Is the war against Iraq legal ?? [Archive]

OrdinaryGuy

Mar 17th, 2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Gaffer

I mean, "Freddom Fries" for fcks sake :

heh, I actually found "freedom fries" pretty funny as well as true. And FYI, Bush never coined that.

Originally posted by Gaffer
However, it seems to me that your president is less able to accept that other countries have the right to speak their mind.

I'd turn that around on you and say that other countries don't respect Bush's right to freedom of speech and opinion. His speeches and opinions are criticized more over than anyone else's. The french administration has openly shown its hatred to the US. However, we still refer to the french as friends officially, at least (although privately we might pass off all of them as part-time strippers.)

Xanith

Mar 17th, 2003, 10:55 AM

I think this sums it up nicely:

To sum up the argument: the Security Council authorised war to end the occupation of Kuwait; the ceasefire in 1991 was conditional on Iraqi disarmament; so Iraq's failure to disarm revives the authorisation to use force.

Everyone agrees that Iraq hasn’t completely disarmed. Therefore Iraq is in violation of the ceasefire and the war may continue based on that fact. Time to see if the UN will choose to validate its own resolutions and mandates or prove to be nothing but a worthless debate society that passes worthless resolutions and mandates no one has to follow because there are no consequences to breaking them.

War against Iraq is prefectly legal and justifiable based on this fact.

X

Memnoch1207

Mar 17th, 2003, 10:57 AM

The Gulf War did not end! It was a joint ceasefire agreement, between Iraq and the Coalition. The terms of that ceasefire were that Iraq was to immediately disarm it's WMD and all other unapproved weapons...13 years later we see that Iraq still has not disarmed and therefore have not lived up to their end of the ceasefire agreement...as a result of this violation the ceasefire agreement has been breached by the Iraq government, and would result back to the consequences under the agreement for non-compliance.

Arc

Mar 17th, 2003, 01:19 PM

And on top of that you have 1441 which says "Serious Consequences" will follow if Immediate and total disarment does not occur.

So how do you figure this war could possibly be illegal?

kleinma

Mar 17th, 2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Arc
And on top of that you have 1441 which says "Serious Consequences" will follow if Immediate and total disarment does not occur.

So how do you figure this war could possibly be illegal?

what should be illegal is the UN backing down after they ALL voted for 1441 and all were very aware of the things set out for in it...

stupid stinky FRENCH :mad:

Zaei

Mar 17th, 2003, 02:30 PM

*whine whine* Blah blah. Go write some code or something.

Z.

Sastraxi

Mar 17th, 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by kleinma
...i have the freedom of speech...... And Honeybee doesn't?

Futt Bucker

Mar 17th, 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
heh, I actually found "freedom fries" pretty funny as well as true. And FYI, Bush never coined that.

I'd turn that around on you and say that other countries don't respect Bush's right to freedom of speech and opinion. His speeches and opinions are criticized more over than anyone else's. The french administration has openly shown its hatred to the US. However, we still refer to the french as friends officially, at least (although privately we might pass off all of them as part-time strippers.)

Funny, but I could have sword that the French actions where against the US Policy of attacking Iraq. This is different from hating the US. But, as we constantly see on this forum, anything remotely disagreeing with Bush is "anti-American" :rolleyes:

687HA

Mar 17th, 2003, 03:33 PM

i think its legal, after the gulf war they told saddam to disarm, he hasnt, and in 1441 they said he must disarm or face conseuquences he hasnt, so he will get his ass kicked.

this is a good article bout it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-613348,00.html

kleinma

Mar 17th, 2003, 03:51 PM

here is an article about how one of saddams former top military guys who is now opposed to him went missing today.... hmm i wonder why...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/886388.asp?0cv=CB10

MasterBlaster

Mar 17th, 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Funny, but I could have sword that the French actions where against the US Policy of attacking Iraq. This is different from hating the US. But, as we constantly see on this forum, anything remotely disagreeing with Bush is "anti-American" :rolleyes:

The constatn US Flag burnings, the US is the devil demonstrations and burning of our president in effigy give us the impression that we are not liked in france.:rolleyes: Personally I could give a sheit less. French Fries are nasty any way. Now their wine on the other hand. Screw the war for Oil. I say nuke france for their Pinot Noir. Viva la sheitfaced frog. :)

NotLKH

Mar 17th, 2003, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Zaei
...Blah blah...

blah!
http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=1387316

MasterBlaster

Mar 17th, 2003, 04:23 PM

duc

Mar 17th, 2003, 04:44 PM

Heh, if even if it is illegal what will they do, declare war on us?

MerrionComputin

Mar 17th, 2003, 05:29 PM

Does it matter - it's illegal, immoral and incomprehensible but it's still in progress...

Arc

Mar 17th, 2003, 05:34 PM

It seems a U.N. inspector died a few days ago. His "IRAQI" driver crashed into the back of another vehicle.

Hmm I wonder what this inspector had found? Obviously something he was never supposed to tell anyone else about.

http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bq/Achina-inspector-death.R4qR_DME.html

MasterBlaster

Mar 17th, 2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by MerrionComputin
Does it matter - it's illegal, immoral and incomprehensible but it's still in progress...

Yup don't It just make your skin crawl when you find out your opinion is irrelevant when it comes to the national security of the United States. Sorry man, We have to protect ourselvs. I feel bad when a Lion eats a deer on those nature shows, but hey, the lion has a right to keep himself alive also. Right? Our time's better spent helping out the familys of our friends and relatives who are going to be there dodging lead rather than sitting around arguing morality. But any way. Yes, you are right. It doesn't matter now.

Zaei

Mar 17th, 2003, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by NotLKH
blah!
http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=1387316
:D

Z.

SeNdEr

Mar 19th, 2003, 12:35 AM

i dont support the war, i dont like to see how childrens and womans dies only for petrol, because be honest, the problem is that...

Nightwalker83

Mar 19th, 2003, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by duc
Heh, if even if it is illegal what will they do, declare war on us?

They might do a osama bin laden and Start a holy war.:rolleyes:

honeybee

Mar 19th, 2003, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by Xanith
I think this sums it up nicely:

Everyone agrees that Iraq hasn’t completely disarmed. Therefore Iraq is in violation of the ceasefire and the war may continue based on that fact. Time to see if the UN will choose to validate its own resolutions and mandates or prove to be nothing but a worthless debate society that passes worthless resolutions and mandates no one has to follow because there are no consequences to breaking them.

War against Iraq is prefectly legal and justifiable based on this fact.

X

This is debatable, because in the absence of any concrete evidence from the US or its allies and also from the UN weapons inspectors, there's no solid reason to believe Iraq still has WMDs. The UN inspectors were appointed to verify precisely this. When they are saying there is no evidence of WMDs being in possession of Iraq, we have to believe them, unless some evidence to the contrary is produced. This also means Iraq has not violated the ceasefire agreement.

.

honeybee

Mar 19th, 2003, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by duc
Heh, if even if it is illegal what will they do, declare war on us?

Does it mean you don't even care if whatever your government does is legal or not?

.

Nightwalker83

Mar 19th, 2003, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by honeybee
Does it mean you don't even care if whatever your government does is legal or not?

.

Everything they do is illegal in a way.:rolleyes:

Arc

Mar 19th, 2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by honeybee
This is debatable, because in the absence of any concrete evidence from the US or its allies and also from the UN weapons inspectors, there's no solid reason to believe Iraq still has WMDs. The UN inspectors were appointed to verify precisely this. When they are saying there is no evidence of WMDs being in possession of Iraq, we have to believe them, unless some evidence to the contrary is produced. This also means Iraq has not violated the ceasefire agreement.

