PDA

View Full Version : ALL IRAQ topics here.



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

Serpent
04-27-2003, 08:34 PM
I don't mean to start another "America is a pile of shyte" argument, I'm just stating a fact. Sure, the American way of life is better than, for example, life under Saddam's regime, but it's certainly not perfect. Look at the lack of publically funded education and health, for example, or the extreme poverty of a fairly large percentage of the population, directly as a result of the American way of life.

Australia has some similar problems (although we still have a vestige of public health and education even though our weasel of a PM is slowly gutting it) so our way of life is not perfect either. But then again, we don't try to force that way of life on anyone else.

That's all I'm saying.

And dezhen, be sure to drop us a line and we'll do some yum cha or something when you visit. Plenty of notice required though as my schedule is manic at the moment! ;)

Christopher M
04-27-2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Serpent
Sure, the American way of life is better than, for example, life under Saddam's regime, but it's certainly not perfect.

I think he was saying it's better than anything else, not that it's perfect... and not that I'd agree (Canada and Australia come to mind)...

Just that 'perfection' will never exist, so it's an awfully poor point of comparison.


Look at the lack of publically funded education and health, for example, or the extreme poverty of a fairly large percentage of the population... we still have a vestige of public health and education even though our weasel of a PM is slowly gutting it)...

I think you have to be careful commenting about people 'gutting' social programs, especially if you are unfamiliar with rightist economic models and haven't been around the world much.

A good example for consideration occurs across the Canadian-American border: although the Canadian medicare system is dramatically more comprehensive than the American one, Canadians end up crossing the border in droves to get medical care.

shaolin kungfu
04-27-2003, 08:44 PM
A good example for consideration occurs across the Canadian-American border: although the Canadian medicare system is dramatically more comprehensive than the American one, Canadians end up crossing the border in droves to get medical care.

Do you have any actuall proof of this? I found the canadian medical facilities and staff to be quite competant(SP).

Christopher M
04-27-2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by shaolin kungfu
I found the canadian medical facilities and staff to be quite competant(SP).

Yes, they're generally competent and Canada has some great doctors. That doesn't mean there's nothing pulling/driving people across the border though.

Here are some starting points:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0828/p01s04-wogi.html
http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/vol-157/issue-6/0767.htm
http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/vol-159/issue-11/1395.htm
http://www.marconews.com/00/05/perspective/d459064a.htm
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jennings070601.asp
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html
http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0204/0204.canadapart2.html

The rightist arguments against socialized medicine aren't particularly obscure: imagine if you are the government and you need to deliver health services, so you go to company Cokenike and tell them you'll give them however much money they need to deliver health services for eternity, with no system of quality control, representation, or competition, and no possibility of changing the contract. Moreover, if anyone but Cokenike tries to deliver health services, you will send armed men to their houses to confiscate everything they own and put them in jail.

Are you really surprised this model has some downsides?

Serpent
04-27-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M

I think he was saying it's better than anything else, not that it's perfect...


Fair enough. Same diff though really, my point still stands.



I think you have to be careful commenting about people 'gutting' social programs, especially if you are unfamiliar with rightist economic models and haven't been around the world much.


Not sure what you mean by this.

Christopher M
04-27-2003, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Serpent
Not sure what you mean by this.

Sorry. I meant to indicate that there's a reasonable perspective describing how your remarks that rightist social policies equated to lower standards of life were incorrect.

Serpent
04-27-2003, 10:07 PM
Which is?

Christopher M
04-28-2003, 12:55 PM
Sorry... look at my replies to Shaolin Kungfu for some examples.

Rightist economic policy doesn't assert "social programs don't matter, make them inferior", rather it asserts "socialized models of social program deployment result in inferior service" and proposes an alternative.

Serpent
04-28-2003, 04:38 PM
But doesn't the American health and education system prove that this alternative doesn't work?

Christopher M
04-28-2003, 07:07 PM
That's why I thought the situation regarding Canadian and American medicare was a good example.

By any standard, Canadian medicare is far more socialized than American, yet the Canadian system is in worse shape, and Canadians are crossing the border to pay for care in American hospitals.

So: "But doesn't the American health and education system prove that this alternative doesn't work?" No it doesn't.

As an aside, I'm not a supporter of either system. Not the Canadian one as it conflicts with economic principles, and not the American one as I feel one of the goals of a modern society is to provide a 'right' to high-quality health services to all it's citizens.

Serpent
04-28-2003, 08:21 PM
OK, fair comment. So the obvious next question would be:

What do you think would work?

Christopher M
04-28-2003, 08:53 PM
Say you're the government. You need to determine how you'll handle health service delivery.

A - Pure socialized model: Determine what health care services are required. Hire company X to deliver these services. Company X's contract is renewed every year without question; they face no representation, competition, nor quality control. Collect however much money Company X asks for from the taxpayers and give it to them. Arrest and fine anyone who tries to do what Company X is doing. Citizens use Company X's services freely.

B - Pure unsocialized model: Do nothing. Presumably, a number of private companies will appear to handle health care services, and they will be controlled by the free market. Citizens pay these companies for services.

What's the difference between these models?

In A, the state collects money from the citizens and redistributes it according to the mandates of company X; citizen participation is mandatory. The advantage of this is an equal level of health care for all citizens. The disadvantages are that the absence of the free market will make the service inferior, and generally that the state taking productivity and freedom from its citizens is undesirable.

In B, the opposite is true. The beneficial presence of the free market is there, and the state's oppression is minimized; however, there is no guarantee of health care standards for every citizen.

Can we combine the strengths of both models?

C - Determine what health care services are required. Allow any company to bid on a contract to provide those services. Compare bids and select the best one based on quality and cost. Contract with this company, and collect enough money from the taxpayer to pay for the contract. Renew contracts and/or forge new contracts in this manner over time and as new services open up. Citizens use this company's services freely. Allow other companies to provide similar services using their own money and collecting fee-for-service from citizens.

In this model, health care is universal as in the socialized model; however, it benefits from the free market as does the unsocialized model.

shaolin kungfu
04-28-2003, 09:05 PM
And option c would work if companies had no political say.

Christopher M
04-28-2003, 09:08 PM
I don't follow your argument, sorry.

Serpent
04-28-2003, 09:15 PM
Well, that's interesting, but I take exception to some points. If the health system is run by private enterprise and tender then it will not eventually benefit the citizen as the priority at every turn will be the profits of the company in question.

Health care should be free, covered by tax payers money. It's the government's job to ensure that a quality service is always provided.

Your option C above is similar to what is happening here now with Medicare as the government funded body and various private health care companies vieing for custom. The trouble is that the government are putting more backing and funding into private health care at the expense of the public system

Exactly the same is happening with education, with a very similar model.

The government should be making sure that the publically (tax) funded systems are the pre-eminent systems and they get government assistance. A private fund/school should receive no extra money from the government - if they can't survive, they go under, such is the nature of capitalist ventures.

Christopher M
04-28-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Serpent
If the health system is run by private enterprise and tender then it will not eventually benefit the citizen as the priority at every turn will be the profits of the company in question.

The health system is run by private enterprise regardless of the model. If you put a private enterprise under absolute control of the state and don't call it a private enterprise, it's still a private enterprise. The bottom line will always be a consideration because of a simple, if cruel, fact of life: money is a limited resource. Money is only symbolic of the productivity of the working men. This is, obviously, finite.

The question isn't to determine a system where the constraints of money don't exist - no such system is possible. The question is to determine a system whereby the limited resource of money is most ideally distributed, resulting in ideal services for the citizen. As discussed, the answer to this problem is not the socialized model.


Health care should be free, covered by tax payers money. It's the government's job to ensure that a quality service is always provided.

There are people who would disagree with you under the principle that it isn't the government's responsability to make everything "allright" for every citizen, and that any state oppression is disfavorable.

While I recognize those as important principles for government, I recognize some other principles as *more* important; which is why I agree with you.


Your option C above is similar to what is happening here now with Medicare as the government funded body and various private health care companies vieing for custom. The trouble is that the government are putting more backing and funding into private health care at the expense of the public system.

That doesn't sound at all like what I described then. There's no mechanism for the government putting backing and funding into private health care companies in my model.


The government should be making sure that the publically (tax) funded systems are the pre-eminent systems and they get government assistance.

I agree completely. Which is exactly why I propose a system that allows them to do this.

Serpent
04-28-2003, 09:29 PM
Interesting. It seems like we agree on a lot more than we disagree.

I guess the only point is that you deem an enterprise to be profit driven even if it is "under absolute control of the state". I don't see it that way. I see it as a government's duty to supply free health and education for everyone.

The cost should not be as issue as taxes should easily pay for a total system. And this is where I come across like a bleeding heart liberal. So much is spent on things like defence that could be better spent on domestic things like health and education that these problems with health and education arise.

However, I know that by saying this I will only start the old debate about defending your nation, etc.

It's been good talking to you about this. Cheers.

Christopher M
04-28-2003, 09:42 PM
No, I do agree with you. I'm strongly opposed to large defense budgets; I think health and education should be the two main concerns of government.

I don't understand how it is that state-controlled enterprise isn't profit driven though.

It sounds to me like you are making a distinction between government and private citizens participating in enterprise: that the same subversive act done by citizens would be an altruistic act if done by government. I don't see any reason to give this level of trust to government.

And it sounds to me like you are saying that the taxpayers can donate as much money as is required by the medical industry. The problem with this is that that isn't a set figure. There is no ceiling on how much money the medical industry can spend, and they will happily find ways to spend whatever they can get.

I strongly believe that the real problem we must face is in determining a system where the limited resource of money is most ideally distributed to offer ideal health services to citizens. Any model which begins with the assumption that the constraints of limited money do not exist seems to me to be inherently flawed.

Take care. :)

Serpent
04-28-2003, 09:56 PM
Aha, OK. I see where you're coming from now. I hadn't thought about it like that. Well, in that case, some base level needs to be set, but I guess that should be available for review on a regular basis to ensure that changing needs are addressed.

I wonder if our weasel of Prime Minister reads these forums. I might e-mail this discussion to him! Can't see it doing any good though. He doesn't listen to the population on any other issues and gets away scot free with bald faced lies. Sounds like Bush, huh. *sigh*

Christopher M
04-28-2003, 10:05 PM
Careful, I'm seducing you with capitalist rhetoric. Bwahahaha :D

If you write him a letter, sell him on the benefits of 'direct taxation' as well: instead of government collecting taxes in a variety of ways, all of which go into a general fund which then fuels government action, as many ministries as possible should be fueled via 'direct taxation.' A prime example would be the ministry of transportation. In "my" model, this ministry is entirely distinct from the general government. It collects revenue entirely from taxation upon gas, which no other ministry has access to. In this way, gas tax is directly proportional to how much money needs to be spent maintaining and building the roads. Not only does this eliminate alot of the need for alot of the beaurocracy and make the gas tax sensible to the citizen, it also makes participation with the state voluntary rather than obligatory: if you don't want to have anything to do with the ministry of transporation, don't buy gas... if you're not buying gas, you're not driving a car, and so you're not benefitting from what that ministry does.

Don't mind me, just pimping more capitalism.

... too bad there's not a political party on the planet that believes in any of these things.

Serpent
04-28-2003, 10:09 PM
I'm not seduced yet, just interested. A bit. ;)

I like the idea of direct taxation at first glance, but I'll have to think about it. If it comes from capitalist rhetoric then it must be wrong!

:)

Christopher M
04-28-2003, 10:11 PM
Haha... ok man, take care. Gnight.

Serpent
04-28-2003, 10:12 PM
Sleep tight, capitalist scum.

:p ;)

Leimeng
04-29-2003, 02:26 AM
~ What if resources are not limited as classical economist like to theorize?
~ What if the very definition of resources needs to be expanded or changed to fit with reality?
~ Why should the government have the right or responsiblity to take produced wealth from one person and give it to another person?
~ One of Vermonts many disgraceful politicians states the the iraqi people were better off under Saddam than they are now
~ How did this thread turn from iraq to socialized health care?
~ Why is the sky blue?
~ Who would win in a competion between richard mooney, ashida kim, jim lacy, and sin the?
~ If two trees fall over in outer mongolia, and seven women are talking in las vegas, is it still the man's fault?
~ Become one with the ramble....


peace

sin loi

yi beng kan xue


:cool:

Souljah
04-29-2003, 04:49 AM
I think Bush and Blair may be able to answer you questions (http://www.gaybetamax.co.uk)

:eek: :eek:

guohuen
04-29-2003, 09:36 AM
Yes. Apparently it's still our fault because we have a *****.


P.S. You just can't buy quality entertainment like the Bernie and Jim show.
Did you know that Magic Hat produced a limited quantity brew called "Jeesum Jim!"?

