The Iraq Thread

[FSPilot 0]

I bet democrats would love to edit what they said, just in case they accidentally agreed with a republican.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The United States insisted on a vote, the State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said, because Libya's "terrible conduct" should not be rewarded.

The United States has just rejoined the commission after losing its seat in 2001 in a secret vote of member countries.

<span id='postcolor'>

They voted no, but they didn't use their veto. UN Charter chapter V article 27 gives the permanent members of the security council right to block *any* decision that the UN makes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 28 2003,04:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 28 2003,01:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US could have vetoed him out, but didn't. So I hardly see how that would give the US a higher moral ground to discuss this issue from.<span id='postcolor'>

Refer to the other post...

It doesn't seem to give the EU any moral ground to judge human rights violations when they stand aside and let Libya become the chair, for fear of "offending Africa."<span id='postcolor'>

What part of my post was so difficult to understand? The US stood by as well and let Lybia get elected. They could have stopped it any time. The role of the US is in this case identical to the one of Europe.

USA chose to stand aside and let Libya become the chair.

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Very simple: he hauls them out into broad daylight, lets the inspectors have a field day, and if, by some freak chance, he doesnt actually have WMDs, then he can trot out any remnants of the program (research areas, labs, loose materiel, whatever), because we KNOW that at one time he had them, and until we find it, or until UN inspectors can conclusively prove that Saddam actually destroyed them on his own (I almost cracked up while typing that part), then the threat of war will be clear and present.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How could he possibly be so reckless and 'lose' all those weapons into thin air? It's naive to suppose that he just can't prove he doesn't have them - WMDs are always catalogued and tracked. If they are destroyed, of course there is some kind of document of it.

It's incomprihensible to me that some people think that Saddam doesn't know a thing about them. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">its not that he cant, he wont. <span id='postcolor'>

As I said.. He can't possible do anything to satisfy USA.

If he brings out a large amount of WMD's USA would say that if he still had WMD's now then what's the proof that he doesn't have more.

It will just give USA a reason to invade Iraq to destroy the remaining WMD's.

If Iraq came up with some documents that showed that they had destroyed the WMD's I know USA wouldn't accept them.

A piece of paper can easily be faked.

If USA has proof that Iraq has WMD's then show them to the inspectors so they can find them.

But even if it turns out that Iraq has WMD's USA has no right to attack them on their own.

Saddam has allowed to inspectors to visit all the desired places but offcourse his not happy having "western spies" in his country.

I don't think any country in the world would be pleased with a scenario like that in their countries.

I am sure that the proof USA says they have is not enough to convince the security counsil. But USA will take the law in their own hands and attack Iraq.

They do not approve the ICC 'cause that would definitely put Bush and the generals in big problems for attacking Iraq.

Still they continue to judge foreign citizens and countries in their own court.

USA is fanatic to its own laws and values, paying no respects for international rules that oppose to their own.

This is just like islamic countries like Iran.

[Guest]

The most apparent proof of that it doesn't matter what Iraq does is the very clear change of requirement specifications.

First a war on Iraq was motivated as the continuation of the "War on Terror". Every attempt to connect Iraq to AQ failed so another thing was invented.

Iraq's alledged nuclear program was then the new reason for invasion. When that didn't work either then the requirements were changed again.

The latest thing is WMD's in general now with a focus on chemical and biological weapons.

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 28 2003,09:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The most apparent proof of that it doesn't matter what Iraq does is the very clear change of requirement specifications.

First a war on Iraq was motivated as the continuation of the "War on Terror". Every attempt to connect Iraq to AQ failed so another thing was invented.

Iraq's alledged nuclear program was then the new reason for invasion. When that didn't work either then the requirements were changed again.

The latest thing is WMD's in general now with a focus on chemical and biological weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly.. And it's almost impossible for Iraq to prove that they do not have WMD's so therefor USA can finnally attack Iraq.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 28 2003,09:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly.. And it's almost impossible for Iraq to prove that they do not have WMD's so therefor USA can finnally attack Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

It must be one of the hardest things in the world to prove you don't have something. "Look look, I don't have any weapons, see... over there, that empty space of ground, that's where they would be if I had any!". Damned if they do and damned if they don't. They will be attatcked if they can't prove they don't have 'WMD's', and if they do admit to having some, no doubt that would be reason enough to flatten the country back to the dark-ages. (Figuratively speaking).

[theavonlady 2]

Well now it's the UN versus the UN.

[Guest]

I don't find that very surprising. Blix's team deals with chemaical and biological weapons while IAEA deals with nuclear weapons. I think they are both right.

I am pretty cerain that Iraq doesn't have the resources to have an active nuclear program. I wouldn't however be surprised if he has some chemical and biological weapons left. While I certainly don't think it is good that anybody has those weapons, I can understand why he keeps them. It would be foolish to disarm when one's country is in imminent danger of occupation. During the Gulf War a large part of his military capabilities were destroyed. Sanctions and political restrictions don't allow him to rebuild an adequate force for self defence. So he is left only with the choice of keeping a relatively cheap form of destructive capabilities.