.
No, actually it's not debatible at all because Inspectors found tons of WMD's in Iraq a few years ago before they were so nicely booted out. Iraq hasn't show ANY evidence of what it did with those TONS of WMD's. So one can only assume they still have them. Therefore proving 100% that Iraq has WMD's and hence war is upon them 100% legaly.

honeybee

Mar 19th, 2003, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by Arc
No, actually it's not debatible at all because Inspectors found tons of WMD's in Iraq a few years ago before they were so nicely booted out. Iraq hasn't show ANY evidence of what it did with those TONS of WMD's. So one can only assume they still have them. Therefore proving 100% that Iraq has WMD's and hence war is upon them 100% legaly.

I think Hans Blix has, in his latest reports, confirmed that no WMDs have been found during the UN inspections carried out recently.

That only means there are no WMDs to be found today. What happened to them is a matter well outside the scope of 1441 :rolleyes:

.

Nightwalker83

Mar 19th, 2003, 03:17 AM

I think Hans Blix has, in his latest reports, confirmed that no WMDs have been found during the UN inspections carried out recently.

I think they reported that on the news a couple of weeks ago. :confused:

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by honeybee
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2850043.stm

That's a pretty short debate, with both sides having chances to win it. We need some more material than that.

.

The war on Iraq is legal. 1441 is very clear about what Saddam is expected to do and he hasn't. I don't think anyone is saying that Saddam has done what is called for in 1441, they are in dissagreement on what to do about it.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by honeybee
I think Hans Blix has, in his latest reports, confirmed that no WMDs have been found during the UN inspections carried out recently.

That only means there are no WMDs to be found today. What happened to them is a matter well outside the scope of 1441 :rolleyes:

.

Hans blix has stated that he hasn't found WMD's ** YET **! Yet is the keywrod here. It doesn't mean that Iraq doesn't have WMD's, just means that the inspectors have been unsucessful of finding any. While on that note let me also point out that its not the job of the inspectors to find. Our intelligence and the Intelligence of other governments show that he still has these weapons.

The first 4 years of inspections, Saddam denied having ever produced any chemical or biological weapons. It wasn't until 1995 when Saddam admited to having created these weapons. Heck lets just take a look at some of the history here:

April 11 1991, UN passes resolution 687 which calls for a ceasefire and for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed.

June 9, 1991, UN inspectors begin bio/chem inspections.

Aug 15, 1991, UN passes resolution 707 demanding compliance with weapons inspectors.

Oct 15, 1994, UN passes resolution 949 demanding Iraq refrain from threatening its neighbours and again orders compliance with weapons inspectors.

July 1, 1995, Iraq admits it has bio/chem weapons.

June 12, 1996, UN passes resolution 1060 denouncing Iraq's refusal to allow access to sites.

June 21, 1997, Un passes resolution 1115 condemning the repeated refusal of Iraq to allow weapons inspectors to inspection sites.

Oct 23, 1997, UN passes resolution 1134 which reaffirms Iraq's obligations to cooperate with weapons inspectors after Iraqi officials announce that "presidential sites" are off-limits to inspectors.

Nov 12, 1997, UN passes resolution 1137 which rejects Iraqi government's announced intention to prohibit weapons inspections.

Nov 13, 1997, Iraq kicks weapons inspectors out of Iraq.

Nov 20, 1997, Iraq lets weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

Sep 9, 1998, UN passes resolution 1194 condemning Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UN weapons inspectors.

Nov 5, 1998, UN passes resolution 1205 again condemning Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UN weapons inspectors.

Dec 16, 1998, UN weapons inspectors leave Iraq again due to Iraq's refusal to cooperate with the UN.

Nov 8, 20002, the UN unanimously approves resolution 1441 demanding that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional accounting of weapons of mass destruction and to allow inspectors to verify.

You can beleve this fairy tale that Saddam is selling or you can open your eyes and see the truth.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Hans blix has stated that he hasn't found WMD's ** YET **! Yet is the keywrod here. It doesn't mean that Iraq doesn't have WMD's, just means that the inspectors have been unsucessful of finding any. While on that note let me also point out that its not the job of the inspectors to find. Our intelligence and the Intelligence of other governments show that he still has these weapons.

Him proving he does not have the weapons is not reason enough to kill hundreds of innocent civilians.
If the intelligence community does indeed have proof, then where is it ?

The best the US could come up with was some dodgy photoes and tape recordings which the weapons inspectors quashed.

And "yet" doesn't mean that there are weapons there.
It just means that at that particular point in the investigation, they have not found any weapons. It doesn't mean they will.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Maven
The war on Iraq is legal. 1441 is very clear about what Saddam is expected to do and he hasn't. I don't think anyone is saying that Saddam has done what is called for in 1441, they are in dissagreement on what to do about it.

The war is not legal. He was ordered to prove he doesn't have illegal weapons, but that's no justifaction to bomb the country to bits.

If its Saddam you want to get rid of, why punish the people ?
Just like you punished the afghan people : they couldn't rise up against their government so you bombed them instead.

Half the world doesn't want war.
Surely that should be some sort of indication that blowing the country to bits isn't the solution here.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
Him proving he does not have the weapons is not reason enough to kill hundreds of innocent civilians.
If the intelligence community does indeed have proof, then where is it ?

The best the US could come up with was some dodgy photoes and tape recordings which the weapons inspectors quashed.

And "yet" doesn't mean that there are weapons there.
It just means that at that particular point in the investigation, they have not found any weapons. It doesn't mean they will.

Lets stop the BS with the killing of the civilian talks. Far fewer of thier people will die from our war then what would happen if we left him in there. Do you stop and think about that? I'm willing to bet when we go in there, they will be cheering.

Ok then some where between Dec 16, 1998 and Nov 8, 2002, Saddam has destoried those weapons all on his own. He's done it because he feels bad about not doing what the UN called for and decided he would do it in secret without the inspectors there to verify it and without being able to produce so much as a video tape of him doing it. After all he is begining to enjoy all those sanctions in place.

Did you know a jolly fat man comes by at christmas to give all the kids gifts?

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
The war is not legal. He was ordered to prove he doesn't have illegal weapons, but that's no justifaction to bomb the country to bits.

If its Saddam you want to get rid of, why punish the people ?
Just like you punished the afghan people : they couldn't rise up against their government so you bombed them instead.

Half the world doesn't want war.
Surely that should be some sort of indication that blowing the country to bits isn't the solution here.

Your logic is flawed. Thier people cannot overthorw this government, they have tried before and the result was Nerve Gas. So we must go in and do it because their people are not strong enough to do it themselves.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Lets stop the BS with the killing of the civilian talks. Far fewer of thier people will die from our war then what would happen if we left him in there. Do you stop and think about that? I'm willing to bet when we go in there, they will be cheering.

Then why are families arming themselves for the US invasion ?

And why is the US actually doing this.
You've provided lots of reasons, and the US changes its tack argument to argument.

1) To get rid of Saddam because he hurts some of his people
2) To get rid of Saddam because he's a threat to the US
3) To get rid of Saddam because he produces weapons of mass destruction
4) To get rid of Saddam because he funds international terrorism

I only agree that number 1 is correct.
The rest, in my, and half the world's opinion, is a lie.
So lets say he hurts his own people.

How is a B52 bomber going to help remove one man from power ?
A US or UK backed coup would be required.
Not bombing bridges and power stations and the likes.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:08 AM

Leaving Saddam in power is punishment for the people of Iraq.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Your logic is flawed. Thier people cannot overthorw this government, they have tried before and the result was Nerve Gas. So we must go in and do it because their people are not strong enough to do it themselves.

But you're going to bomb their country - and innocent civilians will die in the process.
You did the same in Afghanistan.
The people couldn't overthrow the government, so you bombed the country.