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 09:57 AM
I have to much lethargy in me today to bother.

Design Sifu
04-29-2003, 10:49 AM
Iraqi Bodycount:
MIN:
2136

MAX:
2600

And some comments on Cluster (http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/04/us-uk042903.htm) Bombs. (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/arms/cluster031803.htm)



In Kosovo, six in every 100 bombs were cluster bombs, yet they accounted for a fifth of all civilian deaths. In the year after the Kosovo campaign there were 150 cluster bomb casualties, including 50 deaths.

Several RAF officers resigned their commissions in the 1991 Gulf War in protest against the use of cluster bombs. And in the last 12 years 1,600 Kuwaiti and Iraqi civilians have been killed, and 2,500 have been injured by leftover bomblets.

KENNETH ROTH: Because they are very difficult to target, that is, they disperse over a wide area, they in essence are the only dumb weapon that the Pentagon still uses in populated areas and that's an exception that should simply be stopped altogether.

A certain percentage of the cluster bomblets do not explode on initial contact with the ground. Instead they sit there and in a sense, function like anti-personnel landmines, that is to say, if somebody stumbles upon them they immediately are killed.

RAFAEL EPSTEIN: Reported deaths from cluster bombs include 27 people killed and 54 injured in a Baghdad suburb on April 9, and on April 23rd a US Army Sergeant was killed and several soldiers were injured when a cluster munition exploded. It had been handed to them after being discovered by an Iraqi child.

from here... (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s841398.htm)

e n j o y . . .

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 10:59 AM
Because the lethargy I will just give you an eyeroll:rolleyes:

Bad...bad...Coalition for freeing a repressed people.

MasterKiller
04-29-2003, 11:12 AM
Bad...bad...Coalition for freeing a repressed people

I thought it was about WMD? Or was it disarming Iraq? Or was it Al Qeida links? Awe, I forget.

Christopher M
04-29-2003, 11:30 AM
Thank goodness someone remembered, or they'd still be getting butchered.

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 11:33 AM
Al Qedia links found, wmd mustard gas found, violent government disarmed, links to france helping Iraq, yep.

Free Iraqi people. Yep.

To bad for all the doomsick soothsayers who thought otherwise.

MasterKiller
04-29-2003, 11:59 AM
I bet you guys watch a lot of "Fox News," huh?

norther practitioner
04-29-2003, 12:13 PM
Design Sifu, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, you should present the other side too though.....

Body count:
Iraqi min under Sadam = ?

shaolin kungfu
04-29-2003, 12:23 PM
To bad for all the doomsick soothsayers who thought otherwise.

One of the major reasons for not going to war was the backlash it could cause in the middle east. Our actions and occupations in the middle east is what started this whole thing. No, terrorists didn't decide to target us because we are the only super power, and no it isn't because of our immoral ways of living.

So, what's my point? You don't solve a problem by doing the exact same thing that caused it. And as for thinking that this wasn't succesful, I don't. We don't have saddam and we don't have osama. Sure we "liberated" a repressed people, but what about the handful of other dictators and regimes that currently opress they're people and that we support?

We can some up our acheivements like this...

+Iraqi's are now "free". What that means exactly remains to be seen.

- No saddam. He is still alive somewhere.

- no alqaeda. Takes a lickin and keeps on kickin.

- no Osama. We really fudged this one up.

- Backlash. It can't be good having the whole world hate you. And you can bet we'll hear more about this unprovoked attack down the line, from the middle east especially.

And just to end on a somewhat positive note here's one more plus...

+Whatever threat Iraq did pose to us is now gone.

ewallace
04-29-2003, 12:29 PM
Here's a secret for you Shaolin kungfu...much of the world hates us. It does not matter what we do or don't do. If it's not because of our religion(s), it's our color. If not our color, our arrogance. If not our arrogance, our resources or wealth. To do or not do something based on popular opinion is rediculous, and seems to be a lesson (you can't please everyone) that many people (especially the more liberal demos...and some repubs too) have just not learned or have forgotten.

It's been that way since the beginning of time.

Christopher M
04-29-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by shaolin kungfu
You don't solve a problem by doing the exact same thing that caused it.

Right. What caused the problem was giving Saddam power, failing to oust him in 1991, levelling ineffective sanctions on Iraq, and allowing him to stay there and commit genocide.

That's not what we just did in the war. We did the exact opposite of that. You don't solve a problem by doing the exact same thing that caused it.


Originally posted by northern practitioner
Body count:
Iraqi min under Sadam = ?

The figure I keep hearing is he has averaged 6000 deaths a month since he came to power in 1978. I'm not sure if that includes military deaths and deaths to starvation or what... Certainly there's been at least 260,000 known civilian deaths due to ethnic cleansing; and at least 2,000,000 known civilian deaths to starvation. Both figures are far from comprehensive... they only include the stuff I recall off hand.

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 12:44 PM
Saddam has killed more muslim people than anyone else on earth. Yet we get the planes flown into our buildings. I say blame Brittany Spears.

shaolin kungfu
04-29-2003, 12:45 PM
The problem i was talking about was terrorism against america. The cause was our actions in the middle east. Namely our military bases, and support of oppresive leaders(thank you for pointing that out, BTW.). But let us not forget saddam did most of his oppressing while we supported him.

Christopher M
04-29-2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by shaolin kungfu
The problem i was talking about was terrorism against america.

Thankfully, not everyone is only concerned with America.


But let us not forget saddam did most of his oppressing while we supported him.

He did? The 50,000 Shiites lined up and shot were in 1993. The 1,500,000 people who starved to death were 1992-1997. I wasn't aware we supported him then.

Unless by "we" you meant France.

ewallace
04-29-2003, 12:51 PM
The cause was our actions in the middle east.
I definitely have some major issues with some of our foreign policy. However, I think that statement is extremely inacurrate.

There have always been, and probably always will be, groups that believe that their ways are best and try to impose their will on the rest of the world. They will use anything...religion, politics to gain momentum, numbers and attention to their cause.

And yes, our own government has been guily of that from time to time.

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 12:52 PM
Do you mean Isreal:rolleyes:

The point is that Saddam was a prehistoric style madman. The main point being "was". Now he is either dead or alive. Either way Iraq is no longer his to rape.

Other rogue nations will get the point now. Knock it off with the bullshido or the U.S. government will do something about it.

Kinda like North Korea begging for direct talks with America now.

That is untell one day a democratic gallstone climbs his way back onto the hill and starts messing things up again.

Design Sifu
04-29-2003, 12:52 PM
or at least 200+ years...

or maybe the U.S. is "hated" because "we" traded their "land" for small pox infested blankets...

or maybe because "we" bought their kidnapped ancenstors and worked them to death building the wealth of this nation...

or maybe because "we" use their land as bombing ranges dispite "their" protests...

or maybe because "we" organized bloody coups...

or maybe becuase "we" participate in putting power hungry mongrels into positions of power then complain about how they are power hungry mongrels and bomb their victims to pieces so we can save 'em...

or maybe the rest of the world just doesn't understand the cowboy way...

...maybe...

norther practitioner:
I posted what info I could unearth on Saddam's bodycount... Still waiting on others to deepen said info.

Interestingly with Saddam out, his bodycount's pretty much stopped. In the mean time the Invasion of Iraq is supposedly "over" yet the civilian body-count continues to grow...

wonder if it's those "liberal protesters" the Marines keep shooting at.

Christopher M
04-29-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by ewallace
There have always been, and probably always will be, groups that believe that their ways are best and try to impose their will on the rest of the world. They will use anything...religion, politics to gain momentum, numbers and attention to their cause.

And yes, our own government has been guily of that from time to time.

I know it's the age of relativism so this isn't allowed to be said: but some ways are better than others.

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 12:55 PM
You mean the protestors which shot first.:rolleyes:

It's because of those marines that for the first time in a long time they are able to get out their and protest.

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 12:56 PM
Chris,

Don't let a liberal hear you say that:D

Hell yes some ways are better than others.

Christopher M
04-29-2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Design Sifu
Interestingly with Saddam out, his bodycount's pretty much stopped. In the mean time the Invasion of Iraq is supposedly "over" yet the civilian body-count continues to grow...

wonder if it's those "liberal protesters" the Marines keep shooting at.

Or it might, possibly, just maybe... have something to do with a country of 22 million going, in the course of a week, from a 25 year reign of tyrannical uber-socialism to utter lawlessness.

Nah, that's crazy talk!

ewallace
04-29-2003, 01:02 PM
Some people, Design Sifu comes to mind, are just so blinded by hatred to see any good Black Jack. These little facts and tidbits about civilian deaths were not posted before the war. In fact, I'm sure I could find enough links and reports to prove that footprints in the Arizona desert were made by little green men. It is not true empathy for human life that drives people like that, it's pure hatred. We are worse than Saddam to some people. No amount of logic or evidence can change that.

carly
04-29-2003, 01:03 PM
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14912&CFID=6952502&CFTOKEN=38052648

Christopher M
04-29-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Design Sifu
or at least 200+ years...

or maybe the U.S. is "hated" because "we" traded their "land" for small pox infested blankets...

or maybe because "we" bought their kidnapped ancenstors and worked them to death building the wealth of this nation...

or maybe because "we" use their land as bombing ranges dispite "their" protests...

or maybe because "we" organized bloody coups...

or maybe becuase "we" participate in putting power hungry mongrels into positions of power then complain about how they are power hungry mongrels and bomb their victims to pieces so we can save 'em...

or maybe the rest of the world just doesn't understand the cowboy way...

...maybe...

Who exactly is "we"? Do you mean you? Are you to blame? If not you, why anyone else... say, Bush?

I know you're not leveraging the moral outrage of all of history as an attack against everyone with different political beliefs than you; because that's pretty repugnant.

I'm just not sure what it is, exactly, that you're doing.

I know the "we" isn't *me*. Like most North Americans, I'm the child of one of those ancestors who was worked to death. Kind of peculiar to blame me for the people who enslaved my grand-parents. With that in mind, I'm not comfortable blaming all of North America but me; or all of North America who I happen to disagree with. Are you?

rogue
04-29-2003, 01:06 PM
The problem i was talking about was terrorism against america. The cause was our actions in the middle east. Technically it was our(Clinton Admin) inaction against terrorists that made us a target. We looked like a soft target that would fold like a cheap suit if we had to fight. The badguys thought W was a bafoon who wouldn't fight back, this thought process resulted in 9/11. It also resulted in the defeat of the Taliban, the roll up of al -Queda, the roll up of many other terrorists cells through out the world and new intelligence on the role that certain allies played in protecting the badguys.

Not bad for only a year and a half.

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 01:08 PM
Preaching to the choir on that belief ewallace. True dat.

Hatred of Ameirca comes in all shapes and sizes. Even midgets some whisper. My grandad taught me to never trust a Lilliputian. :D

ewallace
04-29-2003, 01:09 PM
Hatred of Ameirca comes in all shapes and sizes. Even midgets some whisper
Serpent is typing proof of that. :)

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 01:11 PM
The proper pc term for a little person is pygmy.

Badger
04-29-2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Black Jack

Hatred of Ameirca comes in all shapes and sizes.

How true.
I remember seeing a picture of Xeball awhile back. What an ugly Fata$$.



Badger

Christopher M
04-29-2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Black Jack
Chris,

Don't let a liberal hear you say that:D

Hell yes some ways are better than others.

You snotty Americans think your values apply to everyone, don't you? Just because you don't happen to like genocide, that means it's bad when anyone does it, huh!? Maybe you should open your eyes and actually see the rest of the world! There are all sorts of cultures who don't have any problem with genocide! Are you better than them!? Are you!? God your cultural insensitivity makes me sick. When I was young, we killed every race who looked at you the wrong way, and we liked it that way! You **** American kids...

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 01:14 PM
Badger,

Tell me and be honest.....was he a pygmy?

Badger
04-29-2003, 01:16 PM
Yep...A Porky Pigmy.





Badger

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 01:21 PM
I knew it. So midgets do hate America.

That must be a sight on those brazil beaches. Unquencable pockets of arse fat sticking out from between the speedoes.

Design Sifu
04-29-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M


Or it might, possibly, just maybe... have something to do with a country of 22 million going, in the course of a week, from a 25 year reign of tyrannical uber-socialism to utter lawlessness.

Nah, that's crazy talk!

Maybe... is the US to be blamed for that as well?

as for the "we"
...it was for the retorical "Americans" who have been hated "since the begining of time" :rolleyes:

ewallace:
I'm yawning at your presumption I'm to blinded by hatred to see facts...
...offer me some...

how many people where Killed during Saddam's reign?

how many children?

ewallace
04-29-2003, 02:07 PM
I was referring to mankind since the begining of time.


wonder if it's those "liberal protesters" the Marines keep shooting at.
Ring a bell? It couldn't possibly be because they were shot at could it? Those evil americans just shoot at anybody that don't like them huh?

ewallace
04-29-2003, 02:13 PM
how many people where Killed during Saddam's reign?
how many children?

