Is the war against Iraq legal ??

[honeybee]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2850043.stm

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

.

[kleinma]

yeah why don't u sue us

[Gaffer]

Originally posted by kleinma
yeah why don't u sue us

Is that the sort of democracy you intend on supplying the rest of the world with?

[kleinma]

im just of hearing all you bash us... i have the freedom of speech.. so i say:

yeah why don't u sue us

and thats that

[Gaffer]

Originally posted by kleinma
im just of hearing all you bash us... i have the freedom of speech.. so i say:


and thats that

So do I, and I say is that the kind of democracy you intend on spreading across the world. I ain't bashing you, I'm just against an illegal war. However, it seems to me that your president is less able to accept that other countries have the right to speak their mind.

I mean, "Freddom Fries" for fcks sake :

[OrdinaryGuy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Zaei]

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

Z.

[Sastraxi]

Originally posted by kleinma
...i have the freedom of speech...

... And Honeybee doesn't?

[Futt Bucker]

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"

[687HA]

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...613348,00.html

[kleinma]

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]

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"

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. 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]

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

blah!

[MasterBlaster]

[duc]

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

[MerrionComputin]

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

[Arc]

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/we....R4qR_DME.html

[MasterBlaster]

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]

Originally posted by NotLKH
blah!

Z.

[SeNdEr]

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]

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.

[honeybee]

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]

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]

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.

[Arc]

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]

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

.

[Nightwalker83]

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.

[Maven]

Originally posted by honeybee
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/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]

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

.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[plenderj]

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!