The Iraq Thread

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 28 2003,07:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At first it was about Iraq having links to AQ and that was the reason for going to war.  When that was shown to be flimsy and unsubstantiated evidence, it was suddenly that Saddam has programs producing WMD.  That has been pretty much proved as equally fallacious as the links to AQ.  Now it's about Iraq being unwilling to prove and destroy any WMD.<span id='postcolor'>

It sounds like a cop-out, but my job prevents me from expressing some of my opinions.  I will say that it would have been a good idea to remain focused on the repeated violations of U.N. resolutions.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 28 2003,07:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's starting t look like a vendetta, especially when there is an equally whacked out dictator flaunting his WMD around in Korea.<span id='postcolor'>

Which leads me back to the main reason for enforcing the resolutions.  After watching Iraq for the past decade-plus, how much respect do you think Great Leader has for the U.N.'s authority?  [(Diddly/Squat)*2], that's how much.  And it won't stop with Kim.  Without a world body willing and able to keep order, who's ultimately going to get the call if it becomes necessary to throw down against the next dime-store hood?  Here's a hint, it won't be France or Germany.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 28 2003,07:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All we think is that there are better ways to get rid of him than to level Baghdad.<span id='postcolor'>

If we go, I don't believe that leveling Baghdad is part of the plan.

Semper Fi

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what it boils down to is that after S11 America is feeling scared, which apparently gives them the right to initiate hostilities with any country who they are afraid might pose a threat?

Sorry, that just doesn't wash.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes and no. What it boils down to is that after S11 America realised that we weren't immune from the threat of terrorism. We're no longer protected by the Atlantic and Pacific. We need to protect ourselves which means taking down terrorists and people who would, could and would, or are supporting them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How about NK, who actually have threatened (verbally) the US with WMD?<span id='postcolor'>

We're trying diplomacy first. We're not warmongers like we've been labelled. Besides, NK has been talking trash like a professional wrester, but chances are they're only doing it for attention/political gain.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If America feels it has the right to invade any country that it thinks has WMD and thinks harbours ill will to the mighty US of A, god help us all.

You could use that very same reasoning to attack almost any country in the world.<span id='postcolor'>

We're not invading them simply because they have ill will to us. They're in violation of UN treaties and they post a threat to us. Period.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 28 2003,15:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We're not invading them simply because they have ill will to us. They're in violation of UN treaties and they post a threat to us. Period.<span id='postcolor'>

You just don't believe me,

violation of UN treaties, okay I think I know what you mean, but that's for the U.N. S.C. to decide, why would the U.S. try and force the issue immediately on it's own.

Threat to you, you can't legally attack them by saying they might give weapons away, you have to wait for them to actually attack you or reveal their plan to attack you. And where the only solution is to attack.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 01 2003,03:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">violation of UN treaties, okay I think I know what you mean, but that's for the U.N. S.C. to decide, why would the U.S. try and force the issue immediately on it's own.<span id='postcolor'>

They're a... *reads next paragraph*

D'oh!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Threat to you, you can't legally attack them by saying they might give weapons away, you have to wait for them to actually attack you or reveal their plan to attack you. And where the only solution is to attack.<span id='postcolor'>

No, but we can legally attack them because they're violating res. 1441.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 28 2003,23:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, but we can legally attack them because they're violating res. 1441.<span id='postcolor'>

That's for the security council to decide. Without explicit permission from the SC it is illegal to start a war.

[johnnylump 0]

It's not correct to call U.N. approval a matter of legality, as any sovereign nation can go to war.

Instead, I would say U.N. Security Council endorsement would provide a U.S.-led war with a sense of international legitimacy.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 01 2003,04:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's for the security council to decide. Without explicit permission from the SC it is illegal to start a war.<span id='postcolor'>

According to the UN who doesn't enforce it's own regulations anyway.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (johnnylump @ Feb. 28 2003,23:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Small point ... it's not quite proper to call U.N. approval a matter of legality, as any sovereign nation can go to war. Instead, I would say U.N. Security Council endorsement would provide a U.S.-led war with a sense of international legitimacy.<span id='postcolor'>

It's disputable though whether one is to recongnize UN or it's own government as the highest authoroty! There is no doubt a fact that US won't accept anything to disturb their indipendence and sovereignty - which is perhaps the best reason most US citizens are so sceptical towards UN in the first place (or international treaties for that matter).