Seeing as how you are so concerned with people dying, I would think that you would already have the answer. Or do you only look for statistics to further illustrate your POV?

Design Sifu
04-29-2003, 04:08 PM
your arguement's falling flat particularly with regards to your attempts to make it personal...

want to check my spelling next?

We had the talk on stats before... I offered you what I found & asked the same of you. . .well?

It couldn't possibly be because they were shot at could it?

that could be a possibility, but where also in the "boy who cries wolf" territory. The Pentagon made this claim when Marines fired onto people protesting what's-his-face's speach in Bagdad only to later recant that claim and admit fault. What happen where you too busy wahing your flag to catch that tidbit of news?
:rolleyes:

Oh and you're Avatar still sucks!!!:mad:
Nyyyyaaaa so there!!!
:p

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 04:54 PM
I wonder if certain people forget he was called the Butcher of Baghdad. He did not get that nickname from giving out free meat to his people ya know.

Certain people on this forum and around the world only seem to issue out platitudes and other nonsense while never addressing the horrors of the Iraqi opression. To do so would be to acknowledge how stupid they sound for supporting him and his actions of mass murder, torture, rape, disapperances, execution without fair trail, forced deportation, and other human rights abuses which have been going on since his totalitarian regime took over the helm.

When confronted with the truth and not liberal anti-us propaganda they revert to a series of ad hominems.

Morality goes deeper than state boundaries and so does the safety of the free world. Wake up.

Serpent
04-29-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by ewallace

Serpent is typing proof of that. :)

Well, if that ain't the pot calling the kettle a midget!

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 04:57 PM
The proper pc term is pygmy. Don't be such a redneck.

Serpent
04-29-2003, 04:58 PM
BTW, as far as the war is concerned, where are the WMD that Bush was so convinced about? They seem to be as well concealed as his "evidence" at the moment.

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 05:00 PM
A free Iraqi people not enough for ya. Mustard gas was found in Iraq or would you prefer the post ww1 stuff like sarin.

Laughing Cow
04-29-2003, 05:05 PM
BJ.

I see you are still equaling:
Anti-US goverment = pro-Saddam.
Grow up, most hated you long before Iraq War I.


As for moralilty it might go beyond state boundaries but there is NO universal morality.

This is one of the MAJOR problems with the U.N. and similar organisation they were founded one 1 type of Morality (Judeo-Christian) and now say that THIS is the only good and acceptable way and everybody need to adhere to it.
Which acutally is quiet funny since msot of our modern ways of thinking, goverment and research are based on Chinese and other asian ideas.

Look at the current situation in Iraq as a perfect example.
1.) Iraq sez they want a theocracy.
2.) US sez State and mosgue need to be seperated. Are state and church really seperate in the US?

Even if the Iraqi goverment gets a democracy it won't prevent the majority from selecting a leader that they want and will install changes to support a more theocratic goverment.

IMO, Iraq will end up as either one of the following two:
1.) Another Kosovo.
2.) Another taliban type goverment, but more moderate.

Seeya.

Serpent
04-29-2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Black Jack
A free Iraqi people not enough for ya. Mustard gas was found in Iraq or would you prefer the post ww1 stuff like sarin.

The "justification" for the US invading Iraq was primarily the threat of WMD and so far none have been found. Mustard Gas?

And LC's right. Most people hated y'all long before Iraq 1.

Marky
04-29-2003, 05:55 PM
"most hated you long before Iraq War I"


let them hate, so long as they fear --Caligula


Of course, Rome fell regardless, but the Caesars didn't have nuclear weapons. We're almost at the point in time where history repeats it's "vast power shift" cycle.... but if nukes form a brick wall, what happens? Doesn't have a whole lot to do with Iraq, but it's a little related if you're one of those prophetic types.

Christopher M
04-29-2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
they were founded one 1 type of Morality (Judeo-Christian) and now say that THIS is the only good and acceptable way and everybody need to adhere to it.

Preach on, brothah!

Some men say well, I don't care for rape and torture; so there shall be no rape and torture in the world while I watch!

But I say, SHAME on those men! SHAME! It's exactly the kind of subversive nonsense preached by judeo-christian bigots that keeps rape and torture from happening any place people choose, the way it should be!

If they could catch a glimpse of the world outside their Disney and MTV-owned borders, they'd realize there is a TIME and a PLACE for rape and torture!

But they refuse! No, they CLOSE THEIR EYES! They belittle the dignitude of other cultures!

So I say SHAME!

rogue
04-29-2003, 07:58 PM
Since there haven't been any WMD found let's put the Baath party back in power. Acid baths for everyone!

Black Jack
04-29-2003, 08:08 PM
LC,

I am an atheist so I don't talk religous dogma but I know this asianophile statement is full of complete cr@p.

"Which actually is quite funny considering most of our modern way of thinking, government and research are based on chinese and other asian ideals."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Focused on WMD's still. Coalition forces may of not uncovered the vast amounts you are looking for as of yet in a country the size of california but trace amounts have been reported. Such as the 11 barrels found in the south or Iraq and those traces found in a sewer system.

Lets see what your not still focusing on.

Future actions that liberal doomspeakers kept predicting but now need oral surgery to remove their foot from their mouth as the swift victory of the coalition has shown these prophecies to be entirely opposite.

1. The war would drag on and last years- false
2. There would be thousands on thousand of coalition casualties- false
3. This will be another Vietnam- false
4. Iraqi's love Hussein and do NOT want to be liberated- false
5. Iraqi civilans will meet in great number and fight coalition forces to the death in the streets of Bagdhad- false
6. There will be massive backfiring of terrorist attacks on coalition home grounds- false
7. There will be chemical weapons used on our troops- false
8. This will turn into a nuclear war- false
9. There will be Iraq civilan casualties in vast numbers bordering on the hundreds of thousands- false
10. This war is for oil- false

Also for the grin of it.

Weapons imported by Iraq- (I wonder if anybody can see any political connections to oppossing this war in Iraq).

Former Soviet Union- (UNSC) 57%
France- 13% (Lets also not forget the billions in oil contract these ***** a$$ frog traitors were due)
China-12%
U.S.A- 1%

ewallace
04-29-2003, 08:21 PM
You still post the stats on the casualties due to the war. I don't see the same effort in regards to casualties suffered at the hands of the former regime. And if it is innocent people that you are concerned about, why do I not see you post the current counts of infants dying due to the population control policy of the Chinese government? Don't ask me to post stats, because I do not do so on a routine basis to futher my POV.

As for the most recent scuffle, just look at the building where our troops were standing on, and you (should) see just how peaceful that demonstration was.

My avatar may suck, but your's describes you great. Looks like a whiney European to me. :)


Grow up, most hated you long before Iraq War I.
And you wonder why most americans could give a crap about international news.

It's just like when I moved to san antonio from Chicago. Everyone seemed to hate the Bulls and Michael Jordan. It's not because the Bulls did anyting to them personally, they just couldn't stand their success, and that the Bull's success prevented them from having much success.

Serpent
04-29-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by rogue
Since there haven't been any WMD found let's put the Baath party back in power. Acid baths for everyone!

The connection is moot.

Most anti-war voices agree that Saddam was bad and the people were oppressed.

The US invaded Iraq because it had evidence of WMD, yet still can't find them now they are an occupying force.

Get it?

Probably not.

Serpent
04-29-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by ewallace
It's just like when I moved to san antonio from Chicago. Everyone seemed to hate the Bulls and Michael Jordan. It's not because the Bulls did anyting to them personally, they just couldn't stand their success, and that the Bull's success prevented them from having much success.

You really think that this is why the majority of the globe hates the US?

That's priceless!

Christopher M
04-29-2003, 09:13 PM
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm

Required reading if you wanna comment about Iraq...

... at the GAY! BAR! GAY! BAR! GAY BAR! WAAAAAIIIIOOOOOOOO!!!

Ewallace is close... the rest of the world doesn't hate the US because of the Bulls... they hate the US because of that guy Bull from Night Court. Like, what was up with that guy anyway?

shaolin kungfu
04-29-2003, 09:56 PM
Like, what was up with that guy anyway?

The world may never know.

Laughing Cow
04-29-2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Black Jack
LC,

I am an atheist so I don't talk religous dogma but I know this asianophile statement is full of complete cr@p.


I am of NO faith, but the fact remains that the U.N. is founded on those principles and the west has been steadily trying to bring those values to other nations.

Maybe you need do to a bit more research.
Many things were invented by the Chinese but not put to the same use as in the West.
Lets see Compass, Plough, Wheelbarrow, Rocket launchers, movable type printing, paper, just to name a few.

Many Western scientific advances only happened after eastern influences brought in by the Arabs from China.

The Chinese were way ahead in many things and forgot about them only to be re-introduced by western monks and similar.

Seeya.

P.S.: The japanese were the ONLY people to create mummies with ALL organs intact. It is called self-mummyfication.

ewallace
04-30-2003, 09:27 AM
You really think that this is why the majority of the globe hates the US?
Nah, I just know that statements like that really p.iss you guys off sometimes.

Badger
04-30-2003, 09:32 AM
Now that's Comedy!:D :p

Design Sifu
04-30-2003, 10:43 AM
U.S. Reaches Cease-Fire With Terror Group (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030429/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_iran_mujahedeen_5)


The deal signed April 15 with the Iraq (news - web sites)-based Mujahedeen Khalq, or People's Mujahedeen, doesn't require its fighters to surrender to coalition forces — at least for now, said a military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The cease-fire appears to be a way for the United States to increase pressure on Iran, which Washington has accused of meddling in Iraq after the collapse of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime.

But the cease-fire represents a conundrum of sorts for the United States, which has classified the Mujahedeen Khalq as a terrorist organization. The United States went to war against Iraq in part to dismantle what it said were terrorist networks supported by Saddam's regime.

Yet the U.S. military negotiated a cease-fire with the group, has allowed its fighters to keep their weapons and has allowed them to use military force against what the United States says are Iranian infiltrators entering Iraq.

ewally:
You keep complaining about the same thing... I've already posted the stats you've been demanding and yet you seem unwilling to offer any real info of your own... instead you're offering statements that attempt to really p.iss guys off...

So please, attempt to inform me, you may meet with greater success.

in the mean time I'll explain again that as a US citizen the taxes I pay for MY government are also funding, indirectly, the deaths of 2149 to 2615 civilians in Iraq, to date. To me that's an outrage and I have now qualms about saying so. Now you may be confusing said outrage as "hate" but your wrong in doing so...

BTW my Avatar is still better than yours:p

ewallace
04-30-2003, 11:07 AM
I've already posted the stats you've been demanding and yet you seem unwilling to offer any real info of your own
You posted stats on the number of children dead in China? Where?

It's not even about the actual stats. My point is that you are using a pretty gross method of providing substance to prove your point. If you were so concerned about people dying, it wouldn't just be the iraqis you constantly post about.

MasterKiller
04-30-2003, 11:26 AM
it wouldn't just be the iraqis you constantly post about.

Isn't this thread called "ALL IRAQ topics here"?

Design Sifu
04-30-2003, 11:29 AM
Based on your post am I to infer that you're not concerned by the death of children anywhere?

ewallace
04-30-2003, 12:34 PM
Quite the contrary. It's the repetition with which you post the count that makes it appear that you are concerned with human loss, except that you seem concerned only with loss that may somehow validate your point of view.


Isn't this thread called "ALL IRAQ topics here"?
Point taken.

ewallace
04-30-2003, 12:43 PM
And addressing me as Wally would definitely have gotten you a swollen nose back in grade school. :)

Design Sifu
04-30-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by ewallace
And addressing me as Wally would definitely have gotten you a swollen nose back in grade school. :)

got ya!!! ;)

Christopher M
04-30-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Design Sifu
as a US citizen the taxes I pay for MY government are also funding, indirectly, the deaths of 2149 to 2615 civilians in Iraq, to date. To me that's an outrage and I have now qualms about saying so.

Maybe it would be more tolerable if you considered the lives it saved as well; or more powerfull an argument if you proposed the alternative you would have favored.



P.S. Um... have you guys checked my avatar!? He brings joy and love.


And sunflower seeds.


He's not shaking his fist... he's not angry about the pool... it's only about love with him.

Design Sifu
04-30-2003, 04:36 PM
He's not shaking his fist... he's not angry about the pool... it's only about love with him.

What are YOU.... some Liberal Hippy Luv Child????:mad:

Serpent
04-30-2003, 04:54 PM
No, he's capitalist scum. His avatar must be designed to make you want to buy something.

