• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is the Iraq war illegal?

The general lie that Bush perpetrated is that Iraq was part of the war on terrorosim. It is now, in 2005, in 2002 it was not. Why was Iraq a threat the US couldn't live with? Iraq was a regional power much lessened by Gulf War 1, and had been kept in check via UN sanctions, for 11 years. After 9/11, "suposedly",Bush told the public that the attacks of 9/11 showed America's vulnerability,and hence, he coined the term,"pre-emptive strike." But Iraq didn't change at all, merely our own sentiments. Actually, right after 9/11, surveys showed that the vast majority of Americans thought that some or all of the hijackers were Iraqi, and a majority believed Saddam had a part in it- Bush was happy to encourage these uninformed beliefs.

You are correct, an Iraq that held WMDs and could possibly hand them off to terrorists would be unacceptable. But Bush & co., had deeply exaggerated the WMD story,not to mention, invented the Saddam/al-Qeada links. Meanwhile, al-Qeada, which had actually attacked us, is still out there.We forget that Bush declared "Wanted,dead or alive."It's almost laughable:lol: , henever mentions him anymore, its Iraq all the time.


Originally posted by VTA
And 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

Islamic Jihad has very little to do with Whabbism, besides, Saddam detested fundamentalists or anyone who could threaten his regime.

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.

Ok, well only 3 countries sent combat forces to Iraq. And 30 out of the 184 UN member nations openly voiced support for this invasion. And those 30 supporters did not include any Arab nation.

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...

He did, but it didn't matter to Bush, who already had this invasion planned out. The CIA was pressured to produce evidence to "hype-up" this invasion. It was a pre-determined fact that every photo of a trailer truck would be a "mobile bio-weapons lab". Look, it was proved before the war that the Niger document was false, the aluminum tubes were proved by the IAEA that they were not suitable for enriching uranium.

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.

Don't forget pakistan,Egypt, and the most important terrorist supporter of them all- Saudi Arabia. What reasons? Iraq was not the central front,or any front, on "terrorism". Bush failed to realize howmany troops it would take to control postwar Iraq, and for how long.

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.

You are correct there.
 
Billo_Really said:
“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.".

It could just as easily be said that our Membership in the United Nations (of tyrants too) is unconstitutional and illegal according to the United States Constitution, therefore, the war in Iraq was legal because the United Nations (of tyrants too) is illegal.

Billo Really said: “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.”

You’re saying that the anti-war protester considered that the military was a social program to provide her unemployable baby with free room and board for nothing; the only thing her preferred military didn’t have was a Red Star on its cap.

Either the troops do their job or their units should be disbanded and sent home to civilian life to fend for themselves, then we should only maintain a Navy with its nuclear deterrent as our only means of response to State sponsors of terrorism.

Mutual is the fear of any terror,
Assured we contest the allied should partake,
Destructions to apply till equal
portion share,
fear
I
Say to sponsors of terror!​


I repeat: “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.”

I repeat: “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.”

“One of the most important qualities of any leader is saving other from death not by marking the dark ditches on the road, but also by preventing those who do not see the marks from falling into the abyss. Then comes the quality of exaltation, or ascendancy of the people he is in charge of, along with their potential thought and action. The danger that may threaten any people or nation, does not call upon the people in charge to lead the way against this danger only, but also to analyze its reasons in view of abating them, or treating those reasons radically, to eliminate them so that they would never surge again.
I am sorry to say that the general approach in this direction is still weak, so far. Western governments are the first in this phenomena of weakness. 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.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Kofi Annan is not the law, and he did not quote the law to back up his position, so the war was legal because you have only provided evidence that you are a domestic parrot for a foreign enemy. The war was legal and moral.
 
How is the invasion of a soverign nation unprovoked not illegal? It could be argued that Saddam had better reasons for invading Quwait which world-wide was considered illegal



peace
 
Surenderer said:
How is the invasion of a soverign nation unprovoked not illegal? It could be argued that Saddam had better reasons for invading Quwait which world-wide was considered illegal



peace

Surenderer here is some unfinished business: http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=69588&postcount=81

For us to find some common ground I need to have you honestly respond to that post, especially about Hamas, so I can know how you actually define the word “provoked.” Until then your question cannot be answered in any other way than to say, “look into my eye,“ and then to put the finger on the cheek to pull downward the bottom eye lid so as to make the eye look big, and then finish with, “we were provoked.”
 