What is this incessant need to bomb Iraq ?
If you want to overthrow a government, you use a coup.
Look at Cesar Chavez in Venezuela!

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Leaving Saddam in power is punishment for the people of Iraq.

And destroying their country around them isn't ?
You don't use cruise missiles and stealth bombers to topple a government.

Arc

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:13 AM

plenderj, man seriously, open your mind and your eyes. I don't know what spell you have over you but my god you really have a lopsided point of view.

Do you really think the American government is going to give up all it's intelligence secrets and sources just to prove to you that what it says is true? I think they gave up plenty secrets as it was suplying what they did. I mean if you knew someone was tapping your phone would you still spill your guts about secrets over that phone? Ofcourse not. So try to understand why America can't release all of it's intelligence.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
Then why are families arming themselves for the US invasion ?

And why is the US actually doing this.
You've provided lots of reasons, and the US changes its tack argument to argument.

1) To get rid of Saddam because he hurts some of his people
2) To get rid of Saddam because he's a threat to the US
3) To get rid of Saddam because he produces weapons of mass destruction
4) To get rid of Saddam because he funds international terrorism

I only agree that number 1 is correct.
The rest, in my, and half the world's opinion, is a lie.
So lets say he hurts his own people.

How is a B52 bomber going to help remove one man from power ?
A US or UK backed coup would be required.
Not bombing bridges and power stations and the likes.

I don't think your understanding that there is more then one reason for going to this war. He does hurt and kill his people, he is a clear and present danger to the national security of America, he has weapons of mass destuction (not nuclear, tho he has tried to make them), he does support terrorism.

I don't think any of the UN members dissagree that saddam isn't disarming. They all know that he isn't, some think he can be delt with through peaceful means and other think the only way to deal with it is with war.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by Arc
Do you really think the American government is going to give up all it's intelligence secrets and sources just to prove to you that what it says is true? I think they gave up plenty secrets as it was suplying what they did. I mean if you knew someone was tapping your phone would you still spill your guts about secrets over that phone? Ofcourse not. So try to understand why America can't release all of it's intelligence.

Lets say someone is on trial, and the prosecutors are pushing for the death penalty.
Unless the prosecutors can actually prove the man did the crime - ie. actually provide the proof - then the man would not be found guilty.

If you want to prove to the international community that there are weapons there then you should show the international community the proof.
Saying that you don't want to reveal your sources is a total cop-out, and is equal to having no proof at all.

You say you already have the proof, then why not let the public know the proof.
You don't need anyone to tell all, because supposedly the proof is already there!

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by Arc
plenderj, man seriously, open your mind and your eyes. I don't know what spell you have over you but my god you really have a lopsided point of view.

Do you really think the American government is going to give up all it's intelligence secrets and sources just to prove to you that what it says is true? I think they gave up plenty secrets as it was suplying what they did. I mean if you knew someone was tapping your phone would you still spill your guts about secrets over that phone? Ofcourse not. So try to understand why America can't release all of it's intelligence.

Yea it’s called logistics. You don’t show what you know because what you know would change.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by Maven
I don't think your understanding that there is more then one reason for going to this war. He does hurt and kill his people, he is a clear and present danger to the national security of America, he has weapons of mass destuction (not nuclear, tho he has tried to make them), he does support terrorism.

I don't think any of the UN members dissagree that saddam isn't disarming. They all know that he isn't, some think he can be delt with through peaceful means and other think the only way to deal with it is with war.

The UN weapons inspectors are saying he's disarming.
But lets come back to your second and third points.

2) He's a threat to the US. Why ? How ? What could he do ?
And if he is such a threat, why is the US and the UK saying the battle will be over very shortly because the Iraqi military is so ill-equipped.

How on earth is he a threat to the security of the US ?
And if he is, then why wasn't he 6 months ago, a year ago, two years ago, ten years ago ?

3) You still haven't proven that he does indeed have illegal weapons.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Yea it’s called logistics. You don’t show what you know because what you know would change.

But the proof was there.
If there is hard proof, then there's hard proof.
Even if the weapons were moved, if the US had proper proof, then that's good enough.

It would be good enough in a court-room.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
Lets say someone is on trial, and the prosecutors are pushing for the death penalty.
Unless the prosecutors can actually prove the man did the crime - ie. actually provide the proof - then the man would not be found guilty.

If you want to prove to the international community that there are weapons there then you should show the international community the proof.
Saying that you don't want to reveal your sources is a total cop-out, and is equal to having no proof at all.

You say you already have the proof, then why not let the public know the proof.
You don't need anyone to tell all, because supposedly the proof is already there!

Military doesn't do that my man, they never have in history. You don't annoucnce on public TV where you are going to strike before you do. Why? Because even a dumbass would know to move it.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Military doesn't do that my man, they never have in history. You don't annoucnce on public TV where you are going to strike before you do. Why? Because even a dumbass would know to move it.

I didn't say strike at the weapons themselves.
If you have the proof you have the proof.
So what if the weapons are moved, you'd have the country in a matter of days anyway.

Or lets say you are soooo utterly paranoid that you don't want to release all your evidence.
Why not show the evidence to the heads of state of countries around the world. Especially to the doubters?

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
But the proof was there.
If there is hard proof, then there's hard proof.
Even if the weapons were moved, if the US had proper proof, then that's good enough.

It would be good enough in a court-room.

The proof will occur once the war gets underway not before. We are dealing with some very dangerous weapons and we'd like to take them out. Not let a whole lot of people die just so you can get it through your head that the war isn't about oil or whatever.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Maven
The proof will occur once the war gets underway not before. We are dealing with some very dangerous weapons and we'd like to take them out. Not let a whole lot of people die just so you can get it through your head that the war isn't about oil or whatever.

So you want to strike a country without proving why you want to do it ?
The police cannot force their way into someone's home without a search warrant - ie. they have proven that they should be allowed enter that home.

Why dont you show the evidence to heads of state around the world.
Have them in turn tell their citizens they have seen the evidence.

Or why not send in special forces teams to secure the weapons ?
There are so many options besides bombing the entire country to pieces that you are ignoring.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
I didn't say strike at the weapons themselves.
If you have the proof you have the proof.
So what if the weapons are moved, you'd have the country in a matter of days anyway.

Or lets say you are soooo utterly paranoid that you don't want to release all your evidence.
Why not show the evidence to the heads of state of countries around the world. Especially to the doubters?

oh I'm sure we have. Its never really been in question if Saddam does or does not have these weapons. I'm pretty sure Iraq is alone on that issue. It has been a question about what to do about it.

Because these weapons are too powerful to toy with like that. Its better that proof comes after the war then to give proof before and get a lot of people killed.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Maven
oh I'm sure we have. Its never really been in question if Saddam does or does not have these weapons. I'm pretty sure Iraq is alone on that issue. It has been a question about what to do about it.

Because these weapons are too powerful to toy with like that. Its better that proof comes after the war then to give proof before and get a lot of people killed.

You realize of course you could come up with any number of justifications for not giving out the proof.
Show the Irish prime minister the proof, show the french president the prood, show the german chancellor the proof.

Then surely they would support a war if they knew that Saddam had these weapons.
Half the world doesn't think that he's a threat.

Why are you ignoring our opinions ?
Surely they're just as valid as the pro-war opinions.
Oh but wait I forgot, Bush & Blair and the media are pro-war.
My mistake.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
So you want to strike a country without proving why you want to do it ?
The police cannot force their way into someone's home without a search warrant - ie. they have proven that they should be allowed enter that home.

Why dont you show the evidence to heads of state around the world.
Have them in turn tell their citizens they have seen the evidence.

Or why not send in special forces teams to secure the weapons ?
There are so many options besides bombing the entire country to pieces that you are ignoring.