;)

Laughing Cow
04-30-2003, 07:45 PM
Here is one thing I would like to see done by the US-Goverment.

Take the quartet of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld. Rice and Kelly and bury them somewhere deep in the Mojave Dessert and forget the location.

:D

This should get some more nasty responses.

Cheers.

Christopher M
04-30-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
This should get some more nasty responses.

Nah, I'll use it as a springboard to link up an important concept you gotta understand if you want to figure out American politics right now: http://heartsandminds.da.ru/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=34&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

ewallace
05-01-2003, 06:59 AM
Take the quartet of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld. Rice and Kelly and bury them somewhere deep in the Mojave Dessert and forget the location.
There is no Mojave dessert. Those are just more Austrian lies.

Marky
05-01-2003, 07:25 AM
Mojave Dessert..... that sounds tasty...

ewallace
05-01-2003, 07:31 AM
A bowl of sand with a cherry on top is a delicacy in some parts of the world.

MasterKiller
05-01-2003, 07:33 AM
When I lived in Mexico, they used to fry beetles in a Wok and eat them in hot tortillas.

Sand sounds comparitively better.

ewallace
05-01-2003, 07:39 AM
You should try boiled and grilled squirrel. Good eats.

Design Sifu
05-01-2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by ewallace
Take the quartet of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld. Rice and Kelly and bury them somewhere deep in the Mojave Dessert and forget the location.


There is no Mojave dessert. Those are just more Austrian lies.

Oh no... I've been decieved...

Actually the Mojave Desert is an Amazing place! I've driven through it amidst my yearly trek to and from Phoenix Az.

The one road that cuts through the desert it prettymuch a straight shot for about an hour rising up and droping in these long slow waves relative to the teared layers of the desert itself.

Just when the "secret: military base" comes with-in view the road turns left eventually meeting up with the famous ROUTE 66 at Barstow... a town so small you'll miss it if you blink... Listen to the song.

Anyway... My point.

The Mojave desert's too good for 'em...

I say Death Valley... or the Gobi Desert for variety.

Serpent
05-01-2003, 04:49 PM
Try outback Australia. Makes the Mojave look like a kid's sandbox. ;)

Design Sifu
05-01-2003, 04:58 PM
Try outback Australia. Makes the Mojave look like a kid's sandbox.

I would love to... it's a long drive though...

M E A N W H I L E:

Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.

"We were not lying," (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html) said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."

But Saddam was guilty of all these things and he met another requirement as well — a prime location, in the heart of the Middle East, between Syria and Iran, two countries the United States wanted to send a message to.

That message: If you collaborate with terrorists, you do so at your own peril. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030429/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_iran_mujahedeen_5)

Officials said that even if Saddam had backed down and avoided war by admitting to having weapons of mass destruction, the world would have received the same message; Don't mess with the United States.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey said on Nightline this week that although he believed Saddam was a serious threat and had dangerous weapons, going to war to prove a point was wrong.

"I don't think you should go to war to set examples or send messages," Woolsey said.

elsewhere... (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0425-01.htm)

joedoe
05-01-2003, 05:00 PM
Wow they lied to us?!?!?!?! What a surprise!

Design Sifu
05-01-2003, 05:02 PM
I know... how disapointing...

Next "they'll" admit it IS about oil!!!

joedoe
05-01-2003, 05:04 PM
That I highly doubt.

I was sent an interesting powerpoint presentation outlining the economics of war and how the USA would fare from the latest war. Little simplistic but interesting nonetheless.

Serpent
05-01-2003, 05:21 PM
Oil is only a part of the geopolitical strategic advantage that the US is slowly creating for itself.

Our way or the highway, World. Yeee-haaaw!

Radhnoti
05-01-2003, 07:08 PM
You guys say: "blah blah blah...bad U.S. ....blah blah...conspiracy...blah."

I hear: "Why can't my country be so cool?"


:p

:D

A competent and self-confident person is incapable of jealousy in anything. Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity.
--Robert A. Heinlein


Edit...found a more appropriate quote for this "discussion".

"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." --H.G. Wells

joedoe
05-01-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Radhnoti
You guys say: "blah blah blah...bad U.S. ....blah blah...conspiracy...blah."

I hear: "Why can't my country be so cool?"


:p

:D

A competent and self-confident person is incapable of jealousy in anything. Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity.
--Robert A. Heinlein

You need your hearing checked then :D

Radhnoti
05-01-2003, 07:13 PM
What?


;)

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Radhnoti
You guys say: "blah blah blah...bad U.S. ....blah blah...conspiracy...blah."

I hear: "Why can't my country be so cool?"


Wash your ears more often or get a hearing aid.
:D :D

Maybe it is the foreign tongues and accents that confuse you.
;)

Radhnoti
05-01-2003, 07:23 PM
I don't even know why they let you "ferigners" on here anyway...I mean...HELLO...it IS called America Online, right?

:confused:

:)

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Radhnoti
I don't even know why they let you "ferigners" on here anyway...I mean...HELLO...it IS called America Online, right?

:confused:

:)

Ever heard of "GOL" (Global Online), the rest of the world refuses to use AO-Hell.

:D :D

Radhnoti
05-01-2003, 07:37 PM
GOL? Is that like Earthlink? Personally, I use "USAFIRST". Their slogan is, "We're number one, like the world's only true superpower, BABY." I never knew what a good slogan it was until this very moment...
Don't know why you outsiders gotta nose in on a good thing like this hyere internet. Did you know our ex-vice president invented the blasted thing?

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Radhnoti
Don't know why you outsiders gotta nose in on a good thing like this hyere internet. Did you know our ex-vice president invented the blasted thing?

GOL is the PC-version of AOL for non-americans.
:D

My Service provider is AT&T. ;)

You guys might have invented it, but we outnumber your guys by now, plus I think we also got the faster connections.
FWIW, been on Optical Fiber now for nearly 1 yr at home, same cost as the old ADSL connection.
:P

Have fun.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 07:54 PM
I keep asking everyone criticising the war what they would have preferred as an alternative. I keep not getting answers.

I keep asking everyone who thinks it's about oil to explain how this war could profit Bush and/or his connections due to changes in the oil markets. I keep not getting answers.

This doesn't inspire much confidence in these positions.


Originally posted by Design Sifu
Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.

:confused:

Wasn't this what everyone in support of the war has been posting here for months? Isn't this patently obvious if you have even a cursory knowledge of the situation (ie. have read resolution 1441)?

Does this mean everyone criticising retracts their complains regarding finding weapons?

Serpent
05-01-2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Radhnoti
You guys say: "blah blah blah...bad U.S. ....blah blah...conspiracy...blah."

I hear: "Why can't my country be so cool?"


:p

:D

A competent and self-confident person is incapable of jealousy in anything. Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity.
--Robert A. Heinlein


Edit...found a more appropriate quote for this "discussion".

"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." --H.G. Wells

You see, you mistake hatred for jealousy.

Nobody wants to be like the US. We all wish the US would fade away and let the world get on with its life.

;)

Serpent
05-01-2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Radhnoti
I don't even know why they let you "ferigners" on here anyway...I mean...HELLO...it IS called America Online, right?

:confused:

:)

Well, that was glib. Obviously stolen from another thread.

;)

Marky
05-01-2003, 08:22 PM
"I keep asking everyone criticising the war what they would have preferred as an alternative."


We could've shaved off his moustache and mussed up his hair. I think that would've stopped him.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 08:31 PM
... BTW, the Bush administration didn't "lie" about WMD, what they did was entertain notions and priorities established by the UN, the media, and special interest groups. They've been perfectly up front (since long before the media craze over weapons inspectors) that their goal is regime change.

So, once again, what alternative do you peple want? Would you prefer an administration that ignores the UN, media, and special interest groups?

Serpent
05-01-2003, 08:33 PM
The US does ignore the UN.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 08:34 PM
Please state how you'd like them to act. That's what I'm asking: 'what do you want.'

BTW, no they don't. :p

Serpent
05-01-2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M
Please state how you'd like them to act. That's what I'm asking: 'what do you want.'

BTW, no they don't. :p

The US used it's with us or against us rhetoric, completely ignoring the process that the UN is supposed to stand for, and did what it wanted to do.

What I'd have liked to have seen is a properly followed course of action through the UN.

shaolin kungfu
05-01-2003, 08:41 PM
I would like the us to listen to the international community, for starters.

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Serpent

What I'd have liked to have seen is a properly followed course of action through the UN.

I am with Serpent on this one, and I think so are the majority of people that took to the streets worldwide.

Cheers.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 08:53 PM
In what way didn't they follow UN procedure? Have you guys read resolution 1441 yet?

They listened to international opinion. The coalition in this war was perhaps the largest of any war ever. Do you mean "I wish they would let mass media dictate what they do?"

Serpent
05-01-2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M
In what way didn't they follow UN procedure? Have you guys read resolution 1441 yet?

They listened to international opinion. The coalition in this war was perhaps the largest of any war ever. Do you mean "I wish they would let mass media dictate what they do?"

What's your point with the media?

The UN did not sanction this war. They wanted further weapons inspections. Member states veto'd the war. Sure, 1441 was in place first, but it's an excuse to use it against the current position and climate of international opinion and the UN.

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 09:03 PM
Christopher M.

Yeah, we read the resolution many times, been shoved under our news and paraded around plenty.
:D

The resolution does NOT say that the US can act unilateraly only that drastic consequences will result from non-compliance, decided upon by the UNSC.

It was the US not the UNSC that decide drastic measures = military invasion.

Reasons and justification for the war were many and often changed daily.

Lets not get there again, we all know what happened there is enough material online to showcase both sides, if you like them or not.

IMHO, the US set a dangerous precedence that might backfire heavily too.
WHY, previously certain countries were happy to be small "threats" and sort things politically, but now some might decide they will need WMD to counter a possible attack by the US.

Getting tough might not subdue an opponent, but cause him to do a desperate attack or similar action and try to get the first killing strike in.

Mongoose and snake come to mind.

Cheers.

Black Jack
05-01-2003, 09:03 PM
The U.S does not need the sanction from the UN to protect itself from those who it deems a viable threat to its borders.

Even more so when the reason some countries were against the war....France....was because of a loss of monetary gain.

joedoe
05-01-2003, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Black Jack
The U.S does not need the sanction from the UN to protect itself from those who it deems a viable threat to its borders.

Even more so when the reason some countries were against the war....France....was because of a loss of monetary gain.

So who is the next viable threat?

Black Jack
05-01-2003, 09:07 PM
Good question.

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Black Jack
The U.S does not need the sanction from the UN to protect itself from those who it deems a viable threat to its borders.


Neither does any other country.

N. Korea can quiet rightly throw a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the USA to protect itself too if it sees enough justification for it.
;)

The UN is there the help govern the interactions between goverments and countries and help resolve disputes, that is their role nothing more and nothing less.

NATO is another piece of cake altogether.

Seeya.

Serpent
05-01-2003, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Black Jack
The U.S does not need the sanction from the UN to protect itself from those who it deems a viable threat to its borders.

Even more so when the reason some countries were against the war....France....was because of a loss of monetary gain.

Remind me again why Iraq was a threat. Where are all these WMD's again?

Show the proof of the threat.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Serpent
What's your point with the media?

I'm trying to determine what your working definition of "international opinion" is. The number of countries backing an action seems like the most obvious working definition. But by that standard, the US had the side of international opinion. Since people claim they didn't, I'm trying to figure out what those people are defining as "international opinion."


The UN did not sanction this war. They wanted further weapons inspections. Member states veto'd the war. Sure, 1441 was in place first, but it's an excuse to use it against the current position and climate of international opinion and the UN.

Let's quickly agree on some basics as to how the UN operates: it votes on resolutions. Was there a resolution stating the above? Stating what you feel are the UN's beliefs about this war? No, there wasn't. So what you mean is "I was told by the media..." and "Some guys connected with the UN said..." that the UN doesn't support the war. This isn't the same as the UN not supporting the war.

Member states veto'd the war, did they? Really? What resolution # was this?

Now... was there a resolution that did support the war? Yes, resolution 1441. Was there any point after it's passing that this resolution ceased to stand? No.

So I ask again: in what way didn't they follow UN procedure?


Where are all these WMD's again?

Oops! Sounds like someone hasn't read resolution 1441. Honestly man, you got to read it if you want to understand what's going on. Won't take two minutes.


Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Yeah, we read the resolution many times, been shoved under our news and paraded around plenty.

Is this a complaint? I don't understand...


The resolution does NOT say that the US can act unilateraly

That's right. It established that the action wasn't unilateral.


Reasons and justification for the war were many and often changed daily.

Yes, in the media. And the administration responded to them.

I will ask again: how would you have preferred they handle it?


N. Korea can quiet rightly throw a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the USA to protect itself too if it sees enough justification for it.

They could before.