DivineComedy said:
Surenderer here is some unfinished business: http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=69588&postcount=81

For us to find some common ground I need to have you honestly respond to that post, especially about Hamas, so I can know how you actually define the word “provoked.” Until then your question cannot be answered in any other way than to say, “look into my eye,“ and then to put the finger on the cheek to pull downward the bottom eye lid so as to make the eye look big, and then finish with, “we were provoked.”



What are you expecting me to say? I think Hamas has legit beefs but to go about it by killing innocents is always wrong...and loses support for their cause(at least my support) How do I define provoked? depends on the situation I guess..... I do know that if someone kills my child then I would kill that person and if I found out that anyone benefited or helped that person those indivisuals would die also.....that rage is what fuels Arabs today because in Arab culture (tribal culture) if someone is wrongfully killed then it becomes the tribes job to avenge that death.....thats why in Iraq killing insurgents will never work because as long as their cause is seen as noble then they will always have someone to take their place.....I feel like I am not answering your question but I am not really sure what I am being asked:confused: ....my apologies


peace
 
Odd... I thought I responded to this earlier...?

kal-el said:
The general lie that Bush perpetrated is that Iraq was part of the war on terrorosim. It is now, in 2005, in 2002 it was not. Why was Iraq a threat the US couldn't live with? Iraq was a regional power much lessened by Gulf War 1, and had been kept in check via UN sanctions, for 11 years. After 9/11, "suposedly",Bush told the public that the attacks of 9/11 showed America's vulnerability,and hence, he coined the term,"pre-emptive strike." But Iraq didn't change at all, merely our own sentiments. Actually, right after 9/11, surveys showed that the vast majority of Americans thought that some or all of the hijackers were Iraqi, and a majority believed Saddam had a part in it- Bush was happy to encourage these uninformed beliefs.

Iraq wasn't even a regional power... and the sanctions were not keeping him in check as he was bribing the other countries involved to veto further efforts to keep him disarmed. Paying for the backing of China, Russia, Germany and France, is change enough.

kal-el said:
You are correct, an Iraq that held WMDs and could possibly hand them off to terrorists would be unacceptable. But Bush & co., had deeply exaggerated the WMD story,not to mention, invented the Saddam/al-Qeada links. Meanwhile, al-Qeada, which had actually attacked us, is still out there.We forget that Bush declared "Wanted,dead or alive."It's almost laughable:lol: , henever mentions him anymore, its Iraq all the time.

As I've stated earlier, I think it was a poor tact to take, but I guess they felt it was the best, figuring they'd find them to justify their story.

kal-el said:
Islamic Jihad has very little to do with Whabbism...

That all depends on who's defining it. Much of the Taliban were educated in Wahhabi madrassas teaching a rigid form of Islam. Look how they act.

kal-el said:
Ok, well only 3 countries sent combat forces to Iraq. And 30 out of the 184 UN member nations openly voiced support for this invasion. And those 30 supporters did not include any Arab nation.

It's a lot more than 3...
"As of July 1, 2005, there were 26 non-U.S. military forces participating in the coalition and contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, and Ukraine."

Source

Of those, I can name 9 or 10 who were there from the start, and that excludes Spain.

Besides war wasn't declared on the other 154 members and bin Laden didn't waste time bringing his case to the UN before declaring war and committing war like acts on the U.S... who are the bastards here?


kal-el said:
He did, but it didn't matter to Bush, who already had this invasion planned out. The CIA was pressured to produce evidence to "hype-up" this invasion. It was a pre-determined fact that every photo of a trailer truck would be a "mobile bio-weapons lab". Look, it was proved before the war that the Niger document was false, the aluminum tubes were proved by the IAEA that they were not suitable for enriching uranium.

Sadaam played around and bluffed long enough, probably with the idea he can trust his 'allies' to veto any American action. But like I said, it was a poorly chosen smokescreen...

kal-el said:
Don't forget pakistan,Egypt, and the most important terrorist supporter of them all- Saudi Arabia. What reasons? Iraq was not the central front,or any front, on "terrorism". Bush failed to realize howmany troops it would take to control postwar Iraq, and for how long.