We spent more money then the economy of your country on our military. We will do the safest way that we know how to get rid of saddam. I have no clue what their stratigy will be, but you can bet its been thought through by many people.

People would like for the citizens to know but the problem is that what you tell citizens you are also telling the enemy. We are not going to put our troops at more risk just so citizens will know sooner. I say sooner because when this is over then you will know.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:45 AM

So you're saying, that if the US perceives a threat at any point in time, from whatever source, that it can strike, without provocation, and without providing proof until after the engagement ?

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
You realize of course you could come up with any number of justifications for not giving out the proof.
Show the Irish prime minister the proof, show the french president the prood, show the german chancellor the proof.

Then surely they would support a war if they knew that Saddam had these weapons.
Half the world doesn't think that he's a threat.

Why are you ignoring our opinions ?
Surely they're just as valid as the pro-war opinions.
Oh but wait I forgot, Bush & Blair and the media are pro-war.
My mistake.

They have, every government stats that Saddam isn't disarming. What more do you want from us?

Also a lot of leaders are ****ty ones. The world has a lot of leaders who do whatever public opinion says. That isn't a good thing. Public doesn't have the same information that the leaders do.

That gave me a whole new respect for Tony Blair as the british are lucky to have him.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
So you're saying, that if the US perceives a threat at any point in time, from whatever source, that it can strike, without provocation, and without providing proof until after the engagement ?

Any country that is threaten has the right to defend itself.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by Maven
They have, every government stats that Saddam isn't disarming. What more do you want from us?

Also a lot of leaders are ****ty ones. The world has a lot of leaders who do whatever public opinion says. That isn't a good thing. Public doesn't have the same information that the leaders do.

That gave me a whole new respect for Tony Blair as the british are lucky to have him.

Not every leader agrees he isn't disarming. Show me proof of that.
And that's a dictatorship - not democracy.

"Leaders" are elected by the public to serve their country.
Not for the country to serve them.
If they want their country to do something, they should ask the country - not tell the country.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Any country that is threaten has the right to defend itself.

Without first proving that it is indeed threatened ?

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
Not every leader agrees he isn't disarming. Show me proof of that.
And that's a dictatorship - not democracy.

"Leaders" are elected by the public to serve their country.
Not for the country to serve them.
If they want their country to do something, they should ask the country - not tell the country.

Sure they are, name one country that is saying that Iraq has completely been disarmed. Iraq doesn't count =P They are saying that they think they can achive disarming Iraq through peaceful means. I say that they have had 12 years and time has ran out.

It doesnt work that way. You are assuming you know everything that the leader knows, you don't. In most countries the majority does not rule and thats a good thing.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Sure they are, name one country that is saying that Iraq has completely been disarmed. Iraq doesn't count =P They are saying that they think they can achive disarming Iraq through peaceful means. I say that they have had 12 years and time has ran out.

It doesnt work that way. You are assuming you know everything that the leader knows, you don't. In most countries the majority does not rule and thats a good thing.

1) No country says they're completely disarmed. But no-one has said that they're not disarming.

2) I don't assume I know everything the leaders knows.
That's the problem though. If they want the support of the international community they'll have to give a little.

One cannot expect support for such actions without first proving there is a need to do so.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
Without first proving that it is indeed threatened ?

Perhaps your just chosing to ignore what our intelligence officals are saying. I personally think that you have some kind of anti-americanism going on that blinds you from the truth. They have found several clear ties that links Saddam to Al-Q'eada.

In 1993 Iraq supported assassins to attempt to kill President George Bush Sr. on his visit to the gulf. Farouk Hijazi, Iraq’s ambassador to Turkey, met with bin laden in Afghanistan in 1998. Our Intelligence believes that the ambassador was offering asylum to bin laden in Iraq. Contacts between the 9/11 hijackers and Iraqi diplomats have been reported from Malaysia, the UAE, and the Czech Republic. Ramzi Yousef who led the 1993 NY bombs coolly boarded a plane to Baghdad after the attack and still remains there. Considerable evidence shows that he was an Iraqi intelligence officer. Iraq has supported terrorist organizations including Al-Qeada in the past with training, funding, and explosives. Saddam gave funds to the families of the Sept 11th hijackers. We also have intelligence that Iraq was training Iraqi and non-Iraqi people how to hijack airplanes with knives. This was pre-9/11. We have photos from satellites showing this training, we have been told that was the type of training taking place by Iraqi defectors, and the weapon inspectors in Iraq has confirmed the location of the plane used in the training.

I peronsally think that you require Saddam to step out on national TV and announce to the world that he is supporting terrorism before you will believe.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Perhaps your just chosing to ignore what our intelligence officals are saying. I personally think that you have some kind of anti-americanism going on that blinds you from the truth. They have found several clear ties that links Saddam to Al-Q'eada.

So why did the director of the CIA say that there was absolutely no connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda ?

Osama Bin Laden hates Saddam. Saddam kills muslims.
Osama Bin Laden fights for Muslims. They are not in cahoots.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
1) No country says they're completely disarmed. But no-one has said that they're not disarming.

2) I don't assume I know everything the leaders knows.
That's the problem though. If they want the support of the international community they'll have to give a little.

One cannot expect support for such actions without first proving there is a need to do so.

1. Name one country besdes Iraq that says he has did what resolution 1441 called for. He has destoried a few missles (Our intel showed he was even rebuilding them at antoher location) and all question about the biological and chemical weapons are blank. Its already been displayed that Iraq isn't fully cooperating as just a week ago they found some stuff that wasn't declared in the report.

2. They can't tho, thier information is classified. It puts lives in danger when they give out information that they aren't suppose to.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
So why did the director of the CIA say that there was absolutely no connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda ?

Osama Bin Laden hates Saddam. Saddam kills muslims.
Osama Bin Laden fights for Muslims. They are not in cahoots.

That information might I add came from the former director of the CIA who was around at the time this stuff was taking place. His name is John Woosley.

Russia and America hated each other in WW2 but we still fought side by side against the germans. It's called putting away your differences in the name of a commen enemy. Do you honestly think Bin Laden is going to reject support? LOL get real.

DeadEyes

Mar 19th, 2003, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by duc
Heh, if even if it is illegal what will they do, declare war on us?

I think this statement sums up peoples fears of the policy of pre-emptive strike.
Might is right we'll do what we want when we want because you can't stop us.

honeybee

Mar 19th, 2003, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Military doesn't do that my man, they never have in history. You don't annoucnce on public TV where you are going to strike before you do. Why? Because even a dumbass would know to move it.

You wouldn't have to put it on the CNN, like your government seems to be doing about every other thing :rolleyes:

You could have presented the evidence "in camera" to only the UNSC or only to the veto-holding bigwigs. Or to the UN inspectors. The fact that you don't have anything in the name of solid evidence is what makes you talk about the so called secrecy of your intelligence sources.

Also I have not seen any other government than the US claiming they have evidence about Iraq's WMDs. Any nation backing the US on the matter has said they accept the US argument. This defeats the argument that many governments have the proof/evidence.

.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Do you honestly think Bin Laden is going to reject support? LOL get real.

Yes I do.
You would not have fought alongside the germans - especially after you found the concentration camps.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by honeybee
You wouldn't have to put it on the CNN, like your government seems to be doing about every other thing :rolleyes:

You could have presented the evidence "in camera" to only the UNSC or only to the veto-holding bigwigs. Or to the UN inspectors. The fact that you don't have anything in the name of solid evidence is what makes you talk about the so called secrecy of your intelligence sources.

Also I have not seen any other government than the US claiming they have evidence about Iraq's WMDs. Any nation backing the US on the matter has said they accept the US argument. This defeats the argument that many governments have the proof/evidence.