If you mean, they can according to UN standards; then, yes, so long as they get a resolution saying they can. Like, say... resolution 1441.

shaolin kungfu
05-01-2003, 09:27 PM
I'm trying to determine what your working definition of "international opinion" is. The number of countries backing an action seems like the most obvious working definition. But by that standard, the US had the side of international opinion. Since people claim they didn't, I'm trying to figure out what those people are defining as "international opinion."

Can someon remind me how many countries there are in the world US had something like 40 backing them right?

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Christopher M.

1.) A few Goverments supported the IRAQ Invasion AGAINST the will of their Citizens. In most "supporting" nations over 80% of the citizens opposed the war.

2.) YOUR holy UN resolution 1441 is not the end to end all ends.
Read it careful and note the WORDING of it, and than consult a legal authority on what it actually means.
It is about disarming Iraq and NOT about the security of the USA.

3.) The US & a few allies acted unilateral as there was NO consent or approval by the UNSC for the IRAQ invasion.
You know someone has to approve UN funds and troops being send to a war zone, last time it was not the US that did that.
Considering that those troops are send by the UN member nations they need to say if they want their citizens to fight or not.
Neither the UN nor the US can send a German, Italian or whatever other nations soldier to a front only HIS goverment can do so.

4.) N. Korea does NOT need a UN resolution to protect itself.
The US doesn't need one and is a UN member, so why should other UN members need it.

Either you guys accept the UN or you don't, you can't accept it now and drop it 5 minutes later when it is inconvenient for you guys.

If the whole world drops the UN we are back to pre-WW I conditions, and in that case we can ALL put our heads between our legs and kiss our collective behinds good-bye.

Seeya.

Marky
05-01-2003, 09:43 PM
"The UN is there the help govern the interactions between goverments and countries and help resolve disputes, that is their role nothing more and nothing less."

That's why Libya and Cuba are on the council for civil rights. And why Iraq was formerly in charge of the council of weapons inspection. And why Kofi Anon let Saddam buy weapons with the money from the Oil for Food program. And why France and Germany broke trade sanctions with Iraq and no one on the Security Council complained. And why they didn't get involved in China's takeover of Tibet. Or in the French butchering of thousands of Africans along the Ivory Coast (they killed more innocent people there than the Coalition just did in Iraq).


"I would like the us to listen to the international community, for starters."

THERE IS NO SUCH THING! Different nations and different peoples have different goals. Therefore, we are NOT one big community. Until seventy years ago, if there was a country such as the US that so vastly overpowered the rest of the world, THE ENTIRE PLANET WOULD BE OWNED BY THAT COUNTRY! Creepy, I know..... but true. Britain, Russia, Germany, France, Greece, Rome, Japan, China, Egypt, Palestine.... in their own time (some more modern than others), each was bent on ruling over the entire world, and some of them even got close. And humans haven't changed that much in the last couple hundred years!


You might not realize this, but if you look at the history of the Earth, the United States has shown more self-discipline and attention to civil rights than ANY OTHER NATION THAT HAS BEEN IN POWER! And that's why the United States has remained in power.

My apologies, this has little to do with Iraq.

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by shaolin kungfu
Can someon remind me how many countries there are in the world US had something like 40 backing them right?

Many of those only supported by voice or agreeing to over-fly rights for coalition forces.
Many of the vocal supporters are aspirants to NATO and hope that supporting the war will make entry to NATO easier.

Not many send actual gear or personnel.

Cheers.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
A few Goverments supported the IRAQ Invasion AGAINST the will of their Citizens. In most "supporting" nations over 80% of the citizens opposed the war.

Aha. Now we're getting somewhere.

So by "international opinion" you don't mean governments.

Before I reply to that... am I right? Would you like to clarify anymore?


YOUR holy UN resolution 1441 is not the end to end all ends.

It's not my resolution. It's the UN's. We were discussing the UN's stance; so UN resolutions are pretty pertinent, don't you agree?

No, it's not the "end to end all ends." But don't tell me they violated UN resolution, then ***** at me for bringing up UN resolutions... seems kind of odd.


It is about disarming Iraq and NOT about the security of the USA.

I agree completely. What's your point?


The US & a few allies acted unilateral as there was NO consent or approval by the UNSC

Once again: resolution 1441. I encourage you to counter with better evidence of UNSC thought on the matter.


You know someone has to approve UN funds and troops being send to a war zone

You're simply incorrect: the UN has no troops.


Neither the UN nor the US can send a German, Italian or whatever other nations soldier to a front only HIS goverment can do so.

Right. And that's exactly what happened. :confused:


N. Korea does NOT need a UN resolution to protect itself. The US doesn't need one and is a UN member, so why should other UN members need it.

I didn't say they did. I said they needed one in order to accord to UN protocol. Same deal with the US. Oh, and they got one: 1441.

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Marky
You might not realize this, but if you look at the history of the Earth, the United States has shown more self-discipline and attention to civil rights than ANY OTHER NATION THAT HAS BEEN IN POWER! And that's why the United States has remained in power.


Not to rain on your parade, but so far the US has been a superpower only for a fairly short time, and cannot yet be compared to the Empires of old.
Give it another 100~200yrs than we can talk. ;)

When most of those old Empires were around there were NO humans rights or geneva convention, those are very modern concepts.

"Power corrupts , ultimate power corrupts ultimate." You know what I mean.

Seeya.

Marky
05-01-2003, 09:55 PM
Hey guys, I was just thinking of something pretty interesting that might have been mentioned before:

As far as fighting Coalition forces, theres Britain, United States, and Australia.

Britain is one of the old-world nations that fought itself free of the Romans.

The United States were colonies founded by Britain, and later fought their creator to become independent.

Australia originated as a British prison colony that later defected into it's own nation.

So Britain, the United States, and Australia are all "bound by blood" as it were, and here they are standing together for a cause they believe in (whether others think the cause is right or wrong). That's a crazy coincidence (or is it?) I know it's off-topic from this off-topic thread, but it kind of ties in to the whole discussion.

joedoe
05-01-2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Marky
Hey guys, I was just thinking of something pretty interesting that might have been mentioned before:

As far as fighting Coalition forces, theres Britain, United States, and Australia.

Britain is one of the old-world nations that fought itself free of the Romans.

The United States were colonies founded by Britain, and later fought their creator to become independent.

Australia originated as a British prison colony that later defected into it's own nation.

So Britain, the United States, and Australia are all "bound by blood" as it were, and here they are standing together for a cause they believe in (whether others think the cause is right or wrong). That's a crazy coincidence (or is it?) I know it's off-topic from this off-topic thread, but it kind of ties in to the whole discussion.

Or it could just be because there is a strong history of allegiance between the 3 countries :)

Marky
05-01-2003, 10:02 PM
"Not to rain on your parade, but so far the US has been a superpower only for a fairly short time, and cannot yet be compared to the Empires of old.
Give it another 100~200yrs than we can talk."


But technology has advanced exponentially. In the several hundred years that the US has been around, it has become more powerful (proportionately) than the most powerful empire in modern history. So it's downfall should occur at an even QUICKER RATE! But it's like I said in an earlier post, when nukes are involved, who knows what'll happen? We're in frontieer territory now!

whether we're "for" the war or "against" it, no one can deny that this is an interesting (and scary) time to be alive.

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 10:03 PM
Chris M.

[QUOTE]Full text: Draft UN resolution
This is the full text of the draft United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraqi disarmament tabled jointly by the UK, US and Spain.

The first 11 paragraphs are the official preamble; what follows - marked by numbers 1-4 - is the concrete wording of the resolution, including the new deadline announced by UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on 7 March.

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999 and 1441 (2002) of 8 November 2002, and all the relevant statements of its president,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Recalling that its resolution 1441 (2002), while deciding that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions,

Recalling that in its resolution 1441 (2002) the council decided that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq pursuant to that resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and to co-operate fully in the implementation, of that resolution, would constitute a further material breach,

Noting, in that context, that in its resolution 1441 (2002), the council recalled that it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations,


Noting that Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its resolution 1441 (2002) containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of that resolution,

Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait and the neighbouring states,

Mindful of its primary responsibility under the charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recognising the threat of Iraq's non-compliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,

# 1 Reaffirms the need for full implementation of resolution 1441 (2002);

# 2 Calls on Iraq immediately to take the decisions necessary in the interests of its people and the region;

# 3 Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003 the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items.

# 4 Decides to remain seized of the matter.
/QUOTE]

Sorry, I see NO mention of the USA or military force written in it.
Nor do I see it giving permission for ANY country to unilateraly act on behalf of the UN.

Maybe you were shown a different one.

UN Resolution (long version) (http://australianpolitics.com/news/2002/11/02-11-08.shtml)

Cheers.

joedoe
05-01-2003, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Marky
"Not to rain on your parade, but so far the US has been a superpower only for a fairly short time, and cannot yet be compared to the Empires of old.
Give it another 100~200yrs than we can talk."


But technology has advanced exponentially. In the several hundred years that the US has been around, it has become more powerful (proportionately) than the most powerful empire in modern history. So it's downfall should occur at an even QUICKER RATE! But it's like I said in an earlier post, when nukes are involved, who knows what'll happen? We're in frontieer territory now!

whether we're "for" the war or "against" it, no one can deny that this is an interesting (and scary) time to be alive.

Depends on how you are measuring the proportions - in the past, the Mongolians were pretty powerful, as were the Romans, Greeks, Spanish, Portugese, British, Dutch, and French at various stages of History. If you are talking about proportion of the globe under their direct control, then the US probably doesn't come close. If you are talking about pure military might, then sure.

But you are right in one thing - these are scary times to live in.

Marky
05-01-2003, 10:10 PM
I know I'm not part of that discussion LC, but it raises the question: what exactly are serious consequences? It's not your place to have to answer for the UN, but even the UNSC couldn't answer it! There was already a trade embargo against Iraq (which nations on the UNSC were already ignoring, though they are now trying to strongly enforce it with Saddam out of power). I still think shaving Saddam's moustache would have done the trick, but now we'll never know.

But ultimately, it comes down to this: many folks who are in favor of the war feel that the UN would have done NOTHING other than continue weapons inspections at it's original pace. And those are NOT serious consequences. Again, that's what some people who are "for" the war think, but they only think that because the UNSC never came forward with an alternative "serious consequence" to war. I believe that is the point Christopher M is raising here, though I could be wrong.

Just my two cents (maybe only one?)

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Sorry, I see NO mention of the USA or military force written in it.
Nor do I see it giving permission for ANY country to unilateraly act on behalf of the UN.

There's no mention of USA and there doesn't have to be. The UN doesn't go around the world telling every government how to act. The UN makes statements of UN position on issues, and expects that people participating in the UN will follow them. That's what they did here.

If you didn't see any mention of military force, read again.

The US isn't acting unilaterally, since a) multilaterality was just established, and b) even if it wasn't, they're acting with the cooperation of 40-some countries.

The US isn't acting on behalf of the UN, and no one claimed they were; and they're not required to.

BTW... just read through your paste of UN Resolution 1441 and found that it had been changed from the official version. Can you please post the source where you got that?

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Marky
I know I'm not part of that discussion LC, but it raises the question: what exactly are serious consequences? It's not your place to have to answer for the UN, but even the UNSC couldn't answer it!

UN resolutions are written like laws, deliberate vague and open to interpretation as nobody can see future developments and thus they needed to decide what actions were appropriate and during this period the US pulled out as things didn't go they way they wanted.

What other actions could the UN have taken.
1.) Dropping "Oil for food" project.
Massive civilian casualty.
2.) Impose more sanctions.
3.) Send in Troops, but this they couldn't do until they had SOLID proof of WMD or similar.
The US said they had the proof, but it didn't convince the UNSC.

The UN is a group of member nations and naturally each looks after their own interests too, and some got different criteria to accept military actions than others.

Many countries are reluctant to send troops as they only have a self defense force and not a standing army like the USA.

But this is all in the past, regardless if it was right or wrong it happened.
Lets just hope that future conflicts are handled better.

Cheers.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
UN resolutions are written like laws, deliberate vague and open to interpretation

*rofl* You don't seriously believe this, do you?


1.) Dropping "Oil for food" project. 2.) Impose more sanctions.

Lets all take a moment to thank whatever powers-that-be that neither of these things happened.


3.) Send in Troops

This isn't an "other" thing. This is what happened.


but this they couldn't do until they had SOLID proof of WMD or similar. The US said they had the proof, but it didn't convince the UNSC.

I know you "read the resolution many times" cause it's been "paraded around plenty," but might I suggest you read it just once more... and pay careful attention to the parts where it specifically says the UNSC is convinced they had WMD. May I draw your attention to: "The resolution states that Iraq remains in material breach... Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles... Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments... Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach..."