I didn't forget them. These countries didn't come with the strategical advantages that Iraq afforded. The Sauds, whether wise or not, we deal with diplomatically as we do with Pakistan, who on the surface is fighting terrorism, with an army at it's borders, killing our enemies. The Saudi's do their part, publicly killing any operatives they find. We certainly can't be expected to push them aside, saying they're not doing enough and barge in. No matter where we took this war, someone would ask 'why there?'.

The reasons?
-Geographically, Iraq is in the heart of the Middle East. A democratic state in a volatile region, a strategic base of operations to influence the ideology we are fighting. Our military can kill all the hardcore grunts until they're blue in the face, but the only way to really fight this is to attack it at it's source: the ideology taught in the Middle East..

-Breaking up the Oil For Food party. Having major world players getting cozy with a vocal detractor of the U.S. and enemy isn't in our country's best interest.

-Iran, militarily or by subversive influence gaining control of Iraq and having a larger base to support terrorism.

-When war was declared on the U.S. there was one man, bin Laden, in one country, exhorting his followers to carry out acts of war on the U.S. Unfortunately his followers were not with him and were scattered around the world. Now they are flocking to Iraq for Martyrdom, to kill the Infidel, whatever and are centralized. Much better than thinking we can scatter our resources and what? Enter every country they're in and expect each local government to support this? It just wouldn't work.

They handed out a hokey line at the outset, but the info that's been dribbling out the last few years has resolved itself into a picture of credibility to this theory.
 
VTA said:
Odd... I thought I responded to this earlier...?

O man, early onset of Alzheimer's I guess.:2razz:


Iraq wasn't even a regional power... and the sanctions were not keeping him in check as he was bribing the other countries involved to veto further efforts to keep him disarmed. Paying for the backing of China, Russia, Germany and France, is change enough.

Dude, you said it "Iraq wasn't even a regional power"- if it wasn't, it clearly was no threat to us, the world's greatest military power, then why did we invade? The sanctions seemed to be working until Bush invaded. You wanna talk about bribing? How about our coalition? A coalition of the bribed and coerced.


As I've stated earlier, I think it was a poor tact to take, but I guess they felt it was the best, figuring they'd find them to justify their story.

Your're right,it was a poor move to make, as they never did find them.


That all depends on who's defining it. Much of the Taliban were educated in Wahhabi madrassas teaching a rigid form of Islam. Look how they act.

I don't know if I want to argue that.


It's a lot more than 3...
"As of July 1, 2005, there were 26 non-U.S. military forces participating in the coalition and contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, and Ukraine."

Source

Of those, I can name 9 or 10 who were there from the start, and that excludes Spain.

Besides war wasn't declared on the other 154 members and bin Laden didn't waste time bringing his case to the UN before declaring war and committing war like acts on the U.S... who are the bastards here?

That is the list the White House put forth. Bulgaria, Estonia, El Salvador, and the Solomon Islands- but their prime minister said he was unaware of any support. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=3300727




Sadaam played around and bluffed long enough, probably with the idea he can trust his 'allies' to veto any American action. But like I said, it was a poorly chosen smokescreen...

What do you mean? He fully complied to inspections.It evidently, didn't matter though, as this war was pre-scheduled.


I didn't forget them. These countries didn't come with the strategical advantages that Iraq afforded. The Sauds, whether wise or not, we deal with diplomatically as we do with Pakistan, who on the surface is fighting terrorism, with an army at it's borders, killing our enemies. The Saudi's do their part, publicly killing any operatives they find. We certainly can't be expected to push them aside, saying they're not doing enough and barge in. No matter where we took this war, someone would ask 'why there?'.

The Saudis are fighting terrorism? That's news to me. The Saudi's probably run one of the most repressive regimes on earth. They financed and armed Islamic Jihad, spread the extreme Whabbi Islam that had made a generation of fanatics, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and then the Saudis denied US requests to hand over Saudi links to terrorism, and also refused to let US warplanes (targeting the Taliban, whom they supported) take off from Saudi soil. Actually, all the answers needed to dismantle Bin Laden's terrorist network can be found in Saudi Arabia.


Enter every country they're in and expect each local government to support this? It just wouldn't work.

Man, you just said SA and Pakistan are fighting terrorism. So what is it, they are or not?
 