.

What information is shared is done in private and not at the UN. Those countries are under an obligation to not share any of the information with anyone including their own citizens.

To accept the argument means that you agree with it. Most of our intelligence is suggestive evidence and most of the intelligence that your country gathers is to. I like the idea that "We'll support it after he kills 100,000 in a nerve gas attack".

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
Yes I do.
You would not have fought alongside the germans - especially after you found the concentration camps.

Ok if Saddam was to offer Bin Laden a nuclear bomb, your telling me that he woudln't take it? As I said before get real, Bin Laden will take support from anyone who offers it.

By the way did you fall asleep when Bin Laden was threating to attack americans if we attacked Iraq?

ummm where did I say america was fighting alongside germans?

honeybee

Mar 19th, 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Maven
What information is shared is done in private and not at the UN. Those countries are under an obligation to not share any of the information with anyone including their own citizens.

To accept the argument means that you agree with it. Most of our intelligence is suggestive evidence and most of the intelligence that your country gathers is to. I like the idea that "We'll support it after he kills 100,000 in a nerve gas attack".

Sensible and reasonable people would like to take action only after seeing substantial evidence :rolleyes:

That bull's hits about obligation of not sharing intelligence is a flimsy excuse to cover up the fact that the US probably doesn't have an iota of credible evidence. I know for a fact that the intelligence agencies of various countries and governments work hand in hand, passing bits and pieces of information across to each other. Therefore saying the countries are obliged not to share any of such information with others is quite ignorant.

.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Ok if Saddam was to offer Bin Laden a nuclear bomb, your telling me that he woudln't take it? As I said before get real, Bin Laden will take support from anyone who offers it.

By the way did you fall asleep when Bin Laden was threating to attack americans if we attacked Iraq?

ummm where did I say america was fighting alongside germans?

1) Maybe he would. But I doubt Saddam has nuclear weapons.

2) I don't blame him.

3) "Russia and America hated each other in WW2 but we still fought side by side against the germans"
You also hated the Germans - I was drawing a comparison.

swatty

Mar 19th, 2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Maven

By the way did you fall asleep when Bin Laden was threating to attack americans if we attacked Iraq?

I hope the US government is keeping this in mind.

While focusing on Iraq it will become easier to attack the US

swatty

Mar 19th, 2003, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by honeybee
Sensible and reasonable people would like to take action only after seeing substantial evidence :rolleyes:

That bull's hits about obligation of not sharing intelligence is a flimsy excuse to cover up the fact that the US probably doesn't have an iota of credible evidence. I know for a fact that the intelligence agencies of various countries and governments work hand in hand, passing bits and pieces of information across to each other. Therefore saying the countries are obliged not to share any of such information with others is quite ignorant.

.

Quite right .

The US can do like some policemen do searching a man on drugs and putting it on him during the search.

If there was evidence the security agencies of UN country's should know about it.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by honeybee
Sensible and reasonable people would like to take action only after seeing substantial evidence :rolleyes:

That bull's hits about obligation of not sharing intelligence is a flimsy excuse to cover up the fact that the US probably doesn't have an iota of credible evidence. I know for a fact that the intelligence agencies of various countries and governments work hand in hand, passing bits and pieces of information across to each other. Therefore saying the countries are obliged not to share any of such information with others is quite ignorant.

.

Sensible and reasonable people understand that if certian information was made public, it would put troops in danger.

That means they cannot go public with the information presented.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
1) Maybe he would. But I doubt Saddam has nuclear weapons.

2) I don't blame him.

3) "Russia and America hated each other in WW2 but we still fought side by side against the germans"
You also hated the Germans - I was drawing a comparison.

1. Sure he would, he would take any kind of support.
2. I thought they hated each other so much, why would bin laden care?
3. Your comparision was dumb.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Maven
3. Your comparision was dumb.

How was it dumb ?
You were fighting them both in World War 2.
Then you became an ally of one of them to fight the other.

How is it a dumb comparison ?

Gaffer

Mar 19th, 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Sensible and reasonable people understand that if certian information was made public, it would put troops in danger.

That means they cannot go public with the information presented.

You're guestimating. The evidence presented to the world would be thrown out of any court for being spurious. Saying that vital information is being witheld for the security of the troops is a handy scapegoat. I bet you $100 if they found any convincing evidence whatsoever, it woudl be splattered all over the news. They've been chomping at the bit to get into Iraq since February.

Putting troops in danger is also an unqualified statement. The troops in Kuwait have been covering globaly on the major TV channels, and have been there for quite a while. So their positions can be no secret.

Almost every major international incident in recent history has seen sneaky tactics and bending of truths. We only see all the official secret documents (quite rightly so) when they are released to the public until years after the event.

DeadEyes

Mar 19th, 2003, 09:13 AM

Speaking of information being available, I was listening to the radio last week.
Kate Adie
The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq,

Radio Show's transcript (http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm)

run_GMoney

Mar 19th, 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by DeadEyes
Speaking of information being available, I was listening to the radio last week.
Kate Adie

Radio Show's transcript (http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm)

...with their black helicopters

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
How was it dumb ?
You were fighting them both in World War 2.
Then you became an ally of one of them to fight the other.

How is it a dumb comparison ?

We was not fighting russia in WW2. I was making a point with a situation that happened in history where you was making a fairy tale situation.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Gaffer
You're guestimating. The evidence presented to the world would be thrown out of any court for being spurious. Saying that vital information is being witheld for the security of the troops is a handy scapegoat. I bet you $100 if they found any convincing evidence whatsoever, it woudl be splattered all over the news. They've been chomping at the bit to get into Iraq since February.

Putting troops in danger is also an unqualified statement. The troops in Kuwait have been covering globaly on the major TV channels, and have been there for quite a while. So their positions can be no secret.

Almost every major international incident in recent history has seen sneaky tactics and bending of truths. We only see all the official secret documents (quite rightly so) when they are released to the public until years after the event.

If you think the states is going to make all thier information public then your joking yourself.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 09:54 AM

I’m getting board of arguing about this as this is going no where. You cannot convince someone who is anti-American that an American lead war is needed to stop a brutal dictator. We are American after all so that makes everything we do automatically wrong.

To give a nice answer to the poster:

The war with Iraq is legal. Resolution 1441 said that if Iraq failed to disarm and give complete and full cooperation immediately then serious consequences will occur. Resolution 678 authorizes “All means necessary” which is diplomatic code for war. This then gets suspended (crucially not repealed) by a ceasefire in resolution 687, upon conditions (Iraq's disarmament). A breach of resolution 687 of Iraq not co-operating therefore re-invokes resolution 678s authority. Resolution 1441 states that Iraq is in material breach of 687, therefore its authorized, also re-authorized by saying "serious consequences".

run_GMoney

Mar 19th, 2003, 09:58 AM

According to some people on this board, serious consequences equals more inspections and jumping through Sadaam provided hoops.

Gaffer

Mar 19th, 2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Maven
If you think the states is going to make all thier information public then your joking yourself.

Regardless, you are guessing, basing an argument on heresay rather than fact, almost conspiratory. I very much doubt you can believe that if Bush's people found WMDs in iraq, that they'd keep it a secret from the press. I'll bet he was praying to god that he could find some...

Gaffer

Mar 19th, 2003, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by run_GMoney
According to some people on this board, serious consequences equals more inspections and jumping through Sadaam provided hoops.

No, many people on this board believe it is wrong to go to War without the support of fellow nations.

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 11:43 AM

Blix isn't impressed :
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1084250,00.html

And neither is the pope :
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12271887,00.html

run_GMoney

Mar 19th, 2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
Blix isn't impressed :
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1084250,00.html

And neither is the pope :
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12271887,00.html

So what, they're both old. :D

Wally Pipp

Mar 19th, 2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Maven
I’m getting board of arguing about this as this is going no where. You cannot convince someone who is anti-American that an American lead war is needed to stop a brutal dictator ...