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M

BTW... just read through your paste of UN Resolution 1441 and found that it had been changed from the official version. Can you please post the source where you got that?

If states that this was a draft.

I provided another link to the full version from australia in my earlier post.

As for "unilteral" the US assembled a fighting force, that were acting under US command. Sorry, this does not seem "multilateral" in my or many other peoples books.

The question remains and so far no Pro-War person ash answered this question:

How can the US claim a UN resolution as justification for a War when it is NOT acting under UN authority or it's approval?

Explain that one to me, it sure as hell doesn't make sense to me.

joedoe
05-01-2003, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M


*rofl* You don't seriously believe this, do you?



Lets all take a moment to thank whatever powers-that-be that neither of these things happened.



This isn't an "other" thing. This is what happened.



I know you "read the resolution many times" cause it's been "paraded around plenty," but might I suggest you read it just once more... and pay careful attention to the parts where it specifically says the UNSC is convinced they had WMD. May I draw your attention to: "The resolution states that Iraq remains in material breach... Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles... Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments... Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach..."

Couldn't that be also interpreted as saying that Iraq had agreed to the weapons inspections to ensure that they had no WMD but had not complied in giving full cooperation to the weapons inspectors?

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
If states that this was a draft.

I would be very surprised if this were the case. Could you please link up where you got that from?


As for "unilteral" the US assembled a fighting force, that were acting under US command. Sorry, this does not seem "multilateral" in my or many other peoples books.

The US has the explicit and official backing and support of over fourty countries and is in agreement with UNSC resolutions on the topic. If this isn't multilateral, what is?


How can the US claim a UN resolution as justification for a War when it is NOT acting under UN authority or it's approval?

Explain that one to me, it sure as hell doesn't make sense to me.

It doesn't make sense to me either. In what sense does the US not have the approval it requires? In what sense have they violated UN authority?

BTW... still very curious if you really meant that "international opinion" has nothing to do with what various countries' governments decide.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by joedoe
Couldn't that be also interpreted as saying that Iraq had agreed to the weapons inspections to ensure that they had no WMD but had not complied in giving full cooperation to the weapons inspectors?

Resolution 1441:

"Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)"

Resolution 687:

"Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;

Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

...Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above... Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons... Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above..."

So, to answer your question, no.

joedoe
05-01-2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M


Resolution 1441:

"Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)"

Resolution 687:

"Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;

Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

...Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above... Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons... Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above..."

So, to answer your question, no.

But I thought that was the basis of the material breach - that they were not cooperating with weapons inspectors. If the UN knew that there were WMD in Iraq, then why did the US have to try and provide evidence of them?

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 10:44 PM
Chris.

I would have to hunt that link down again.
It sez "draft" in the first line of what I pasted.

See my earlier post about what exact support was given by those 40 countries.

Surprisingly as mentioned most goverment that supported the US did not have the backing by their citizens.
Or didn't you see the millions of people protesting in the streets??

When did the UN give the US approval to invade Iraq.

I am tired of this topic. It is just going in circles and not productive or even constructive.

FWIW:
Sovereign nation invading another sovereign nation is against UN charter.

If this happens between NATO countries all other NATO members will help oust the invading force.

Seeya.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 10:47 PM
If you're not sure if there were prohibited weapons in Iraq, go ask the Kurds. Or check the receipts of the countries who sold them to Iraq. All of this is public knowledge. What do people imagine happened to them? Got lost in a move? Leant out to Saddam's girlfriends and he never got them back?

The US took a position where they felt they should try to justify themselves to the media and the public, and appease the more vocal UN countries.

Much of the latter was due to Blair's influence, who felt they could "win over" Europe to their cause.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
I would have to hunt that link down again.

Ok. Because it's fraudulent.


See my earlier post about what exact support was given by those 40 countries.

I see it. Now what?


Surprisingly as mentioned most goverment that supported the US did not have the backing by their citizens.

I'll ask again: are you saying specifically that "international opinion", to you, does not concern what countries' governments decide?


When did the UN give the US approval to invade Iraq.

When they mandated military action starting Dec 7th, 2002 if Iraq stayed in material violation, which they did.


Sovereign nation invading another sovereign nation is against UN charter.

Unless a resolution is passed to accept it. Which it was.


If this happens between NATO countries all other NATO members will help oust the invading force.

Tell that to Turkey and France.

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M
If you're not sure if there were prohibited weapons in Iraq, go ask the Kurds. Or check the receipts of the countries who sold them to Iraq.


Yep, the USA still got the receipts for them.



All of this is public knowledge. What do people imagine happened to them? Got lost in a move? Leant out to Saddam's girlfriends and he never got them back?


Hmm, were destroyed as per UN resolution?

The amount that they are thought to have is not a small stock-pile and some trace of them should have been found so far.



The US took a position where they felt they should try to justify themselves to the media and the public, and appease the more vocal UN countries.


Unfortunately they didn't do a good job of it.
There is a LOT of bad feelings between the US and european countries going way further back than the Iraq war.

joedoe
05-01-2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M
If you're not sure if there were prohibited weapons in Iraq, go ask the Kurds. Or check the receipts of the countries who sold them to Iraq. All of this is public knowledge. What do people imagine happened to them? Got lost in a move? Leant out to Saddam's girlfriends and he never got them back?

The US took a position where they felt they should try to justify themselves to the media and the public, and appease the more vocal UN countries.

Much of the latter was due to Blair's influence, who felt they could "win over" Europe to their cause.

So innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here? I mean, we all know he used bio/chemical weapons on his own people, but the issue is not what he has done in the past, but whether he was actively developing WMD. So far there is no evidence of this. Now I am not saying that he wasn't, I am just saying that until the evidence is produced then you cannot really say that he was in breach of the resolution.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Yep, the USA still got the receipts for them.

If you're going to lay the blame, keep it straight. The USA sold them helicopters which were used in chemical weapons attacks, not the chemicals themselves.


Hmm, were destroyed as per UN resolution?

Not according to the UN, as has been discussed at depth now.


The amount that they are thought to have is not a small stock-pile and some trace of them should have been found so far.

And lots of traces have been found. Here's a tiny sample of the news reports on it, and this is from ages ago:

http://premium.news.yahoo.com/appremium?docid=d7ojgv8o0&.bail=http%3a%2f%
http://premium.news.yahoo.com/appremium?docid=d7ods41o2&.bail=http%3a%2f%
http://premium.news.yahoo.com/appremium?docid=d7ojgv8o0&.bail=http%3a%2f%
http://premium.news.yahoo.com/appremium?docid=d6ufd2bo0&.bail=http%3a%2f%
http://premium.news.yahoo.com/appremium?docid=d6u6gdjg0&.bail=http%3a%2f%


Unfortunately they didn't do a good job of it.

No, they didn't.

But I'll ask again, in case this is a criticism: what would you have rather they'd done, ignore the media? (3rd time asking this now)

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by joedoe
So innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here?

Yes, it applies here.

We knew he had the weapons. It was proven.

If you kill someone and it's proven that you killed him, then you're guilty of murder. We don't have to watch you kill someone else before this is true.


so far there is no evidence of this.

Sure there is. See the post above this for a tiny sampling.

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M

Ok. Because it's fraudulent.
[QUOTE]

Good one calling the BBC liars.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2831607.stm

[quote]
I'll ask again: are you saying specifically that "international opinion", to you, does not concern what countries' governments decide?
[quote]

Obviously it didn't considering that in Britain, Spain and japan more than 80% of the Citizens were opposed.

International Opinion was as follows:
"Saddam is bad we need to do something about him, it is too early for military action."

Maybe your news differ, but I didn't see the international opinion behind the war quiet the opposite.


[quote]
When they mandated military action starting Dec 7th, 2002 if Iraq stayed in material violation, which they did.


Show where "military action" was mandated, preferably from the Un directly. Give me some links and non-us affiliated sources.




Unless a resolution is passed to accept it. Which it was.


Show me the UN resolution that sez so. Gimme some links here, I wanna seem some hard evidence in B/W.
Don't be like your goverment and show what you got.

joedoe
05-01-2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M


Yes, it applies here.

We knew he had the weapons. It was proven.

If you kill someone and it's proven that you killed him, then you're guilty of murder. We don't have to watch you kill someone else before this is true.

Now hang on. It was not proven that he had the weapons. If it was proven then why was there even debate about it? He had the weapons in the past but they were supposed to have been destroyed. The issue as I understand it was whether he was actively rebuilding his stocks, and so far there has been no evidence of this.

Using your analogy - just because someone has murdered once does not mean that they will do it again. They may be more likely to, but it is not a guarantee of guilt.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by joedoe
Now hang on. It was not proven that he had the weapons.

Halabja was a case of really bad breath?


If it was proven then why was there even debate about it?

Because people are ignorant.


He had the weapons in the past but they were supposed to have been destroyed.

Right. And they weren't.

joedoe
05-01-2003, 11:05 PM
So what you are trying to tell me is that there is no doubt that he maintained stocks of bio/chemical weapons even though none have been found by coalition forces? That somehow despite all the surveillance capabilities of the USA Saddam Hussien still managed to hide them somewhere?

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 11:06 PM
And lots of traces have been found. Here's a tiny sample of the news reports on it, and this is from ages ago:

http://premium.news.yahoo.com/appremium?docid=d7ojgv8o0&.bail=http%3a%2f%

[/quote

I got a Bullet at home, show where my gun is. You can't because I sold it and only kept the Bullet.

I also got tire marks of my old 750 in the garage, but sold her. No proof of current bike ownership there

[quote]
But I'll ask again, in case this is a criticism: what would you have rather they'd done, ignore the media? (3rd time asking this now)

This has been answered ad nauseum over the last few months and above.

Seeya.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Good one calling the BBC liars.

Don't mind if I do.

From the BBC version, dated Friday, 7 March, 2003: "3 Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003..."

From the UN version, dated 08 November 2002: "3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution..."

>>> I'll ask again: are you saying specifically that "international opinion", to you, does not concern what countries' governments decide?

So you support the violation of sovereign nations and exporting democracy at gunpoint?


Show where "military action" was mandated

UN resolution 1441, subsection 13.


Show me the UN resolution that sez so.

UN resolution 1441.


This has been answered ad nauseum over the last few months and above.

*rofl* You're refusing to tell me how you'd like the US to act? That's... uh... funny.

If you don't have any real interests, all you're doing is calling the fat kid names.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by joedoe
So what you are trying to tell me is that there is no doubt that he maintained stocks of bio/chemical weapons even though none have been found by coalition forces?

I allready gave you links describing things which have been found.

joedoe
05-01-2003, 11:17 PM
So back in 1999 they destroyed some stuff. The latest rounds of weapons inspections found nothing. The only thing they have found recently are empty warheads.

So where is the smoking gun?

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M

UN resolution 1441, subsection 13.


Pls, post that specific subsection and highlite what you see as such proof.

Because there is a disagreement within the UNSC as to this section.



UN resolution 1441.


See above.



*Rofl* You're refusing to tell me how you'd like the US to act? That's... uh... funny.


Not just tired of sounding like a broken record.

"Work with the UN and the UNSC council in resolving disputes."

What is so hard for you to understand here, this has been the point so long.

The US is part of the UN and therefor should act within it's framework.

Clear enough for you now.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 11:22 PM
The recent inspections have found as much. They were firing SCUDs with range over 150km at coalition forces during the opening days of the war for goodness sake. You can find plenty on it by cruising yahoo news just like I can.

There's not going to be a smoking gun because every time anything is found, people find some reason to write it off. Like "Oh, that was back in 1999, only 8 years after the UN resolutions, I'm sure in the two years without weapons inspectors that followed, the rest of the weapons evaporated." And also because WMD was never an important concern of the Americans, who are largely the ones doing stuff there now.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Because there is a disagreement within the UNSC as to this section.

Yes, there is. France and Germany argue that it's meaningless. But they refuse to put forth a resolution backing up their belief. Why? Because it would never pass. Thus, they try to support their position through the media rather than through UN protocol.

Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the US (and Iraqis), neither France nor Germany has the power to retroactively unilaterally veto UN resolutions.


The US is part of the UN and therefor should act within it's framework.

Right. And they did.

joedoe
05-01-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M
The recent inspections have found as much. They were firing SCUDs with range over 150km at coalition forces during the opening days of the war for goodness sake. You can find plenty on it by cruising yahoo news just like I can.

There's not going to be a smoking gun because every time anything is found, people find some reason to write it off. Like "Oh, that was back in 1999, only 8 years after the UN resolutions, I'm sure in the two years without weapons inspectors that followed, the rest of the weapons evaporated." And also because WMD was never an important concern of the Americans, who are largely the ones doing stuff there now.

If WMD were never an important concern then why was it the primary justification for the war? Isn't that what the self defence argument was also based on?