Last edited:
kal-el said:
O man, early onset of Alzheimer's I guess.:2razz:
:doh

kal-el said:
Dude, you said it "Iraq wasn't even a regional power"- if it wasn't, it clearly was no threat to us...

Reread the last paragraph of my previous post; pay close attention to the Iran part...

kal-el said:
the world's greatest military power, then why did we invade? The sanctions seemed to be working until Bush invaded.

Working? How? His people weren't getting the money, as was the intentions of the Oil For Food, and he was bribing the other countries to get the sanctions lifted. Do you see the correlation of the futility of the sanctions?


kal-el said:
You wanna talk about bribing? How about our coalition? A coalition of the bribed and coerced.

That's nothing more than catch phrase rhetoric and doesn't address the issue of the sanctions failure.

kal-el said:
That is the list the White House put forth. Bulgaria, Estonia, El Salvador, and the Solomon Islands- but their prime minister said he was unaware of any support. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=3300727

Solomon Islands says no...

So why are you including those other three?

From the same story...

The Willing
United States, Britain, Spain, Australia, Kuwait, Poland, Albania, Romania, Czech Republic, Portugal, Japan, South Korea, Denmark, Netherlands, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Georgia, Philippines, Uzbekistan, Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Honduras, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda, Iceland, Singapore, Mongolia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Panama.

A lot more than 3. :doh

kal-el said:
What do you mean? He fully complied to inspections.It evidently, didn't matter though, as this war was pre-scheduled.

For almost ten years Sadaam played cat and mouse and booted inspectors out regularly.

kal-el said:
The Saudis are fighting terrorism? That's news to me. The Saudi's probably run one of the most repressive regimes on earth. They financed and armed Islamic Jihad, spread the extreme Whabbi Islam that had made a generation of fanatics, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and then the Saudis denied US requests to hand over Saudi links to terrorism, and also refused to let US warplanes (targeting the Taliban, whom they supported) take off from Saudi soil. Actually, all the answers needed to dismantle Bin Laden's terrorist network can be found in Saudi Arabia.

Yes, on the surface of things they're killing operatives and 'sharing' 'some' intelligence. You have no idea how 'repressive' the Saudi's are. I'm guessing here, but betting I'm right, you've probably never been there. I'm not going to defend these yahoos, but, they're not on any human rights watch list, and what they're doing subversively, I'm sure our government is aware of and know full well how to handle it.

kal-el said:
Man, you just said SA and Pakistan are fighting terrorism. So what is it, they are or not?

Don't twist my words, you know full well what I meant. We can't force our military into every Mid East country and not expect them to make it harder for us out of resentment. The countries we deal with diplomatically, we'll take them at their face value for what they're doing when they do it. We can't spread out our resources and fight everyone.
 
Originally Posted by DivineComedy
It could just as easily be said that our Membership in the United Nations (of tyrants too) is unconstitutional and illegal according to the United States Constitution, therefore, the war in Iraq was legal because the United Nations (of tyrants too) is illegal.
Show me where in the Constitution this would be considered illegal.

Billo Really said: “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.”

Originally Posted by DivineComedy
You’re saying that the anti-war protester considered that the military was a social program to provide her unemployable baby with free room and board for nothing; the only thing her preferred military didn’t have was a Red Star on its cap.

Either the troops do their job or their units should be disbanded and sent home to civilian life to fend for themselves, then we should only maintain a Navy with its nuclear deterrent as our only means of response to State sponsors of terrorism.
I don't have a clue as to what your saying here; nor do I see what relevence it has to what I said.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy
I repeat: “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.”
I have.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy
I repeat: “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.”
Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy
Kofi Annan is not the law, and he did not quote the law to back up his position, so the war was legal because you have only provided evidence that you are a domestic parrot for a foreign enemy. The war was legal and moral
What he is, as Secretary-General of the United Nations, is more of an authority and spokesperson for the UN than you or I. Therefore, if anyone should know what the UN's position is on a particular issue, it is him. And according to him, the UN's position is, the wars' illegal. Of which I do agree.
 