So anyone who's disagreeing with you is suddenly anti-American.
What is this ? New international McCarthyism ?

That's what's getting on my tits. You blabber on about freedom, freedom of speech and rights and wrongs but when someone dares to tap on your shoulder and says "it could be done another way. We do not agree with what your president says" and all of a sudden we're vile anti-american moaners who should by rights shut up and leave the arena to the "decent" people.
A year ago you wouldn't call me names, hell, you didn't even know or interact with me but now I'm anti-american scum who lives in a fairytale land.

Freedom of speech ? Perhaps.
Respect for other points of view and other solutions my big hairy backside. You only believe yourself to be 100% right and anyone who dares to disagree must be some anti-american left wing bleeding heart liberal/commie right ?

That's what's so disgusting about all this pro and contra war talk. You can't do it without resorting to the Bush inspired "Them or Us" rethoric.

This isn't a debate, it never was.

Gaffer

Mar 19th, 2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
So anyone who's disagreeing with you is suddenly anti-American.
What is this ? New international McCarthyism ?

That's what's getting on my tits. You blabber on about freedom, freedom of speech and rights and wrongs but when someone dares to tap on your shoulder and says "it could be done another way. We do not agree with what your president says" and all of a sudden we're vile anti-american moaners who should by rights shut up and leave the arena to the "decent" people.
A year ago you wouldn't call me names, hell, you didn't even know or interact with me but now I'm anti-american scum who lives in a fairytale land.

Freedom of speech ? Perhaps.
Respect for other points of view and other solutions my big hairy backside. You only believe yourself to be 100% right and anyone who dares to disagree must be some anti-american left wing bleeding heart liberal/commie right ?

That's what's so disgusting about all this pro and contra war talk. You can't do it without resorting to the Bush inspired "Them or Us" rethoric.

This isn't a debate, it never was.

Agreed, well said Wal... :)

Wally Pipp

Mar 19th, 2003, 11:56 AM

whatever happened to common sense mate ? Did they can it with betamax or something ?

Futt Bucker

Mar 19th, 2003, 12:10 PM

plenderj

Mar 19th, 2003, 12:11 PM

Three cheers for wally!

InvisibleDuncan

Mar 19th, 2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
So anyone who's disagreeing with you is suddenly anti-American....That's what's so disgusting about all this pro and contra war talk. You can't do it without resorting to the Bush inspired "Them or Us" rethoric.
http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=1389235

Futt Bucker

Mar 19th, 2003, 12:22 PM

Oh, and look at all these anti-Americans....

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

It's obviously irellevant that they once fought for their country to brave stay at home chickenhawks like Arc, they're obviously all traitors who deserve to go to prison :rolleyes:

MasterBlaster

Mar 19th, 2003, 01:13 PM

I'm confused? Saddam has repeatedly said he has no WMD. Yesterday he announced he was going to launch Chemical weapons against Allied troops on the southern border:confused:

ID that is very very true. However we were attacked. Unless Bush has been taking lessons from David Copperfield and made the Finincal District in NYC dissappear we were definatly attacked. Saddam Hussein has threatened us, His sons have threatened us. N. Korea has threatened to nuke us. The words came out of their mouths not Bush's. Any way, it's pointless to argue about it now. All we can do is hope our friends and family out there fighting come home safe.

Futt Bucker

Mar 19th, 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
I'm confused? Saddam has repeatedly said he has no WMD. Yesterday he announced he was going to launch Chemical weapons against Allied troops on the southern border:confused:

Did he? All I heard on CNN where statements like "It is believed Saddam has given his troops instructions to use chemical weapons." I never heard of him actually saying it? (I'm not saying he didn't - but a news link would be helpful to fill in my missing knowledge - thanks.

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
ID that is very very true. However we were attacked. Unless Bush has been taking lessons from David Copperfield and made the Finincal District in NYC dissappear we were definatly attacked.
Yes, but not by Iraq.

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Saddam Hussein has threatened us, His sons have threatened us. N. Korea has threatened to nuke us. The words came out of their mouths not Bush's.
You have 300,000 troops on his border, and Bush is constantly threatening to attack, are you surprised he's making threatening statements in return? Who wouldn't?

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Any way, it's pointless to argue about it now. All we can do is hope our friends and family out there fighting come home safe.

Here!, Here!, on both counts. Lets just hope that casualties are minimal or maybe an internal coup or something before the shooting starts.

MasterBlaster

Mar 19th, 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Did he? All I heard on CNN where statements like "It is believed Saddam has given his troops instructions to use chemical weapons." I never heard of him actually saying it? (I'm not saying he didn't - but a news link would be helpful to fill in my missing knowledge - thanks.

Heard it on radio this morning. That's why I was asking. Not sure, the only person they quoted was one of his kids saying that american troops mothers are going to cry blood and are not safe, or something to that effect.

Yes, but not by Iraq.

Are you 100% certain. you know for a fact that the anthrax being mailed around the US wasn't purchased out of saddams stockpiles? I'm not, arguing this point, Just thought I'd put it up for discussion. Saddam dosn't scare me. The people potentially buying chem/bio's off of him do.

You have 300,000 troops on his border, and Bush is constantly threatening to attack, are you surprised he's making threatening statements in return? Who wouldn't?

These threats have been flying at us for the last 12 years.

Xanith

Mar 19th, 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by plenderj
So why did the director of the CIA say that there was absolutely no connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda ?

Osama Bin Laden hates Saddam. Saddam kills muslims.
Osama Bin Laden fights for Muslims. They are not in cahoots.

It’s not like US and British forces trusted the Russians or even liked them during WWII. Yet they still managed to work together and defeat a common enemy in Germany.

You don’t have to like someone your in "cahoots" with. Just agree with the over all goal or objective. Bin Laden and Saddam both hate the US that is their common bond despite their other differences.

X

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:56 PM

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Gaffer
Regardless, you are guessing, basing an argument on heresay rather than fact, almost conspiratory. I very much doubt you can believe that if Bush's people found WMDs in iraq, that they'd keep it a secret from the press. I'll bet he was praying to god that he could find some...

I look at suggestive evidence based on public released information. I cannot tell you what kind of information that has went to other governments but netiher can anyone else.

What kind of proof are you looking for? For us to find it? You do understand that is extremely hard to do and it took us 4 years before we could find any when the inspectors first started.

klopeks

Mar 19th, 2003, 05:01 PM

Yes the was is Legal, what isnt legal is Sadam gasing his own people and he tried to take over Kuwaits oil fields in the 90's.
he is a nusence to the region and he will be destroyed.

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 05:05 PM

NotLKH

Mar 19th, 2003, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Gaffer
No, many people on this board believe it is wrong to go to War without the support of fellow nations.

Then I guess the US can do no wrong, since the US has support from:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Britain, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey and Uzbekistan.

;)

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by NotLKH
Then I guess the US can do no wrong, since the US has support from:

;)

Not to mention that our USA lead Korean and Gulf war have been the only ones EVER backed by the UN. So I think its a bit humerous to be lectured by other countries.

XfoxX

Mar 19th, 2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Maven
Sensible and reasonable people understand that if certian information was made public, it would put troops in danger.

That means they cannot go public with the information presented.

I didn't want to come into this argument, because I don't have the full facts, but the above quote doesn't really make any sense. If Saddam has WMDs, than how does hidding that information would make it any safer for the troops? If he has WMDs he will use it whether this information is public or not. On the other hand, if US shows some hard evidence, US will gain support form many other nations like Canada.