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M
The recent inspections have found as much. They were firing SCUDs with range over 150km at coalition forces during the opening days of the war for goodness sake. You can find plenty on it by cruising yahoo news just like I can.


Yeah, and why do I read news of a few days later that NO scuds were fired from iraq, and this comes from US forces who shot the incoming misiles down. :confused:

Don't just pick the news you like, read the folow-up news too.

Like the chemical factories and buried laboratories, that turned out NOT the be related to chemical warfare.
:confused:

Like I said you obviously get different news than we do over here.

Which is strange since you cite Yahoo news which I also read among others.

Seeya.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 11:29 PM
It was the primary justification for war in the sense that that perspective allowed them to work within the context of the UN, who allready had established a long history of resolutions on the issue.

It was the primary justification for war in the sense that it's what the media and [therefore] public picked up on and demanded information about.

But the primary justification for the war, in terms of American foreign policy (rather than in terms of working within UN contexts or appeasing the media/public) has always been regime change. This is clearly established in the national defense documents published in Bush's first year in office.

The two justifications coexist peacefully because regime change will solve both problems. (note: WMD disarmament won't solve both problems, hence not a good primary goal)

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Yeah, and why do I read news of a few days later that NO scuds were fired from iraq... Don't just pick the news you like, read the folow-up news too.

Since I just caught you posting fraudulent UN resolutions editted to support the writer's viewpoint, you probably should hold off on these kinds of statements.

joedoe
05-01-2003, 11:33 PM
Thanks for the discussion. It has gotten busy here so I have to run (typical, late on a Friday afternoon!). It has been interesting getting another POV on things. I don't think either of us will change the views of the other (let's agree to disagree :)), but it has been informative nonetheless.

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M

Right. And they did.

So what was all the hassles and arguments than all about the US going in solo without UN approval and so on?
And why were so many people upset at the US about it, if all was OK?
Why are there still bad feelings between the US and other nations about it?

Sorry, I remember a big worldwide stink about something like that not too long ago.

See links below:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Iraq+invasion+justified

If it was justified as you say than what was all the noise about?

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 11:36 PM
joedoe - It's been a pleasure. I hope you're in good moods; I know people can take things personally here.

I don't really have a strong view on the issue, except that I desperately wanted regime change in Iraq and am glad it has happened. Frankly, I have alot of complaints with some specifics of what the Americans did. We can discuss them later if you'd like.

Best wishes.

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M


Since I just caught you posting fraudulent UN resolutions editted to support the writer's viewpoint, you probably should hold off on these kinds of statements.

Watch what you are saying, I got my lawyer over here reading along.

Personal attacks don't strengthen your argument nor make your point right.

BTW, I am STILL waiting to see your version of the UN resolution 1441.(already asked 3 times)

joedoe
05-01-2003, 11:38 PM
Nah, I've learned not to get worked up about things on the Internet. After all, you don't know me and I don't know you and all we are trading are words and ideas :).

I guess I am a cynic and I tend to question motives a lot. It has been fun ;)

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
So what was all the hassles and arguments than all about the US going in solo without UN approval and so on?

Germany, France, and Russia (believe it or not!) have their own interests which they are trying to guard. Others do to. I'm not sure what else you would expect.

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M

Germany, France, and Russia (believe it or not!) have their own interests which they are trying to guard. Others do to. I'm not sure what else you would expect.

So does Japan and supporting the Iraq war actually hurt them economically badly as they have plenty of money invested in iraq which they now might not get back.
Only a few Billion USD.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Watch what you are saying, I got my lawyer over here reading along.

Then you can get him to explain to you that factual statements don't constitute slander.


Personal attacks don't strengthen your argument nor make your point right.

Let's recall I was replying to your allegation that I pick and choose what to read.


BTW, I am STILL waiting to see your version of the UN resolution 1441.(already asked 3 times)

It's not my version. It's the UN version. You can find countless instances of it with any search engine.

Here's one from our friends at the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,863569,00.html

Here's one from the US State Deparment:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm

Here's one from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

Here's one from FOX! Shame on you, you're reading FOX!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,69380,00.html

Here's one from Houston Chronicle! Howdy pardnuhs!
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/side/1653825

Here's one from some guy named Dale Broux... seems like a nice fellow:
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp

Now come on... did I really have to do that?

Laughing Cow
05-01-2003, 11:52 PM
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Ok, now slowly for you.

Where does it state Military force, authorise USA invading Iraq in there.

All I see are "unspecified serious consequences" which are NOT layed out or determined at that point.
In short they will be decided upon later on by the UNSC.
In short a consensus needs to be reached by all 15 members or atleast a majority, which it never was.

Sorry, but I don't see anything clear cut or black and white in it supporting your point that the USA had UN approval.

Have a good day, sir.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by joedoe
I guess I am a cynic and I tend to question motives a lot.

Me too man. Did you read the article about neoconservatism I linked a while back? Pretty important if you wanna understand motives in the US admin. There's some neocons in the Bush admin, but Bush himself isn't one. It's scary but interesting watching the power play there... I really hope he can keep them in check.

Christopher M
05-01-2003, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Sorry, but I don't see anything clear cut or black and white in it supporting your point that the USA had UN approval.

Where did I suggest it was clear cut or black and white?

Laughing Cow
05-02-2003, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Christopher M

Where did I suggest it was clear cut or black and white?

Lets see you keeping on insisting that the US had approval and that military force was authorised and THAT those are contained/written in said subsection 13 of UN resolution 1441.

All I see is your interpretation of what YOU think the UNSC council meant when it wrote the resolution.

Heck, even proffesionals & UNSC officials can't agree if that subsection supports your and the USA's point of view.

But as I said it is already in the past.

Christopher M
05-02-2003, 12:04 AM
I said they were operating in the context of the UN. You're the one that kept saying the UN has to specifically authorize troop movements and stuff. If you go back you'll find I always disagreed with you.

I think I've allready commented regarding my agreement that there's alot of controversy concerning it.

Christopher M
05-02-2003, 12:14 AM
I'll assume you asked me what I thought about it instead of telling me what I thought:

I think the UN was criminally negligent in wording their resolution so poorly as to cause this problem. Recall my amusement when you suggested the UN is purposefully obscure in it's declarations? France says the resolution means one thing, the US says it means something else. This should never happen, especially on so crucial a matter.

I can't help but feel biased towards the US interpretation though. Why? Because France's position is that the resolution means "perhaps we will come together later and decide what to do here." In other words, France's position is that the resolution means absolutely nothing. Whatever the resolution meant, I am absolutely sure it wasn't that.

When France came out and declared it would veto any resolution whatsoever having to do with action in Iraq, it really solidified my disagreement with them. This is such an absurd de-railment of the UN process, I can't believe it was tolerated. (as absurd and intolerable as France preventing the UN sanctions from being lifted now, but that's a different topic).

If you take the position that resolution 1441 meant nothing whatsoever or that it meant nothing if someone disagrees later, you're giving France the power to unilaterally veto resolutions which have allready been passed which is utterly intolerable; specifically, it completely and with finality derails UN process.

My position isn't that the UN mandated the American action. That's a stronger position than needs to be proved. The UN's purpose isn't to mandate everything that everyone does. I only have to conclude that American action wasn't contrary to UN mandate. And that's what I've done.

If you want to talk about operating outside UN protocol: lets talk about the people trying to control UN through the media; trying to convince you that "someone associated with the UN says..." is equivalent to "the UN has passed a resolution such that..."; lets talk about the people trying to set a precedent that UN resolutions are meaningless if someone doesn't like them; lets talk about the people trying to set a precedent that you can unilaterally and retroactively veto UN resolutions.

That is a derailment of the UN.

Enforcing 12 year old UN resolutions which have sat around unenforced due to timid administrations, competing interests, and uncertainty about meaning? A delicate situation certainly; a derailment of the UN? I don't think so.

Laughing Cow
05-02-2003, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Christopher M
I said they were operating in the context of the UN. You're the one that kept saying the UN has to specifically authorize troop movements and stuff. If you go back you'll find I always disagreed with you.


The UN has to authorise an UN Force to enforce it's resolutions which is combined of troops by UN Member states.
If this does NOT happen than the UN has not agreed on military action as ONLY UN sanctioned Forces can act on behalf of the UN.

What is so hard to understand that the US or ANY other UN Member can't decide on it's own to enforce UN resolutions.

Gulf War I was fought by UN coalition forces under the leadership of the US.
And, yes, my home-country did send troops & equipment too.

Gulf War II was fought by an US coalition under the leadership of the US.
My Homecountry refused over-flight rights as they did not agree with the US-led war.

Have a good day, sir.

Christopher M
05-02-2003, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
The UN has to authorise an UN Force to enforce it's resolutions which is combined of troops by UN Member states.

Simply incorrect.

The UN doesn't have a standing army. And UN member states do not act as a body in military action.


What is so hard to understand that the US or ANY other UN Member can't decide on it's own to enforce UN resolutions.

The US wasn't "enforcing a UN resolution." The US was engaging in a war.

Laughing Cow
05-02-2003, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Christopher M
The US wasn't "enforcing a UN resolution." The US was engaging in a war.

And had the UN & UNSC approval to do so?

What was the justification again for this war? The USA was under attack by Iraq?

Keep squirming and tell me again about the UN resolution that approved the War. And how they worked within UN(resolution) context.

BTW, I guess the USA & Britain also had UN approval for setting up the "no-fly" zones in Iraq many years ago.
;)

I am done here.

Laughing Cow
05-02-2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Christopher M

The UN doesn't have a standing army. And UN member states do not act as a body in military action.

True, the US forces keep shooting their buddies from other countries.

Pity, no central command for UN coalition forces during an engagement.
Everybody just does their own thing and happens not to get in each others way.

:confused:

Christopher M
05-02-2003, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
And had the UN & UNSC approval to do so?

"The UN's purpose isn't to mandate everything that everyone does."

"I only have to conclude that American action wasn't contrary to UN mandate."

Do you disagree or not understand?


What was the justification again for this war? The USA was under attack by Iraq?

If you're asking "why wasn't the war contrary to UN mandate", I'll repeat, because UN mandated military action as soon as late 2002 if Iraq was in continued material breech, which it was.


Keep squirming

By squirming do you mean continuing to point out the same things over and over again even though you don't reply to them?

I can't help but feel you're just misinformed about what the UN does. Your belief that the UN has some kind of standing army is an obvious example... a belief you seem to maintain even now that it's been pointed out. I suppose you imagine the French faught alongside China in the Himalayan War?

I mean... it's difficult to understand the issues at play with the UN here if you're not clear on what the UN is and does.

ewallace
05-02-2003, 06:40 AM
Just like to point out that whether or not 80% (where was this number drawn from... a public opinion poll in a newspaper or on a website?) of a countries population disagrees with something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a their government supports it, unless were talking about the Clinton administration.

To say "did you see how many people were protesting?" means nothing. The percentage of people protesting, when compared with the total world population, was actually quite small, so by your own definition LC, the world actually supported this war.

Laughing Cow
05-02-2003, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by ewallace
To say "did you see how many people were protesting?" means nothing. The percentage of people protesting, when compared with the total world population, was actually quite small, so by your own definition LC, the world actually supported this war.

The majority of the world couldn't give a **** about Iraq as they are NO threat to them. Plus, not evrybody goes out to demonstrate.
So go and jerk off over that.

If Chris M. would even know about the History of UN resolution 1441 than he would also know why it was worded the way it was.

France, Germany and Russia objected to ANY form of Military force or clear repercussion being included in that resolution and the ONLY way it was being passed was by wording it thus, otherwise ther would NEVER have been a 1441 resolution.
;)

Thus nobody truly informed was suprised over the vetoes by those countries prior to the Invasion.
Or do you think that those countries suddenly decided to oppose the US and it's intentions?

Keep going guys, you are all-knowing and all-wise.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

ewallace
05-02-2003, 06:59 AM
The majority of the world couldn't give a **** about Iraq as they are NO threat to them. Plus, not evrybody goes out to demonstrate.
So go and jerk off over that.

Judging by your reaction I guess I was correct.

Laughing Cow
05-02-2003, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by Christopher M

"I only have to conclude that American action wasn't contrary to UN mandate."
Do you disagree or not understand?


I disagree as do MANY other people as there was NO LEGAL mandate established.
Still waiting for proof.



If you're asking "why wasn't the war contrary to UN mandate", I'll repeat, because UN mandated military action as soon as late 2002 if Iraq was in continued material breech, which it was.

Proof it, we are still waiting for that proof.
Repeating your beliefs won't make it true.




By squirming do you mean continuing to point out the same things over and over again even though you don't reply to them?


Cop out answer, because YOU know nothing was truly established.

I replied a LOT, but I noticed you DON'T reply to a lot of what I say and edit the quotes of my posts to suit your needs.