Surenderer said:
What are you expecting me to say? I think Hamas has legit beefs but to go about it by killing innocents is always wrong...and loses support for their cause(at least my support) How do I define provoked? depends on the situation I guess..... I do know that if someone kills my child then I would kill that person and if I found out that anyone benefited or helped that person those indivisuals would die also.....that rage is what fuels Arabs today because in Arab culture (tribal culture) if someone is wrongfully killed then it becomes the tribes job to avenge that death.....thats why in Iraq killing insurgents will never work because as long as their cause is seen as noble then they will always have someone to take their place.....I feel like I am not answering your question but I am not really sure what I am being asked:confused: ....my apologies


peace


Surenderer you said: “I think Hamas has legit beefs but to go about it by killing innocents is always wrong...and loses support for their cause(at least my support)”

“’Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it‘ (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).” (The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988)

“The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.’ (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).”
(The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988)

Since you believe Hamas has “legit beefs,” I have to ask, are Jews innocent?

I am sorry that America doesn’t have a very good history of dealing with tribal cultures, “whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” Saddam’s tribe in violation of the 687 cease-fire supported Hamas terrorism that deliberately and with malice of forethought killed one of our children, and The Arab Baath Party had the gall to call the murderous slime a “martyr,” so according to you that makes Operation Iraqi Freedom to remove Saddam’s regime perfectly legal:

“I do know that if someone kills my child then I would kill that person and if I found out that anyone benefited or helped that person those indivisuals would die also” (Surenderer)

That is the rage that fuels America today because in American culture (civilized culture) if someone is wrongfully killed then it becomes the civilization’s job to bring justice.

Now, how many helped or benefited the Saddam regime? I have a good idea, we will be more civilized than you and not kill all of them. Sound like a good deal to you? Better get the tribe to take it while it is hot.
 
Blix insists there was no firm weapons evidence
Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor Thursday April 28, 2005 The Guardian

The head of the United Nations weapons inspectors in the run-up to the Iraq war, Hans Blix, last night undercut one of the main grounds offered by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, in his legal advice to Tony Blair.
Lord Goldsmith said there would have to be evidence that Iraq was not complying with the inspectors.

But Mr Blix, who has since retired to Sweden, said his inspectors found no compelling evidence that Iraq had a hidden arsenal or was blocking the work of the inspectors. He said there had been only small infractions by Iraq.

"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.

"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything."

In a key passage in the legal advice written by Lord Goldsmith on March 7 2003, the attorney general said that UN resolution 1441 could only be sustainable as a justification for war "if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation."

He said the views of Unmovic, the UN inspectorate body, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, will be "highly significant" and "you will need to consider very carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling".

Mr Blix and his team returned to Iraq in December 2002 after a four-year absence and remained until the week before war began in March 2003. More than 200 inspectors crisscrossed Iraq, checking out possible sites for the production or stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological or nuclear.

Mr Blix's first monthly report to the UN security council in January was mainly negative about the Iraqi government, complaining about lack of cooperation. A month later he adopted a more neutral stance, pointing out some infringements but finding no significant stockpiles.

On March 7, the day Lord Goldsmith drew up his report, Mr Blix gave his final report and this was the most favourable yet from Iraq's point of view.

Asked if this final report amounted to the compelling evidence that Lord Goldsmith considered crucial, Mr Blix said: "One cannot say so. There were infractions, you can say. In March, they (the Iraqis) cooperated like hell. They were pro-active. In December and January, no. That is why I gave a critical account on January 27. In February, it was more balanced."

On March 7, Mr Blix pleaded for more time to complete his mission and reported that lethal weapons such as Samoud 2 missiles were being destroyed.

Mr Blix said last night: "The things found were all small things. We found dozens of munitions for chemical weapons. They were empty and in a site declared. In relation to Samoud that went beyond 150 kilometres, they (the US and Britain) said it was beyond the permitted limit but I did not feel particularly indignant about that."

On the same day, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any nuclear weapons or was in the process of acquiring them. Mr Blix said: "By then, Mohamed ElBaradei revealed that Niger was not authentic." British intelligence falsely claimed Iraq had been trying to acquire uranium from Niger.

Mr Blix said Mr ElBaradei had also challenged US claims that aluminium tubes found were for WMD purposes. Mr Blix himself also expressed scepticism to the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, about alleged evidence of WMD.

The Iraq Survey Group, set up by the US to search for WMD, found none.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1471932,00.html
The war was illegal.
 
Billo_Really said:
The war was illegal.


