]

While it was convenient, they could hate each other, but with the same goal in mind (hitting America), common ground could be found in supporting the ideology.

What ideology are you talking about? Whabbism? Nope, that's what Bin Laden preaches, and is the official religion of Saudi Arabia. Saddam wanted no part in that.

Is the war illegal? No. The terms of the cease fire were repeatedly comrpomised, and many of our "allies" were on the take. There existed an 'out' for all involved with the poorly chosen WMD argument and the deposing a dictator motive, but there were very few takers.

I guess violating the UN charter means nothing? The UN was important as long as they approved of the use of force, but they did not. France, Russia, and China remained vastly opposed to this, despite this, the US failed to get the 9 votes needed to pass the resolution allowing use of force. So, Bush went ahead and invaded Iraq unilaterally. Ohh yea, the coalition of US, UK, an Australia.

Sadaam could have made a fool of the U.S. and publically allowed all inspectors in for a detailed search and proven he had nothing. He chose to bluff, he got a war.

Am I missing something? I think there were over 400 weapons inspectors in Iraq. The CIA was pressured to play-up Iraq-al-Qeada links and that Saddam did in fact have WMDS, whether they actually existed, or not.

Iraq makes the most sense strategically, as a way to fight the war on terror, break up the oil for food party and insure that Iran doesn't slip into a failing Iraq and control a greater region to support terrorism.

I don't think so. It all stems from the House of Saud. It would make sense to take out the cause, right? Please, for the past 600 years, Arabs have reacted to defeat not by embrasing modernism,but by turning inward and taking hold of religious fundalmentalism.

 

[VTA]

What ideology are you talking about? Whabbism? Nope, that's what Bin Laden preaches, and is the official religion of Saudi Arabia. Saddam wanted no part in that.

Not Wahhabism. Wahhabism is symptomatic of a larger problem, an ideology of Jihad. Using terrorism as a means to an end. There the two could easily find compromise.

I guess violating the UN charter means nothing? The UN was important as long as they approved of the use of force, but they did not. France, Russia, and China remained vastly opposed to this, despite this, the US failed to get the 9 votes needed to pass the resolution allowing use of force. So, Bush went ahead and invaded Iraq unilaterally. Ohh yea, the coalition of US, UK, an Australia.

The UN's complicity in the oil for food 'scandal' rendered it's decision as highly questionable. Funny, the 3 countries you named are the same countries responsible for this compromise. France and Russia were owed millions by Sadaam; they weren't too happy to watch that cash cow get taken away.

Am I missing something? I think there were over 400 weapons inspectors in Iraq. The CIA was pressured to play-up Iraq-al-Qeada links and that Saddam did in fact have WMDS, whether they actually existed, or not.

At which time? After years of playing games and booting out inspectors, Sadaam could have easily publicly stated he was open to complete inspection. Whatever the CIA's decision, they must have felt people wouldn't want to accept something as ambiguous as a 'cultural war'. Everything looks fine from this coast...

I don't think so. It all stems from the House of Saud. It would make sense to take out the cause, right? Please, for the past 600 years, Arabs have reacted to defeat not by embrasing modernism,but by turning inward and taking hold of religious fundalmentalism.

No, it stems from a vast region, with countries like Syria, Jordan and Iran being blatantly supportive of the ideology. It streches into parts of Africa, it's carried out in parts of Asia. It's a cause that transcends one country. Instead of scattering our resources and trying to run after every operative in the Middle East, America chose Iraq as it's battleground, for all of the above reasons.

Our egos don't like to accept this, but, lacking one vital point in our opinions of the war, it's impossible for us to judge something without any real definitiveness: INFORMATION. We'll only know the truth after it's become history.