The post Gulf War international relations to Iraq are to blame for it. Instead of humiliation we should have pitched for reconciliation and international cultural integration. Yes we should have disarmed him but not with the motivation "..or else!" but by showing that he would not need those weapons, that Iraq's existance wasn't threatened.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 28 2003,08:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They voted no, but they didn't use their veto. UN Charter chapter V article 27 gives the permanent members of the security council right to block *any* decision that the UN makes.

<snip>

What part of my post was so difficult to understand? The US stood by as well and let Lybia get elected. They could have stopped it any time. The role of the US is in this case identical to the one of Europe.

USA chose to stand aside and let Libya become the chair.<span id='postcolor'>

It’s not hard to understand.  It is, however, open to interpretation.

Article 25 states that members of the UN “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.† 

 

So under the present Charter, what is the Security Council’s responsibility?

According to Article 24, it’s the “maintenance of international peace and security.† Any P5 country can veto any Security Council decision -- in other words, the Security Council has practically infinite power over a finite area.  As evidence of the intended subordinate relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council, I submit the following:

Article 10, which states that “The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter (e.g., the Security Council – E6);â€

Paragraph 1 of Article 12, which states that the General Assembly shall not make recommendations while the Security Council is exercising its functions as assigned in the charter unless requested by the Council; and

 

Paragraph 2 of Article 18, which outlines the election of Security Council members by the General Assembly.

Now, although Libya’s election is disgusting, it’s clearly a procedural matter and not a threat to international peace and security.  So how are procedural matters handled?

Assuming that it WAS under the Security Council’s jurisdiction, which it wasn’t, paragraph 2 of Article 27 states that “Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.† As I’m sure you’re aware, paragraph 3 states that concurring votes from P5 nations are required for decisions on all other matters.

Otherwise, we’re back to Article 18 again, which states that each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote, and that decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting.  Veto power is not mentioned in Chapter 4.

Anyone who has even a passing interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict knows that the U.S. isn’t afraid to whip out the Security Council veto, so why would we have gone to the trouble of calling for a vote (remember, for the first time since 1946) if we could have vetoed Libya in the first place?

UN Charter

Holy Jeebus, I feel like I just gave birth… to a lawyer.

Semper Fi

[DarkLight 0]

You know, i've always been against hating the US, and i've always said that i'm not a US hater. But lately, i think i'm changing a lot.

Nothing seems to be good enough, Saddam is no threat to the US, everyone knows that, it's just a stupid excuse that's all.

Saddam dangerous? Hahaha, yeah right, if he even dares to light a fire where he's not allowed to he'll probable get nuked by half europe and the US.

Attacking him because he's a dictator? Again, such a great example of saving the people who live in Iraq. Sad enough, dictators rule all over the world, there are dictators out there that are a lot more dangerous than him, so why take him? I dunno.

Saving the people in Iraq? Hehehe, the last thing they're waiting for is the evil West to invade Iraq.

Oil? It sounds like the main reason, all the other reasons are total bullshit, but everyone denies that it's about oil, so i guess it's not about oil.

I've read the opinion of someone in a magazine, this person says that he thinks this upcoming war is all about power.

I dunno about that, but one thing is for sure, this war proves once again what kind of war hungry president bush is.

I'm getting pretty fucking suck of this bullshit, there's absolutely no fucking excuse why Iraq should get attacked. Damn, everybody nags about Saddam gassing people, it's not always good to look to the past. Hell, Europe isn't aiming all their weapons to Germany just because they started 2 wars, the past is important for us to learn, but let's not use it in a dumb way.

These last months, i feel hatred growing in my body, i don't like to say this, but it's the truth. Everywhere people are protesting against this war. A huge amount of Europe is against a war, Russia and China too, and still good ol' US doesn't give a fuck.

The giving Iraq some more time thing is rather funny too, they'll probable get another week. My ass, as if that's gonna make a difference.

I know a lot of people will dislike me after reading this and personally i don't give a fuck. I'm just saying my opinion, i'm not bashing, just talking, if that isn't allowed, well then perhaps i was wrong. Sorry guys, but i'm very sick of all these warhungry violent people. I don't know about any of you, but i find life a very precious thing and war one of the most horrible things out there. I'm just scared of what will follow next.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 28 2003,20:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You know, i've always been against hating the US, and i've always said that i'm not a US hater.  But lately, i think i'm changing a lot.<span id='postcolor'>

When you say "the US", I am assuming that you mean their current government. Hating the people of a country would be the perfect example of a reason for which you can get banned from the forums.