O I forgot its illegal casue Hans blix says so. :rofl :lol:

That has got to be the worst argument I have heard in awhile. Even kal-el puts up a better argument. ;)

So becasue the UN says it is illegal they are higher than whats the right thing to do? So I suppose if the UN says its not ok to intervene in genocides then the UN is right. Yeah the UN is the best installation this world has ever known. Get over this lame argument. This war was legel in every aspect. Sorry to break it to you mental disorders but war has no rules or boundaries. War is war. If we fought this way 300yrs ago during our war for independence Britian wouldve squashed us decisively. The ACLU wouldve named Washington a war criminal and a traitor. They also wouldve called Patrick Henry an intorlerant extremist.
 
VTA said:
Reread the last paragraph of my previous post; pay close attention to the Iran part...

Yea? So what? Iraq was no threat to us nor their neighbors. Iraq was alot more powerful in the '80s when we supported them.


Working? How? His people weren't getting the money, as was the intentions of the Oil For Food, and he was bribing the other countries to get the sanctions lifted. Do you see the correlation of the futility of the sanctions?

I guess they weren't working. You are right about that, but because of his under-handedness, UN sanctions killed 6,000 children a month.


That's nothing more than catch phrase rhetoric and doesn't address the issue of the sanctions failure.

What?


Solomon Islands says no...

So why are you including those other three?

From the same story...

The Willing
United States, Britain, Spain, Australia, Kuwait, Poland, Albania, Romania, Czech Republic, Portugal, Japan, South Korea, Denmark, Netherlands, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Georgia, Philippines, Uzbekistan, Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Honduras, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda, Iceland, Singapore, Mongolia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Panama.

A lot more than 3. :doh

Yes, but it does not say that those countries actually sent combat forces to Iraq. They were just willing. In the beginning, only the US, UK,and Australia, sent them. All the other countries sent non-combat forces for the time being. And some of them pulled out of Iraq by now.


For almost ten years Sadaam played cat and mouse and booted inspectors out regularly.

Yes, but when confronted with the option of allowing inspectors in, or face war, he fully complied, but that played no relevance, as Saddam's fate had already been planned. I would provide a link for you, but its too early, maybe tonight. Scratch that, the season premeire of Smallville is on!


Yes, on the surface of things they're killing operatives and 'sharing' 'some' intelligence. You have no idea how 'repressive' the Saudi's are. I'm guessing here, but betting I'm right, you've probably never been there. I'm not going to defend these yahoos, but, they're not on any human rights watch list, and what they're doing subversively, I'm sure our government is aware of and know full well how to handle it.

So I haven't been there. I guess that makes you all-knowing if you have? They are the most repressive nation in the Mid East. But at least women don't have to worry about buying make-up or styling their hair, for they could get beaten for failing to cover their heads properly, and could be put to death for adultery. They tell us they're fighting terrorism, but the sad truth is they're the cause.


Don't twist my words, you know full well what I meant. We can't force our military into every Mid East country and not expect them to make it harder for us out of resentment. The countries we deal with diplomatically, we'll take them at their face value for what they're doing when they do it. We can't spread out our resources and fight everyone.

Agreed. It's bad enough we stuck our noses into their business the last few decades. I'm sure they hate us enough for that.
 
Originally Posted by SKILMATIC:
So becasue the UN says it is illegal they are higher than whats the right thing to do?
And who ultimately decides what "...the right thing to do" is?
 
DivineComedy said:
Surenderer you said: “I think Hamas has legit beefs but to go about it by killing innocents is always wrong...and loses support for their cause(at least my support)”

“’Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it‘ (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).” (The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988)

“The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.’ (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).”
(The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988)

Since you believe Hamas has “legit beefs,” I have to ask, are Jews innocent?

I am sorry that America doesn’t have a very good history of dealing with tribal cultures, “whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” Saddam’s tribe in violation of the 687 cease-fire supported Hamas terrorism that deliberately and with malice of forethought killed one of our children, and The Arab Baath Party had the gall to call the murderous slime a “martyr,” so according to you that makes Operation Iraqi Freedom to remove Saddam’s regime perfectly legal:

“I do know that if someone kills my child then I would kill that person and if I found out that anyone benefited or helped that person those indivisuals would die also” (Surenderer)

That is the rage that fuels America today because in American culture (civilized culture) if someone is wrongfully killed then it becomes the civilization’s job to bring justice.