Showing evidence doesn't mean giving out the tricks of the secret service, they only needed to direct the UN inspectors.

Lawyers' views on the legality of this war:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030319/wl_nm/iraq_law_dc_1

Maven

Mar 19th, 2003, 06:43 PM

They have gave evidence as far as audio tapes of orders and satellite photos. This evidence also came from more then our government. Point is that the public is only going to see what doesnt put the troops in danger or contacts inside of iraq.

InvisibleDuncan

Mar 20th, 2003, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Oh I respect everyones views but I'm not going to consistantly argue with someone who is antiamerican in the first place. The debate is useless when someone uses rethoric arguments that are lacking in foundation. Did you read what you just wrote? You accuse those who disagree with you of only doing so because they're anti-American, and then complain that debates are useless when people use arguments that are lacking in foundation.

I feel like I've just been whacked by a bar made of solid irony. :rolleyes:

Maven

Mar 20th, 2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by InvisibleDuncan
Did you read what you just wrote? You accuse those who disagree with you of only doing so because they're anti-American, and then complain that debates are useless when people use arguments that are lacking in foundation.

I feel like I've just been whacked by a bar made of solid irony. :rolleyes:

Plenderj was quoted in another threat saying that he'd like to see our troops attacked with chemical weapons since Saddam is defending himself.

Here is a example quote I get form him:
Osama Bin Laden hates Saddam. Saddam kills muslims.
Osama Bin Laden fights for Muslims. They are not in cahoots.

I take a example from history:
Russia and America hated each other in WW2 but we still fought side by side against the germans. It's called putting away your differences in the name of a commen enemy. Do you honestly think Bin Laden is going to reject support? LOL get real.

It gets turned into this:
Yes I do. You would not have fought alongside the germans - especially after you found the concentration camps.

InvisibleDuncan

Mar 20th, 2003, 07:33 AM

None of that has anything to do with what I posted. Your anti-American post was aimed at Wally, who was taking great pains to explain that not wanting a war is not a synonym for being anti-American. You then say you won't debate because, since he disagrees with the war, he must be anti-American - a completely baseless and fatuous statement. After that, you complain that people make baseless arguments - exactly what you had just done.

plenderj

Mar 20th, 2003, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Plenderj was quoted in another threat saying that he'd like to see our troops attacked with chemical weapons since Saddam is defending himself.

No I didn't say that I would like to see him use chemical weapons.
What I'm saying is that you're invading his country.
In my opinion he has every right to use every military tactic and measure to his disposal.

Gaffer

Mar 20th, 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Maven
They have gave evidence as far as audio tapes of orders and satellite photos. This evidence also came from more then our government. Point is that the public is only going to see what doesnt put the troops in danger or contacts inside of iraq.

..evidence that is unilaterally viewed as being spurious. Personally I think the evidence was embarrassing. Good entertainment as Colin Powell squirmed in his seat as he listed off details that were as convincing as Bush's Florida election "victory" (but that's another issue).

Wally Pipp

Mar 20th, 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Maven
Oh I respect everyones views but I'm not going to consistantly argue with someone who is antiamerican in the first place. The debate is useless when someone uses rethoric arguments that are lacking in foundation.

Good grief man, come off it. Even in the first sentence you have a contradictio in terminis. You respect views but you won't bother with those who are, and I quote, "antiamerican in the first place".
So basically you're saying that the only right arguments, the only good and decent morals, the only good rethoric is yours and those who do not follow are inherently "antiamerican" and thus not worthy of debating. They can safely be ignored because they have no significance to you.

Why did you bother with this "debate" then ? Surely not to "respect everyones views" or to enjoy a hearthy exchange of views.
The only things you've done so far is putting down every alternative and different view as being "antiamerican".

What a shameless, demeaning, condescending arrogance.

run_GMoney

Mar 20th, 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
No I didn't say that I would like to see him use chemical weapons.
What I'm saying is that you're invading his country.
In my opinion he has every right to use every military tactic and measure to his disposal.

I'm sorry, but using chemical and biological weapons is never an acceptable military tactic.

plenderj

Mar 20th, 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by run_GMoney
I'm sorry, but using chemical and biological weapons is never an acceptable military tactic.

Then why did you give him the chemical and biological weapons in the first place ?

run_GMoney

Mar 20th, 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
Then why did you give him the chemical and biological weapons in the first place ?

Well he asked me really nicely and, what can I say, I'm a sucker for politeness.

Maven

Mar 20th, 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Good grief man, come off it. Even in the first sentence you have a contradictio in terminis. You respect views but you won't bother with those who are, and I quote, "antiamerican in the first place".
So basically you're saying that the only right arguments, the only good and decent morals, the only good rethoric is yours and those who do not follow are inherently "antiamerican" and thus not worthy of debating. They can safely be ignored because they have no significance to you.

Why did you bother with this "debate" then ? Surely not to "respect everyones views" or to enjoy a hearthy exchange of views.
The only things you've done so far is putting down every alternative and different view as being "antiamerican".

What a shameless, demeaning, condescending arrogance.

No its realizing a debate is going nowhere and ending it.

Xanith

Mar 20th, 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
Then why did you give him the chemical and biological weapons in the first place ?

Actually it was the Russians that gave Iraq its first chemical weapons. They sold some to Iran too and watched each side gas each other during the Iran/Iraq war. Nice huh.

Of course we can't forget China, France, and Germany who were the other major arms sellers to Iraq.....hmmmm the same countries that were against military action in Iraq. Ironic aint it?

X

plenderj

Mar 20th, 2003, 09:42 AM

http://www.ireland.com/focus/iraq/features/fea1.htm

Xanith

Mar 20th, 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Gaffer
..evidence that is unilaterally viewed as being spurious. Personally I think the evidence was embarrassing. Good entertainment as Colin Powell squirmed in his seat as he listed off details that were as convincing as Bush's Florida election "victory" (but that's another issue).

Don't worry Gaffer you are going to see a lot of what Saddam has been hiding from the world as the war progresses. Then you will have the evidence that US intelligence had all along. Then you can rest well and be assured that this war was the right thing to do.

And your right the Florida elections are another thing. I'm sure you think his brother had something to do with rigging the ballets down there. Of course Im only guessing but it goes in line of your way of thinking :)

X

Xanith

Mar 20th, 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
http://www.ireland.com/focus/iraq/features/fea1.htm

I have to laugh at this link not for the information contained within but the pictures and photos contained within. Take a look at the border on the left side.....its shows a picture of Saddam and a bunch of Iraqi's dressed in white.....makes them out to be innocent and pure. Then you get a different picture looking at the top of the page of the pictures of Bush and Blair looking all sinister and evil.

Nice to see propaganda isn’t dead :)

X

Gaffer

Mar 20th, 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Xanith
Don't worry Gaffer you are going to see a lot of what Saddam has been hiding from the world as the war progresses. Then you will have the evidence that US intelligence had all along. Then you can rest well and be assured that this war was the right thing to do.

If the UK and the US had have let Blix completed his job, then maybe we would have seen what Saddam was hiding without having to suffer the atrocities of war to do so. War should always be the last solution.

And your right the Florida elections are another thing. I'm sure you think his brother had something to do with rigging the ballets down there. Of course Im only guessing but it goes in line of your way of thinking :)

X

I'll tell you my way of thinking. My way of thinking is that if you live by the sword you must die by the sword. And there is nothing as indigestible that gross hippocracy.

The US has had many presidents that deserve admiration, but when I see Bush, a man that used every low down dirty trick in the book to get into presidency, and then preaches the values of freedom and democracy, I believe it stinks of hippocracy.

That to me is a reasonable argument.