When all factors are considered you end up with only one valid term though - and that is moral!

You decide what path you prefer - I'd say the UN is the way to go - and it's legal too  

(I've copied and pasted this - but it's well in line with my own view).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As an elected democracy, the US government is a lawful authority. JUST WAR THEORY

Force can be used as a last resort

But some believe that today the UN, as the highest world authority, is the only "lawful authority" with the right to sanction war. And, through its charter, it requires all members to refrain from use of force. But in practice the right to wage war remains with individual states.

It could also be argued that if public support is against a war, as seems to be the case in Britain, a government lacks the lawful authority to go to war. <span id='postcolor'>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2724019.stm

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 01 2003,00:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As an elected democracy, the US government is a lawful authority. JUST WAR THEORY

Force can be used as a last resort

But some believe that today the UN, as the highest world authority, is the only "lawful authority" with the right to sanction war. And, through its charter, it requires all members to refrain from use of force. But in practice the right to wage war remains with individual states.

It could also be argued that if public support is against a war, as seems to be the case in Britain, a government lacks the lawful authority to go to war. <span id='postcolor'>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2724019.stm<span id='postcolor'>

The important phrasing is "some believe..." pointing to the fact that there is a difference of opinion. Once can not be the "lawful authority" unless unanimous decision/law/charter to the effect is produced.

Similiarly, the US government is a lawful authority because of the Constitution, NOT because of who is heading it, elected or not.

A majority of election or public opinion, would give you a moral authority, but it would not in anyway give you a "lawful" authority. "Lawful", by definition, means it is accepted by law as true.

If a law or part of their charter states that "starting a war is illegal," then you are dealing with an illegal war. But as it states, the ultimate decision still resides with the sovereign states.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 28 2003,18:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 28 2003,03:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA at war with japan, jap is pretty much defeated and they go and drop 2 nukes on civilian cities, apparty we supposed to think thats good, its good to know instead of using armys we just nuke the population to save a few soldiers lifes.(its not like invasion was nessary)<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you for showing your complete lack of knowledge of World War 2.<span id='postcolor'>

thank you for showing a complete lack of understanding the situation.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 28 2003,15:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now THAT'S an irrational fear.<span id='postcolor'>

ur fear of iraq is quite irrational, just what can they do?

Your irrational fear of iraq is not reason to invade and kill hundreds of thousands of them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not only have we been warned not to discuss this, but an invasion WOULD of been necessary, Japan would NOT of surrendered. We saved lives by dropping those bombs. Now drop it or denoir will beat me.<span id='postcolor'>

Its not like you gave japan a chance, just how long would they have lasted with no fuel, no supplies and no allies, russia had just started moving on japan as well. What if iraq was fighting the US and they used that reasoning the nuke the US(assumng they had these weapons like u insist) would that be right, in their eyes it would be.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 01 2003,01:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The important phrasing is "some believe..." pointing to the fact that there is a difference of opinion. <span id='postcolor'>

Well, I never said anything else, did I:

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

It's disputable though whether one is to recongnize UN or it's own government as the highest authoroty!

<span id='postcolor'>

-

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Once can not be the "lawful authority" unless unanimous decision/law/charter to the effect is produced.

<span id='postcolor'>

Actually UN has a charter. No one cares though - including nowadays - and it's a bloddy shame!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A majority of election or public opinion, would give you a moral authority, but it would not in anyway give you a "lawful" authority. "Lawful", by definition, means it is accepted by law as true.

<span id='postcolor'>

Oh yes it would - as in Britain! Because you see, a government as the rest of national assembly's representatives - are exactly that: Representatives.

This can be understood in two ways:

1. their mandate is limited - which means they (idealy) directly represents the interests of their voters.

2. a free mandate where the representative is supposed to make decisions based on judgements on what is best for the voters.

No western democracy has one of those variants (except for USA maybe) but rather a combination of the two.

In serious political matters - and especially as serious as a possible war- one should call for a referendum. If the elected government chooses to ignore the will of the people it would thus be illegal. Referendum is a mean to make the people choose in matters of special interest. It would be illegal in Norway - perhaps not in Russia or USA.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Similiarly, the US government is a lawful authority because of the Constitution, NOT because of who is heading it, elected or not.<span id='postcolor'>

I suppose whatever your government choses to do is within the law because they are elected then. Hmm...that might explain why no one suffered criminal investigation after Pinochet came to power. In most other western democracies - it would be unlawful - and very too!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If a law or part of their charter states that "starting a war is illegal," then you are dealing with an illegal war. But as it states, the ultimate decision still resides with the sovereign states.<span id='postcolor'>

If you are refering to UN's charter you would find that it is illegal to start a war. No one cares though!

[Akira 0]

Iraq Threatens To Gas Kurds

Now how would they gas the Kurds when war starts? With all those weapons they don't have?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 01 2003,02:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq Threatens To Gas Kurds

Now how would they gas the Kurds when war starts? With all those weapons they don't have?<span id='postcolor'>

This is laughable. I would trust Donald Duck more then that article. "Iraqi official" my ass.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 01 2003,02:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 01 2003,02:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq Threatens To Gas Kurds

Now how would they gas the Kurds when war starts? With all those weapons they don't have?<span id='postcolor'>

This is laughable. I would trust Donald Duck more then that article. "Iraqi official" my ass.<span id='postcolor'>

.....are you suggesting Donald Duck works for "MEMRI" ? hehe

Actually - it is indeed laughable. It's sounds like a bad Hollywood-film!

[Akira 0]

I wasn't making a judgement call. Just giving my opinion as well.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually UN has a charter.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you are refering to UN's charter you would find that it is illegal to start a war. No one cares though! <span id='postcolor'>

That's why I mentioned charter. If one signs the charter, then they are bound by that legal document...as in the US.

But also this "legal" entity has to back-up and enforce it's own legal proceedings, otherwise by definition, it's acting illegally against itself! Then what? Where should one go when the "only legal entity" is acting "illegally" against itself?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I suppose whatever your government choses to do is within the law because they are elected then. Hmm...that might explain why no one suffered criminal investigation after Pinochet came to power. In most other western democracies - it would be unlawful - and very too!<span id='postcolor'>

That is just silly. A legal government is still bound by the legal document of its birth, and the legal documents that it produce's.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. their mandate is limited - which means they (idealy) directly represents the interests of their voters.

2. a free mandate where the representative is supposed to make decisions based on judgements on what is best for the voters.<span id='postcolor'>

Ideally, sure. But understood also is that representatives will take in account what is best for the NATION first and foremost. I won't get in an arguement about what that means, obviously that is a definition left to the beholder.

But reality is that representatives will do what is best for them...with the voters a distant second.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 01 2003,03:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wasn't making a judgement call. Just giving my opinion as well.

<span id='postcolor'>

Sounds reasonable.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's why I mentioned charter. If one signs the charter, then they are bound by that legal document...as in the US.

But also this "legal" entity has to back-up and enforce it's own legal proceedings, otherwise by definition, it's acting illegally against itself! Then what? Where should one go when the "only legal entity" is acting "illegally" against itself?

<span id='postcolor'>

Oh this is why you are totally misunderstanding the role of the charter! When a country signs a treaty, charter, deal or whatever - it commits itself to follow what agreed on!

For example, Norway accepts the rulings of the Human rights court of Strasbourg. This means that whenever this court states that norwegian courts have passed on unfair rulings and sentences the norwegian court has to sett up a retrial, reduce the sentence or pardon the person(s) . We could give a damn though - no one is coming to get us! But we don't because it's a moral issue! Comitment!

Same with the UN charter, we respect it (or try to) .

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ideally, sure. But understood also is that representatives will take in account what is best for the NATION first and foremost. I won't get in an arguement about what that means, obviously that is a definition left to the beholder.

<span id='postcolor'>

I would say the people makes a nation. Anyway, that's my definition.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But reality is that representatives will do what is best for them...with the voters a distant second.<span id='postcolor'>

Really - don't you trust your representatives more than that?

If most of you feel that way - then the democracy of your nation must be really screwed!

(I'm not trying to pick a fight )

[Akira 0]

Saddam-Bush Debate

lol

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 01 2003,03:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam-Bush Debate

lol<span id='postcolor'>

hehe....it really was good though!

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh this is why you are totally misunderstanding the role of the charter! When a country signs a treaty, charter, deal or whatever - it commits itself to follow what agreed on!<span id='postcolor'>

I know. That's why I said the US is bound by it. I guess my wording was wierd.

But the question stands. Where is a nation to go if the only "legal" entity is found to be in violation of itself? (Hypothetically)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Really - don't you trust your representatives more than that?

If most of you feel that way - then the democracy of your nation must be really screwed! <span id='postcolor'>

Are you honestly telling me you completely trust your politicians?

I'm not saying they screw the little man over all the time...otherwise they wouldn't get re-elected right? But ALL politicians should be watched closely.

So no...I don't trust em.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 01 2003,03:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But the question stands. Where is a nation to go if the only "legal" entity is found to be in violation of itself? (Hypothetically)

<span id='postcolor'>

+

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But also this "legal" entity has to back-up and enforce it's own legal proceedings, otherwise by definition, it's acting illegally against itself! Then what? Where should one go when the "only legal entity" is acting "illegally" against itself?

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes you have a point there! I would say the only way UN has to enforce it's decisions are with issuing condemnations and sanctions (on trade etc. ). But UN has no court, and the reason might be that it would compromise the primary goal of the organisation which is to ensure cooperation. Not always very effective though!

I believe we need a separate courtsystem in order to handle illegal wars - something like "International Criminal Court".

The only problem is that the economically and militarily strong countries won't give a damn whatever the outcome might be.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are you honestly telling me you completely trust your politicians?

I'm not saying they screw the little man over all the time...otherwise they wouldn't get re-elected right? But ALL politicians should be watched closely.

So no...I don't trust em.<span id='postcolor'>

Hehe...er.....I trust some - but then I'm also realistic about shady deals made behind the curtains. I guess I trust some of the politicians and some of the parties more than others.

Some actually have a fair bit integrity - others none at all. What surprizes me most is that the ones with a total lack of integrity also happen to be the most populare with the people in general. Especially one who cried out after Saddam had gassed the kurds that Norway should allowe itself to sell weapons to him - because everyone else made money that way! Perhaps it's something wrong with the voters every now and then too!  

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 01 2003,04:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Perhaps it's something wrong with the voters every now and then too!   <span id='postcolor'>

How else would you explain Jesse Helms and Ted Kennedy?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 01 2003,04:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 01 2003,04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Perhaps it's something wrong with the voters every now and then too!   <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

How else would you explain Jesse Helms and Ted Kennedy?    <span id='postcolor'>

hehe....or George W. Bush  

What is really scary is that the corporal was democratically elected (no, I'm not comparing him with Bush) .

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ur fear of iraq is quite irrational, just what can they do?

Your irrational fear of iraq is not reason to invade and kill hundreds of thousands of them.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh please do read what I just said a few pages back.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its not like you gave japan a chance<span id='postcolor'>

hahahahahahaha

Look, like I've already said, we've been told not to talk about it since it's pretty irrelevant.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 01 2003,04:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is really scary is that the corporal was democratically elected<span id='postcolor'>

No he wasn't. At least i don't think he was. Was he?