Now, how many helped or benefited the Saddam regime? I have a good idea, we will be more civilized than you and not kill all of them. Sound like a good deal to you? Better get the tribe to take it while it is hot.




Are Jews innocent? I dont sterotype so I dont put all Jews into a single category. I dont hate Jews(or any other religious or ethnic group) as a matter of fact we have some we meet after our Friday prayers and go play basketball or barbeque or watch football whatever.....Why are you trying to make me say something nice about Hamas? Plenty of people have legit beefs but go about them in the wrong way.....Hitler even is a person I would put in that category....As far as Saddam I dont even think he was really a Muslim because everything he did was unIslamic unless he was dealing with the West and most Muslims saw this and thats why nobody came to his aid twice when he needed them....Saddam did do more for the Palestinians than any other Arab leader however because he gave money to the family of any Palestinian killed (not just Suicide Bombers like has been reported by pro-war advocates) in the 2nd infidata against Israel



peace
 
kal-el said:
Yea? So what? Iraq was no threat to us nor their neighbors. Iraq was alot more powerful in the '80s when we supported them.

Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. Do we want them to have a larger base of operations?


kal-el said:

:lol:

All of this just distraction from the original topic...
Sadaam had proved to be compromising the terms of the cease fire. The U.N. of course opposed the war, despite its involvement in the Oil For Food mess and given we're able to choose where we fight this war that was declared on us, Iraq held the most advantages.

Enjoy Smallville. :2wave:
 
Originally Posted by VTA:
All of this just distraction from the original topic...
Sadaam had proved to be compromising the terms of the cease fire. The U.N. of course opposed the war, despite its involvement in the Oil For Food mess and given we're able to choose where we fight this war that was declared on us, Iraq held the most advantages
Except for one thing, Iraq didn't declare war on us. I would be for this war if they had any part in 9/11. But they didn't. And yet, we attacked anyway.
 
Billo_Really said:
Except for one thing, Iraq didn't declare war on us. I would be for this war if they had any part in 9/11. But they didn't. And yet, we attacked anyway.

Yes, Saddam already had one foot in the coffin after Junoir took office, it was only a simple matter of time. The facts, played no role in this.
 
Originally Posted by kal-el:
Yes, Saddam already had one foot in the coffin after Junoir took office, it was only a simple matter of time. The facts, played no role in this.
This is true. Because of DSM, we now know he was going to attack all along.
 
Billo_Really said:
This is true. Because of DSM, we now know he was going to attack all along.

Billo, this is probably rather naive of me, but what the hell is DSM?
 
It is illegal to wage a war of aggression against a nation that has not attacked you, or is not threatening to do so immediately. Therefore, Iraq is an illegal war. You see, it is not the Wild West anymore and Bush is not the sheriff of the place, and we are not his posse. You saw how long his mantra of "wanted dead or alive" lasted. Not much longer than his Social Security bid. This is the 21st Century and civilized nations abide by a set of rules. The U.S. has signed the treaties that Bush now finds inconvenient. He is an outlaw and his tactics are thuggish and repulsive to civilized and decent societies. As President of the United States, he has many powers; but he does not have the power to decide unilaterally to discard signed treaties approved and ratified by the U.S. Senate. Therefore, when he does not act in the spirit of U.S. signed treaties, he is acting unconstitutionally. It is one of his chief duties under the Constitution to enforce the law and U.S. signed treaties are the law of the land. It is illegal and unconstitutional for him to act in violation of our treaties.
 
Billo_Really said:
Except for one thing, Iraq didn't declare war on us. I would be for this war if they had any part in 9/11. But they didn't. And yet, we attacked anyway.

Violated the terms of the cease fire.
A cause to resume fighting.
 
Surenderer said:
Are Jews innocent? I dont sterotype so I dont put all Jews into a single category. I dont hate Jews(or any other religious or ethnic group) as a matter of fact we have some we meet after our Friday prayers and go play basketball or barbeque or watch football whatever.....Why are you trying to make me say something nice about Hamas? Plenty of people have legit beefs but go about them in the wrong way.....Hitler even is a person I would put in that category....As far as Saddam I dont even think he was really a Muslim because everything he did was unIslamic unless he was dealing with the West and most Muslims saw this and thats why nobody came to his aid twice when he needed them....Saddam did do more for the Palestinians than any other Arab leader however because he gave money to the family of any Palestinian killed (not just Suicide Bombers like has been reported by pro-war advocates) in the 2nd infidata against Israel



peace

Surenderer you asked the question, “How is the invasion of a soverign nation unprovoked not illegal?”