Futt Bucker

Mar 20th, 2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Xanith
I have to laugh at this link not for the information contained within but the pictures and photos contained within. Take a look at the border on the left side.....its shows a picture of Saddam and a bunch of Iraqi's dressed in white.....makes them out to be innocent and pure. Then you get a different picture looking at the top of the page of the pictures of Bush and Blair looking all sinister and evil.

Nice to see propaganda isn’t dead :)

X

Ever notice that every picture you see of Saddam he is firing a shotgun off the balcony of his palace........ how many times have they repeated that clip....?

Memnoch1207

Mar 20th, 2003, 10:51 AM

Once again we are back to the same old thing...Blix and the inspectors shouldn't have had to go in in the first place, because Saddam has had 12 years to disarm!

If it took someone where you work 12 years to write a report..I think they would have been fired about 11 years and 51 weeks ago!

And again if the inspections were to continue they would not amount to anything simply because the iraqi government was only providing enough evidence to keep the UN appeased.

We could let the inspections go on for 12 more years and total disarmament would not be accomplished. Why? because for every one weapon saddam says he destroyed, he would probably be building two more to replace it!

Xanith

Mar 20th, 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Ever notice that every picture you see of Saddam he is firing a shotgun off the balcony of his palace........ how many times have they repeated that clip....?

I never said propaganda didn’t exist on both sides. It does. Just pointing out some obvious anti-war propaganda in the link plenderj provided is all. It might lend credence to the people behind that site have ulterior motives in their presentation of the "facts". Therefore I dont put to much credence in anything posted there.

X

Xanith

Mar 20th, 2003, 11:30 AM

I'll tell you my way of thinking. My way of thinking is that if you live by the sword you must die by the sword. And there is nothing as indigestible that gross hippocracy.

Your country and other former colonial powers like France are well known for their actions of sending in troops and military action without the concent of anyone when their interests were at stake. How do you feel about your countries past I wonder? Are you ashamed?

But you are right war should always be the last possible thing used. I believe that it was the only option in this case. I know you disagree but we both are entitled to our opinions.

X

Gaffer

Mar 20th, 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Xanith
Your country and other former colonial powers like France are well known for their actions of sending in troops and military action without the concent of anyone when their interests were at stake. How do you feel about your countries past I wonder? Are you ashamed?

Yup you're right, and it could be the reason why why there are more people against the war in the UK than there are in the US - we know the consequences of hegemonic power more than most (plus the fact that terrorism is not a new phenomenon for us)

Am I ashamed of my countries previous deeds? Absolutely, I think our actions in India and Afirca were appalling. But I do not wear my country's flag on my sleeve you see. That does not make me unpatriotic; I am proud to be British, but I see my country like I see a family member, many flaws, but I love them all the same.

BTW, I have demonstrated my willingness to discuss my country's history before: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1358801&highlight=problem#post1358801

nad_scorp

Mar 20th, 2003, 12:18 PM

George Micheal says: "Shoot the dog"

Nad_Scorp says:
"Shoot the dog" and ****ing kill the Dogger :D :D

UK don't stick ur nose, Spain as well and u 2 UKastralia, Oops Australia.:p

We all know why America is going to war ? OIL and some other clear stuff i won't discuss.
Don't fool us saying they won't to free Iraq, people there seems to prefare Saddam rather than USA's INVASION :o

USA brought Saddam,helped him and gave him weapons

Do you think Saddam has a pocket nuclear bomb ? GET REAL he does :D

Let's face it. US, stand up , get ur **** and get out

PEACE 2 ALL

Futt Bucker

Mar 20th, 2003, 12:21 PM

Arc

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Yes, I am ashamed of Britain past. It's disgraceful. I am still proud to be British though. There is a big difference. Can you say the same about the States? Do you see anything wrong with America's past, or is it all justifiable to you?

I had always kinda hoped that we had evolved beyond those days and were a more enlightened society that didn't require us to solve our differences with war first... diplomacy second.

Where were you the last 6 months when America was trying everything under the sun to solve this diplomatically? Hmm? DId you miss all that? How can you say we're trying war first? And you wonder why you get called ignorant, it's not because you disagree with the "war mongers" it's because your comments are usually full of rhetoric and half truths as well as full out lies.

Futt Bucker

Mar 20th, 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Arc
Where were you the last 6 months when America was trying everything under the sun to solve this diplomatically? Hmm? DId you miss all that? How can you say we're trying war first? And you wonder why you get called ignorant, it's not because you disagree with the "war mongers" it's because your comments are usually full of rhetoric and half truths as well as full out lies.

Ha ha ha - I would laugh if it wasn't so tragic. How has Bush been trying to solve this diplomatically? He has been shifting his requests for compliance (is this about WMD, terrorrism or leadership change?), sabotaging the weapons inspectors at every turn (they're not working, they've never worked - all sound familiar). For months now we've all said that all Bush want's is war. It was that obvious months ago! He was only held in check in the hopes that he could get the UN to legitamise his war. When he couldn't, he could hardly wait to issue an ultimatum that everyone in the entire world knew was impossible for Saddam to accept? If you think the Bush has been a good diplomatic in this crisis, then I shudder to think what he would have to do for you to think of him as a poor diplomat!!

Futt Bucker

Mar 20th, 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Arc
And you wonder why you get called ignorant,

.... no I don't, I know it's because you are a little venomous child who has to resort to name calling when his "facts" are disproved...

Originally posted by Arc
..... it's not because you disagree with the "war mongers" it's because your comments are usually full of rhetoric and half truths as well as full out lies.

Could you point me to some of these half truths and full out lies? Or is this more made up "facts" from Arc's news-service :p

MikkyThomeon

Apr 2nd, 2003, 08:17 AM

Before I start, I have to tell you that I live in a country of mixed and diverse cultures. I coexist peacefully with all other races and religions. Imagine if a 'holy war' was declared against US and Britain. I know how the Muslim people are and how they stick to their religion. Also consider that you cannot protect every British or American from others trying to harm them, even in their own country. At some point this whole thing could get out of hand. If the whole muslim population of the world gets roped in to this, do you think that Britain and Europe have even considered that? I am certain that is not a part of their game plan. If Saddam is about to be assisinated, his last word would most obviously be 'Jihad'. In the spirit of the Muslim religion, he would become a martyr to be glorified by Allah, so to speak.

The involved parties should have carefully thought of the consequences of their actions. I think that the US government thought that they would easily walk over Iraq in 10 days and that would be it. Now it reminds me of Vietnam where the US got cleaned up. The US acted proactively instead of defensively. (What was the big hurry to instigate war??)

I don't think that war is the right way anyway. It is stupid and I am sorry for all the people affected right now. They are people and people in my opinion are important, not money or power. Although they have a different culture, they think and feel just like we do, and the sad thing is that this most basic respect is being neglected.

venerable bede

Apr 2nd, 2003, 08:51 AM

When the hell did a Muslim care if something is legal or illegal.

If its legal they will do it.

If its not legal then Allah sais its OK.

BOMB MECCA

honeybee

Apr 3rd, 2003, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by venerable bede
When the hell did a Muslim care if something is legal or illegal.

If its legal they will do it.

If its not legal then Allah sais its OK.

BOMB MECCA

Yep, and for the Americans, they don't care anymore about legalities of wars either. If it's legal, they are gonna wage it. If it's illegal, Bush supports it and advocates it and advertises it, and they will wage it anyway.

I think I find some kind of a pattern here. :rolleyes:

I think by all counts, the UK has been doing a better job. It didn't appear as trigger-happy as the US, and even in the war, the UK forces are doing a much much better job. One look at the source of friendly fires is enough ;)

And I don't think I should show much sympathy to the likes of you over 9/11 when you constantly talk of bombing a sacred place in another country for no apparent reasons. I say bomb WTC again!!

.