[ran 0]

most of the US international "diplomatic" actions start to create a sympathy feeling in the masses toward saddam , which i admit ain't that good

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 28 2003,20:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You know, i've always been against hating the US, and i've always said that i'm not a US hater.  But lately, i think i'm changing a lot.<span id='postcolor'>

I understand your feelings, but it`s not the US I`m beginning to dislike. It`s only Bush and his party of war-forcing friends. I still believe that most of the US citizens are against a war with Iraq. At least I hope so

The statement yesterday referring to the usage of nuclear weapons scared me. I believe Bush would nuke everything in his way as long as it is far away from his home.

[Akira 0]

I think it is a good bet that most of America is against it. There is a large and quite vocal group that regularly speaks out against any war in Iraq, and despite what is said about the media, the media is listening to them.

Saw an interesting interview piece in "small town America" at the local VFW. All the veterans were against it, stating there was no clear cause.

Working at the Capitol here in Austin, there are anti-war marches at least a couple times a week, usually at the gate of the Capitol.

I myself am against it with no clear cause, though Saddam is a very very bad man. But that alone isn't enough. Just looking at the posts here on the forum, most of the Americans are against it with no "smoking gun." (I swear if I hear that phrase one more time I'm gonna scream)

The Anti-war movement here is growing stronger and louder, and people have no option but to listen.

EDIT: We will see with the State of the Union address tonight.

[FallenPaladin 0]

Good post, Akira. Makes me feel better that people like you are over there

Let`s see how Bush tries to force a war with unclear reason against the will of his own people. I guess he`ll not be elected again, so let`s hope he`ll not be able to damage the reputation of the USA any further - or do even more critical damage.

[Cloney 0]

I'd say I'm on the fence until some real evidence is presented. Gotta watch that speech tonight.

[Akira 0]

Norwegian Ammo

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 29 2003,02:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Norwegian Ammo<span id='postcolor'>

Not to try and compare rifle ammo to WMD's but that's pretty ironic considering this whole mess is supposedly over what weapons a country should and shouldn't have.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 29 2003,02:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Norwegian Ammo<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, Norway is haunted by "scandals" concerning so called illegal ammo. A couple of months ago it was discovered that both norwegian as well as dutch forces used cluster bombs when training at Dovrefjell. THAT's ironic when thinking about how strongly Norway opposes the use of such bombs/grenades.

During the contras/sandinist war there was yet another scandal involving norwegian manufactured M-72's that mysteriously ended up in the hands of the contras. Over here it's illegal to sell weapons directly or indirectly to countries or parts of an armed conflict. Yet we buy and sell ammo and weapons to/from Turkey. We have also traded weapons and ammo with the israeli's even though it is both forbidden and recently politically banned.

I guess Norwegians sometimes should restrain themselves from believing this: "It's typically norwegian to be good". Believe it or not, but the former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland made this statement several years ago.

(The word "good/ [god] in norwegian is contextual and can be translated as skilled or kind respectively - norwegians pick whatever suits themselves best. )

I'm not so sure about the MK-211 ammo though. It seems to me it's intentional use is against light armour(?) . If so, it would be pretty hard control the use of it, and I must say I fail to see the relevance of your post Akira. US is - like Norway - a Nato member. Naturally we trade weapons and ammo. I bet must ammo can be used in a nonintended and immoral way.

[brgnorway 0]

Bush will present full evidence on Iraq's WMD. That'll be the day! Why didn't he do that long ago?

Don't bet on german, french, russian, chineese support of an attack IF he manages to present such evidence. Most nations will still insist on a peacefull disarmament.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2704507.stm

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 29 2003,05:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bush will present full evidence on Iraq's WMD. That'll be the day! Why didn't he do that long ago?

Don't bet on german, french, russian, chineese support of an attack IF he manages to present such evidence. Most nations will still insist on a peacefull disarmament.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2704507.stm<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah he said the same thing in the State Of The Union.

Feb. 5th seems to be the day of "reckoning", when Powell will present to the UN.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 27 2003,21:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 28 2003,204)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You know, i've always been against hating the US, and i've always said that i'm not a US hater.  But lately, i think i'm changing a lot.<span id='postcolor'>

When you say "the US", I am assuming that you mean their current government. Hating the people of a country would be the perfect example of a reason for which you can get banned from the forums.<span id='postcolor'>

Of course i mean their government, the US citizens have nothing to do with what i said...

[Guest]

Good. Just checking

[Balschoiw 0]

I stayed up late to watch the Bush speech and what can I say ?

It was completely waste of time. Again only speculations were made, he talked about his intel sources that have evidence, but did not present any. He flamed fears and said that US is the best, greatest, most free, bla bla bla...

Anyway I assumed the speach to be that way, so I am not surprised that he tries to sell big red elephants.

What I really liked was the thing he linked the administration with god directly. The US administration seems to be the first representative of god on this planet if you listen to Bush.

Maybe he is the Messiah ?

It´s time to get things started:

Cheney and Rumsfeld ?:

[FSPilot 0]

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=26583