You answered your own question.

Since you say, “Saddam did do more for the Palestinians than any other Arab leader however because he gave money to the family of any Palestinian killed (not just Suicide Bombers like has been reported by pro-war advocates) in the 2nd infidata against Israel.”

Therefore, you have provided evidence that we were provoked by Iraq.

You see we have relatives thrown out of airplanes onto the tarmac, and relatives blown up on buses, and relatives in wheelchairs killed on cruise ships by inhuman animals. And we have an Oslo Accord that established that the known rule of warfare of the so-called Palestinian tribe is barbaric and criminal under all the laws of mankind, which is why in full knowledge of their guilt the vermin had to ask for immunity from prosecution. Therefore, we have a dog in this hunt for peace, and Iraq was not helping us get peace when they supported an uprising that included criminal acts and war crimes. So we were provoked by Iraq, and we continue to be provoked by Iran (with chants of “Death to America“) and Syria. So do not claim that we are unprovoked. Because we do not like killing ignorant followers we are using incredible restraint. The PLO predates the 1967 borders, so do not claim Israel was unprovoked, and do not let others claim that those borders are all of the sudden acceptable when they tolerate the existence of Hamas. If a tribe wants a right to a peaceful border, or to own any land, they damn well better see to it that any tribe they let on their land does not provoke us with impunity.

And I don’t know of anyone that says Saddam just gave money to the families of suicide bombers, but as you previously pointed out all we need is ONE:

“I do know that if someone kills my child then I would kill that person and if I found out that anyone benefited or helped that person those indivisuals would die also” (Surenderer)

We want peace, and an uprising (Intifada) by criminals cannot shake us off the earth or ever convince us that criminals can be trusted to live in peace with mankind.
 
DivineComedy said:
Surenderer you asked the question, “How is the invasion of a soverign nation unprovoked not illegal?”

You answered your own question.

Since you say, “Saddam did do more for the Palestinians than any other Arab leader however because he gave money to the family of any Palestinian killed (not just Suicide Bombers like has been reported by pro-war advocates) in the 2nd infidata against Israel.”

Therefore, you have provided evidence that we were provoked by Iraq.

You see we have relatives thrown out of airplanes onto the tarmac, and relatives blown up on buses, and relatives in wheelchairs killed on cruise ships by inhuman animals. And we have an Oslo Accord that established that the known rule of warfare of the so-called Palestinian tribe is barbaric and criminal under all the laws of mankind, which is why in full knowledge of their guilt the vermin had to ask for immunity from prosecution. Therefore, we have a dog in this hunt for peace, and Iraq was not helping us get peace when they supported an uprising that included criminal acts and war crimes. So we were provoked by Iraq, and we continue to be provoked by Iran (with chants of “Death to America“) and Syria. So do not claim that we are unprovoked. Because we do not like killing ignorant followers we are using incredible restraint. The PLO predates the 1967 borders, so do not claim Israel was unprovoked, and do not let others claim that those borders are all of the sudden acceptable when they tolerate the existence of Hamas. If a tribe wants a right to a peaceful border, or to own any land, they damn well better see to it that any tribe they let on their land does not provoke us with impunity.

And I don’t know of anyone that says Saddam just gave money to the families of suicide bombers, but as you previously pointed out all we need is ONE:

“I do know that if someone kills my child then I would kill that person and if I found out that anyone benefited or helped that person those indivisuals would die also” (Surenderer)

We want peace, and an uprising (Intifada) by criminals cannot shake us off the earth or ever convince us that criminals can be trusted to live in peace with mankind.




Israeli's and Americans arent synonyms......that sounds like an Israeli problem....if we are gonna fight all their battles for them then make them the 51 state.......giving money to the families of those that are murdered are hardly grounds for War....if it was then the Spin of saying money was only given to suicide bombers wouldnt be so rapid in the Western Media...



We want peace, and an uprising (Intifada) by criminals cannot shake us off the earth or ever convince us that criminals can be trusted to live in peace with mankind.



Kinda funny because America was founded on an Intifada against Brittan....wonder who's side you would have been on then...........




peace
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom