The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

There was a universal agreement on Kosovo, so while it's results were bad and while it was technically illegal, I still think there was a moral justification for the intervention. The international support was also much stronger then it is now for Iraq. China and Russia were agianst it, but they made a deal of not objecting about it not going through the UNSC so that they could save face and not use a veto.

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if you say no, then thats you, not going and fighting, if everyone sais no, then whats the big bad gov gonna do?

<span id='postcolor'>

break u up with mind control and propaganda then kill u all

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just pray that everyone who was against this war, those who protested, remember this when Bush, Blair and Howard face re-election.

They chose to ignore the protests, so we have to hit them where it hurts - the poll booth.<span id='postcolor'>

whos howard?anyway blair bugged me from the start when he went and banned the last type of pistol u could get here for some cheap votes.

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 18 2003,01:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everyone get ready...Bush will be talking soon.<span id='postcolor'>

well his speech is on bbc1 now which just seems like the usual crap of iraqs really bad and has loads of bad guys and so forth from what i`ve heard so far.

now hes sayingg that saddamn must get out of iraq or they`ll start the war and how he isn`t going against the ppl of iraq and will bring medical and other supllies in and hes asking for the military to give up basicly and not blow up oil lines or use chem/bio weapons.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

48 hours to leave for Suddam Hussein and his sons.

[Schoeler 0]

I'm not arguing about the urgency at all.  If you recheck my posts you'll see that I agree there isn't the urgency to justify a war against Iraq right now.  What I'm pointing out is that under international law, those who claim this is an illegal war are quite wrong.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Doesnt the world community decide whats legal or not then?

<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, it sure does.  The legality in international law is based upon the concept of norms.  For example, it goes against currently established norms to begin an unprovoked war of aggression.  So your quote of the U.N. charter would be correct in defining an illegal war.  Unfortunately, you missed a key component of the wording in that charter.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;"

<span id='postcolor'>

That key word or words are:  "War of aggression".  This is not a war of aggression, it is simply maintaining international crediblity by backing up the consequences of Iraq's failure to disarm according to the 1991 cease-fire treaty.  Iraq has not disarmed in the manner it was supposed to.  It has had 12 years to comply, has been reminded of its need to comply in resolution 1441 and has not yet done so.  Can anyone argue that Iraq has laid out its weapons for inspection and preparation for destruction?  Can anyone argue that it has given records of destroyed weapons to the inspectors?  No, they cannot.  Hans Blix has said as much.  What you can argue effectively is that the Iraqis should be given more time, and a better effort at diplomacy should be undertaken before the very last option of armed conflict is to occur.  What you are arguing, and I must say rather ineffectively is that this war is illegal.  It is not, it is simply a resumption of the 1991 hostilities in accordance with Iraqs failure to comply with the cease-fire agreement after having had 12 years to do so.  Pick a battle you can win.  The morality argument is a winner, I can't counter that because you are correct.  I can cream any legal arguments you try to make.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By the UN charter that the countries involved have ratified it is strictly forbidden to start an offensive war unless given permission by a majority vote without vetoes in the Security Council. So if that's the case then it is illegal, no doubt about it. Bush & Blair are not trying to dispute that.

<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, you're wrong there.  Bush and Blair have claimed and continue to maintain the legality of this war.  The reason they withdrew their resolution was that if it was voted down by the U.N., THEN, the war would become illegal.  By not submitting it to a vote, the U.S. and Great Britain can operate under the rules of international law by enforcing the consequences of Iraq's non-compliance with the 1991 cease-fire agreement which ended hostilities in a legal and sanctioned war.  The reason they don't want a vote is because they would have to continue using diplomatic efforts under international law.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You mightn't like the UN, but without it the world would be a much worse and more conflict filled place.

<span id='postcolor'>

I couldn't agree with you more.  The world is a much more dangerous place without the U.N.  But wouldn't you agree that it is almost equally as dangerous without a credible security council willing to back up its agreements?  If the U.N. is ineffective and divided, the world becomes that much more dangerous.  Who will listen to it?  Who will honor any agreements they make with it?  Force has to be an option, the last option for sure, but eventually, if Iraq didn't comply, we were going to have to go in.  The argument is not IF this is justified, but simply WHEN it is justified.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Mar. 18 2003,02:03)</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">I just pray that everyone who was against this war, those who protested, remember this when Bush, Blair and Howard face re-election.

They chose to ignore the protests, so we have to hit them where it hurts - the poll booth.<span id='postcolor'>

whos howard?anyway blair bugged me from the start when he went and banned the last type of pistol u could get here for some cheap votes.<span id='postcolor'>

John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia.

You know, Australia, the memeber of the "alliance of the willing" everyone seems to forget about, even below Spain.

OK, there's only about 20,000,000 of us, but c'mon.....

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Hmmm, his speech writer has done quite good on trying to get Iraqis to surrender.

"I ask the Iraqi military to act with honour and defend their country by allowing coalition forces to enter"

It is good to see that he was trying to get Iraqis to surrender and telling them not to fight for a corrupt regime.

The one thing I think was total crap was when Bush said "a broad coalition is getting ready to strike Iraq" (or soemthing to that affect).

*Edit* Note that Bush told Iraqis not to burn oil wells?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Mar. 18 2003,02:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*Edit* Note that Bush told Iraqis not to burn oil wells? <span id='postcolor'>

Course he also said not to burn them since they are a great source of wealth for the Iraqi people.

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And of course the Iraqi people are going to side with Saddam. You know they think they won the gulf war right? These people haven't been told the truth about this, they don't have the resources to make a good opinion on the subject.<span id='postcolor'>

and we`ve been getting 100% accurate and untouched info too ?

[SFG 1]

I thought the speech was good, however the camera man did a terrible job at the end when he starts to zoom out... Bush looked like a lost puppy. Wierd camera zoom

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 18 2003,02:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Mar. 18 2003,02:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*Edit* Note that Bush told Iraqis not to burn oil wells? <span id='postcolor'>

Course he also said not to burn them since they are a great source of wealth for the Iraqi people.<span id='postcolor'>

anyway what would the consequences be if america needed oil and couldn`t have it and shouldn`t we be looking at a new system incase for whatever reason their is a shortage in oil in the future?

[Guest]

The interesting wild card left now is Turkey where the military and governemnent is basically for letting US forces to use it's territory. The situation is not however that simple. The parliament is divided on the issue and 90% of Turkey's people are rabidly against letting the US in. A possible and not completelty unlikely scenario is civil disorder and possibly revolution in Turkey if the parliament accepts US presence. You can imagine what that would do to the situation

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Mar. 18 2003,02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 18 2003,02:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Mar. 18 2003,02:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*Edit* Note that Bush told Iraqis not to burn oil wells? <span id='postcolor'>

Course he also said not to burn them since they are a great source of wealth for the Iraqi people.<span id='postcolor'>

anyway what would the consequences be if america needed oil and couldn`t have it and shouldn`t we be looking at a new system incase for whatever reason their is a shortage in oil in the future?<span id='postcolor'>

I've already said I'm for that.

But that wasn't your comment. That's what I'm replying to.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 18 2003,10:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Mar. 18 2003,02:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*Edit* Note that Bush told Iraqis not to burn oil wells? <span id='postcolor'>

Course he also said not to burn them since they are a great source of wealth for the Iraqi people.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats true, but I still find it kind of funny he mentioned it.

He does have a point in that the oil could go a long way in making money for Iraq, but the way Bush said it, it was like he was ordering them not to do.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Well, regardless of what people think, it looks like the U.S. is going in anyway. We shall see within two days.

Anybody want to place any bets on the outcome of the war? I could use some money.

Tyler

[Renagade 0]

well hes hardly gonna come out with "hey dont blast the oil we want it" yes im joking but u get the idea

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 18 2003,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The interesting wild card left now is Turkey where the military and governemnent is basically for letting US forces to use it's territory. The situation is not however that simple. The parliament is divided on the issue and 90% of Turkey's people are rabidly against letting the US in. A possible and not completelty unlikely scenario is civil disorder and possibly revolution in Turkey if the parliament accepts US presence. You can imagine what that would do to the situation  <span id='postcolor'>

I agree that it's interesting, but not for the same reasons.

I suspect that Turkey wants most to retain the option of entering Iraq's north with its own forces to prevent a Kurdish nation from emerging from the dust.  The presence of US forces could severely restrict any such Turkish operation.

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Mar. 18 2003,02:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, regardless of what people think, it looks like the U.S. is going in anyway. We shall see within two days.

Anybody want to place any bets on the outcome of the war?   I could use some money.  

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

yeah, its a shame we cant use our posts in the postcount as betting chips

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 18 2003,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The interesting wild card left now is Turkey where the military and governemnent is basically for letting US forces to use it's territory. The situation is not however that simple. The parliament is divided on the issue and 90% of Turkey's people are rabidly against letting the US in. A possible and not completelty unlikely scenario is civil disorder and possibly revolution in Turkey if the parliament accepts US presence. You can imagine what that would do to the situation  <span id='postcolor'>

I am more concerned that the military would take the power in turkey if the parliament says no.

The military would love to get an opportunity to eliminate PKK.

[crewcutkid 0]

I just saw the speech, not bad. Bush seems reasonable, i think, and i have always thought, since those bm-121 rockets were found with chemical residue in them. What are BM-121s you ask? Well, if memory serves me correctly, they are the type the soviets used on ther Katyusha rocket launchers, an obvious offensive weapon. Let's face it folks, if Saddam wasn't going to attack us here in the U.S., he would have used them on jordan, or syria, or saud, or wherever else.

-Crew

[Bernadotte 0]

No vast battlescapes in no-man's land, this time.  GW 2 will be fought downtown and in the suburbs.  So, when the civilian bodybags begin to pile up on the evening news, I hope every American will think back to 2001-09-11, when they too asked, "why us?"

And next time, please don't act so surprised if we will pity you no more than we would a chain-smoker undergoing his 5th lung surgery.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (crewcutkid @ Mar. 18 2003,02:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's face it folks, if Saddam wasn't going to attack us here in the U.S., he would have used them on jordan, or syria, or saud, or wherever else.<span id='postcolor'>

Umm... Why?

[Frizbee 0]

No, the Iraqi forces SAY that they will fight every step of the way, but in reality, it's just Saddam's empty words.

With vastly superior, and (it's nearly guaranteed after the first few days of the war after the Wild Weasels go in) unchallenged airpower, the Coallition forces can simply pound any and all Iraqi resistance into dust with their precision guided munitions.

Iraqi forces will surrender en masse as they did in the first gulf-war, and the coalition will once again emerge victorious. Only this time, Saddam Hussein will more than likely no longer be in control of the country.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (crewcutkid @ Mar. 18 2003,02:48)

Let's face it folks, if Saddam wasn't going to attack us here in the U.S., he would have used them on jordan, or syria, or saud, or wherever else. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Umm... Why? <span id='postcolor'>

Saddam used chemical and biological weapons on the Kurdish people. He attacked Kuwait in an unprovoked assault. And he's attacked Iran in the past.

He isn't a rational man. He is probably on the border of being a sane man... and that is why he would use the weapons. He'd use them as a show of his strength, as part of another attack, or just simply because he has no little voice that tells him "Turning your car into oncoming traffic is.. counterproductive"

It's a simple fact Saddam has to be removed from power. And THAT is why the UN should all be voting Yes to resolution 1441. The time for diplomacy passed when Iraq first flaunted UN resolutions years ago by firing at aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. Now it is time for action.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Mar. 18 2003,04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam used chemical and biological weapons on the Kurdish people. He attacked Kuwait in an unprovoked assault. And he's attacked Iran in the past.

He isn't a rational man. He is probably on the border of being a sane man... and that is why he would use the weapons. He'd use them as a show of his strength, as part of another attack, or just simply because he has no little voice that tells him "Turning your car into oncoming traffic is.. counterproductive"<span id='postcolor'>

Saddam is anything but crazy. Ruthless and "evil" if you wish, yes, but dumb or crazy.. no. He used WMDs when it suited his needs and when he knew there would be no risk to him. In GW1 on the other hand he did not use them because he knew that he would get a nasty response. USA nuked Japan. Does that mean that Truman was crazy? Ruthless yes. Crazy no.

As for attacking Iran and Kuwait unprovoked, you are doing the same thing to Iraq right now. Iraq has in no way threatened USA. This is a completely unprovoked attack. And don't give me the "enforcing UN resolution" bullshit. If you cared one bit about the UN then you would respect its decision to let the inspectors finish their work.

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

It's a simple fact Saddam has to be removed from power. And THAT is why the UN should all be voting Yes to resolution 1441. The time for diplomacy passed when Iraq first flaunted UN resolutions years ago by firing at aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. Now it is time for action.<span id='postcolor'>

The no fly zones are not UN defined. On the contrary they are violations of international law. The cease-fire agreement included respecting Iraq's borders. So if there was anybody who was in violation of the UN resolutions first it was USA and the UK.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Mar. 18 2003,04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, the Iraqi forces SAY that they will fight every step of the way, but in reality, it's just Saddam's empty words.

With vastly superior, and (it's nearly guaranteed after the first few days of the war after the Wild Weasels go in) unchallenged airpower, the Coallition forces can simply pound any and all Iraqi resistance into dust with their precision guided munitions.

Iraqi forces will surrender en masse as they did in the first gulf-war, and the coalition will once again emerge victorious. Only this time, Saddam Hussein will more than likely no longer be in control of the country.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (crewcutkid @ Mar. 18 2003,02:48)

Let's face it folks, if Saddam wasn't going to attack us here in the U.S., he would have used them on jordan, or syria, or saud, or wherever else. <span id='postcolor'>  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Umm... Why? <span id='postcolor'>

Saddam used chemical and biological weapons on the Kurdish people. He attacked Kuwait in an unprovoked assault. And he's attacked Iran in the past.

He isn't a rational man. He is probably on the border of being a sane man... and that is why he would use the weapons. He'd use them as a show of his strength, as part of another attack, or just simply because he has no little voice that tells him "Turning your car into oncoming traffic is.. counterproductive"

It's a simple fact Saddam has to be removed from power. And THAT is why the UN should all be voting Yes to resolution 1441. The time for diplomacy passed when Iraq first flaunted UN resolutions years ago by firing at aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones.  Now it is time for action.<span id='postcolor'>

Wow. You bought the propoganda lock, stock, and barrel... didnt you?

Firstly:

Saddam was in possesion of chemical and biological weapons during the first Gulf War. And he didnt use them, did he? Even when he could have split the Coalition apart by drawing Israel into the war by filling a few Scuds with chemical weapons.

Secondly:

The UN did vote yes on 1441. France voted yes, as did Germany. The difference of opinion is on how long Iraq should be given. It seems to the majority of people in the world that Iraq wass grudgingly complying with 1441. Only the US felt they werent doing enough.

Thirdly:

The no fly zones were not mandated by the UN. Period. Full stop.

Fourthly:

The flimsy and irrational reasoning that led Saddam to invade Kuwait sounded a great deal like the flimsy and irrational logic in President Bush's speach this evening.