I can't help but feel you're just misinformed about what the UN does. Your belief that the UN has some kind of standing army is an obvious example... a belief you seem to maintain even now that it's been pointed out.

OoI, read what I wrote.

I never stated that, it is a twist of your own so that you can feel good and strong.
I said UN Forces supplied by it's member states and forces sanctioned by the UN.



I mean... it's difficult to understand the issues at play with the UN here if you're not clear on what the UN is and does.

Nope YOU are the one that seems to think that whatever the US does is UN sanctioned and approved.

Keep living in your fantasy world

Laughing Cow
05-02-2003, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by ewallace

Judging by your reaction I guess I was correct.

Do you think anybody really gives a **** if you are correct or not.
;)

Guys like you and Chris M. make me laugh and shake my head in disbelief, you re so easy to see through and manipulate it is a joke.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

ewallace
05-02-2003, 07:11 AM
If I insert another two bits will you dance again?

Man I just love organ monkeys.

Are you sure you are not French? You whine like a Frenchie.

Laughing Cow
05-02-2003, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by ewallace
If I insert another two bits will you dance again?

Man I just love organ monkeys.

Are you sure you are not French? You whine like a Frenchie.

Oh, how cute. Grow up and get out of your shell and open your eyes.

There is a big and nasty world out there.

But I guess since you are Texan and a Bush supporter, you have to write your name on the soles of your shoes so that we know who is sticking out of his butt today.

Do you give him BJ's too?

ewallace
05-02-2003, 07:18 AM
Oh, how cute. Grow up and get out of your shell and open your eyes.


But I guess since you are Texan and a Bush supporter, you have to write your name on the soles of your shoes so that we know who is sticking out of his butt today.


Do you give him BJ's too?


So go and jerk off over that.


Oh, how cute. Grow up and get out of your shell and open your eyes.

Christopher M
05-02-2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Thus nobody truly informed was suprised over the vetoes by those countries prior to the Invasion.

What vetoes?

Design Sifu
05-02-2003, 11:47 AM
I was going to post (http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_232818,00130018.htm) some interesting (http://users.crocker.com/~afsc/articles/HISTORY.HTM) articles (http://www.rense.com/general29/wesold.htm) on the question (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,910113,00.html) of proof (http://www.themoderntribune.com/iraq_proof_of_weapon_of_mass_destruction_wmd.htm) of WMD's (http://www.cdi.org/russia/250-5.cfm)

but then I came accross THIS (http://www.the-lollipop.net/irak_weapons.html) and must now admit, that I'm sold... I don't know why Colin Powell didn't use this stuff in his presentation...

So I guess I'll just have to vote for Bush next year... and the year after that.

Marky
05-02-2003, 04:52 PM
When the US found barrels of white powder in northern Iraq, samples were sent to Maryland for definitive evidence of it's origin and purpose. BEFORE IT EVER REACHED MARYLAND, a French newspaper announced that the powder was confirmed to NOT be a chemical weapon. The US, TO THIS DAY, has not said another word about the chemicals...

in some cases, the US has thought it found weapons of mass destruction, and when it was proven false, they disclosed that fact to the media. However, there have been many suspected aquisitions of such weapons that the US has not commented on. If the US is going to find weapons of mass destruction, it's going to make sure it's found so many weapons from so many sources, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the UN, France, Germany, Russia, China (and of course, the US) to deny their existence.

At least, THAT'S HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE. But maybe we'll find nothing!

Christopher M
05-07-2003, 05:22 PM
*bump* for the question directed at Laughing Cow.

Laughing Cow
05-07-2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M
*bump* for the question directed at Laughing Cow.

You will wait for a loong time, I am done with you on this subject.

Got better things to do than waste my time on you.

Christopher M
05-07-2003, 05:53 PM
I was giving you a chance to clarify because it seems to me that no vetoes occurred. In other words, that you're simply ignorant of your history here.

This wouldn't be that big a deal, except that you spent the last page lambasting everyone else, claiming them to be ignorant on the same topic.

Appreciate the irony:


Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Thus nobody truly informed was suprised over the vetoes by those countries prior to the Invasion.

:p

Laughing Cow
05-07-2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M
I was giving you a chance to clarify because it seems to me that no vetoes occurred. In other words, that you're simply ignorant of your history here.


Like I said READ all the news and not just the ones that suit you and do a bit of study, the info is out there and readily available.

Not everything is blasted out in big bold letters to catch your eyes.



This wouldn't be that big a deal, except that you spent the last page lambasting everyone else, claiming them to be ignorant on the same topic.


Considering that the info was and still is publicly available and has been posted, but than was disregarded as frauds and false even though it comes from people that got the ears of the EU, UN and other goverments.
:rolleyes:

Maybe I should disregard Alan Greenspan because he disagrees with my viewpoint too.

Like I said I am done here.

ZIM
05-07-2003, 06:03 PM
but then I came accross THIS and must now admit, that I'm sold... I don't know why Colin Powell didn't use this stuff in his presentation... Or this! (http://drew.corrupt.net/bp/series4.html)





Ok that was completely uncalled for.




















But the first pic was like the justifications given to the public for for the dam ned war. ;)

Christopher M
05-07-2003, 06:07 PM
LC - Ok, what resolution # was vetoed?

Radhnoti
05-07-2003, 09:51 PM
Well...I think the truck they've found that is EXACTLY like the ones described by Collin Powell to the U.N. is far from a long-shot. All the experts I've heard interviewed so far are saying that it could be nothing except a mobile bioweapons lab...feel free to direct me to someone who disagrees though.
It's been washed with some caustic material, so it'll have to be disassembled so the hard to reach places can be tested for traces of WMDs.

Quoting Foxnews:
"Painted in a military color scheme, it was found on a transporter normally used for tanks and -- as an Iraqi defector has described Iraq's mobile labs -- contains a fermentor and a system to capture exhaust gases, Cambone said.

"While some of the equipment on the trailer could have been used for purposes other than biological weapons agent production, U.S. and U.K. technical experts have concluded that the unit does not appear to perform any function beyond what the defector said it was for, which is the production of biological agents," Cambone said.

Credit to ewallace for compiling Laughing Cow's childish ranting.
"He's like school on Saturday..." as the great Fat Albert once intoned.

:o

Laughing Cow
05-07-2003, 09:58 PM
Radhnoti.

The existence and presence of traces alone might not be enough, they also need to establish when last the lab was used and exacly for what purpose.

Which is the toughest part in any investigation, proving that certain traces coincide with the actual crime and the time when the crime was supposed to have been commited.

Cheers.

Black Jack
05-08-2003, 08:47 AM
Dems are now *****ing and foaming at the mouth because of what....what.....Bush landing an airplane on the deck of an aircraft carrier as a show of respect to the homecoming to these troops who broke records for being out in sea the longest.

How retarded and disgusting. You would think they have better things to try and accomplish.

The reason they are really *****ing is because they KNOW they have nobody who can come close to him in 04 and they are trying to attack him for anything. They hate that he has serious accomplishments to his record and that when he says something he goes out and does it.

Look who they back....Sharpton....a bigot and racist who is a running joke.....maybe that harpy ***** nazi big Hil.

Christopher M
05-08-2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Like I said READ all the news and not just the ones that suit you and do a bit of study, the info is out there and readily available.

Ok, what resolution # was vetoed?

... *crickets*

That's what I thought.

Third Degree
05-08-2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Third Degree


Point 3 is a very tenuous link to the looting at the museums....US army was told to protect looted museum (http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,940047,00.html)........cause if the museums were next to oil wells or had oil reserves beneath them, I'm sure the American military would have moved quicker than a African American accidentally walking into a Ku Klux Klan convention!





Going back to my old post making fun of how the American military would secure the Iraqi museums if they were near oil sources. Details have now come out that my jibe was not too far from the truth. The American Military were 100 yards away guarding the..........Ministry of Oil building. The first thing the Coalition troops protected once they entered Baghdad weren't the hospitals or museums but the Oil Ministry.

The Ministry of Oil building, unlike other state buildings, escaped the bombing and has been guarded since US soldiers entered Baghdad. I suppose it was always asking too much for a country with a history of less than 500 years to appreciate things which were 10 or more times older. Even after the first Oil War in 1991, 9 of 13 regional museums were looted so when you have one of the US Generals (Brooks?) saying no one could have anticipated it, is just annoying. You had US soldiers developing sticky fingers and taking things themselves - which is a microcosm of what the American government will be doing to Iraq's oil.

Government buildings were on fire, the Americans did nothing despite standing outside.

You got that p-rick, Donald Rumsfeld saying things like -

"Stuff happens," the day after looting begins on April 10.

"The images you are seeing on television, you are seeing over and over and over," Rumsfeld observed. "It's the same picture of some person walking out of some building with a vase and you see it twenty times. And you think, my goodness, were there that many vases? Is it possible that there were that many vases in the whole country?"

Rumsfeld said "That's nonsense," when asked why there were no plans to combat the looting in Iraqi cities. When asked a few days later about the plans for protecting the museums being looted he changed tack and said "Oh, my goodness. Look, I have no idea." Looting, for Rumsfeld at least "isn't something that someone allows or doesn't allow. It's something that happens."

Us British are no better when you have the Defence Minister, Geoff Hoon (another p-rick), saying "oh well they were liberating their own property."

A joint statement by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair on 8 April 2003 (http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2003/19406.htm) said "We are taking every step possible to safeguard Muslim holy sites and other protected places in Iraq that are important to the religious and cultural heritage of Islam and of Iraq." What a remarkable job you did Bush and Blair.

Under international law, America is responsible for any lawlessness as it occupies Iraq. America spent over a year planning invading Iraq, but must've spent a minute to think about the consequences when they did take over Iraq.

Iraq has indeed paid a heavy price, at least in the short term, for removing Saddam Hussein.

Third Degree

Third Degree
05-09-2003, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by dezhen2001


First of all i have NO IDEA why the Shiites do that during the festival to mark the death of Ali's son Hussain and his family... really confuses me :confused:

I think I answered that one when I mentioned mental illness. Cutting yourself accidentally whilst shaving is one thing but purposely taking a machete to one's noggin is completely mad. No sane person slashes their own heads. Fathers and mothers were slashing toddler's heads which is the shocking thing. "Will somebody please think of the children," as Helen Lovejoy might say.

When there are hospitals and museums being looted, lack of water and electricity, Iraqi infrastructure strewn across Iraq, it is nice to know that Shi'ites go on a pilgrimage and slash and beat themselves. Religion, what is it really good for?!?




Originally posted by Third Degree
What Islam can be accused of is that in their holy books there are clear, precise and specific commandments and doctrine to deal with those who do not subscribe to their religion.

Originally posted by dezhen2001

not so clear as much of it is dealing with specific encounters with the tribes around mecca and medinah, as well as what happens during warfare etc. Those dont apply to a normal situation and are usually taken out of context by the hate filled "religious" clerics.

While it is true that a selective reading of certain lines in the Koran can justify certain acts ignores the fact that the Koran does contain an abundance of unholy descriptions on what will happen to ("pour over his head the penalty of boiling water") or how to deal with us kaffirs (unbelievers). Why have these descriptions in a so-called holy book? It seems the necessity of war is justified by God as Mohammed had more than 60 battles in his lifetime - more than any other person in history I would guess.

As Mohammed was so hate filled and belligerent, is it any wonder that the clerics, who represent Islam, and Muslims are so too when you consider that Mohammed is almost as highly thought of as God. The Prophet Mohammed led the life of a serial killer and terrorist (amongst other ghastly things) who perpetrated genocide throughout Arabia, particularly against Jews. It has been proven that prolonged exposure to violent literature impacts children in an adverse way. Mohammed has clearly stated in the Koran that God has instructed him to perform these acts in the interests of Islam. Mohammed's actions in his life are thus going to be seen as OK by Muslims as he was chosen by God and so Mohammed was a good bloke and did his horrible acts under divine ordinance. Mohammed is the world's most popular name so that in itself shows the reverence Muslims have for their Prophet.


Koran 002.216
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

The above verse was stated by Mohammed after his men's first attack on 4 innocent and unarmed merchants at Nakhla in 623 AD and thus completely removing any blame on Mohammed.

At Nakhla, one of the men was murdered, one escaped whilst the other two were going to be killed unless ransom money was given. This was during the sacred month of Rejeb (trade in Arabia) where warfare and violence is forbidden but Mohammed also fought during the sacred month of Ramadan in the Battle of Badr months later. This attack in Nakhla was sanctioned by the Prophet Mohammed, and so we can conclude that Islam condones the cold-blooded murder of innocent individuals. The embryonic stage of Islam has already the blood of innocent victims on it's hands. The murder of innocent people simply because they didn't believe in Mohammed's God. Mohammed shows Islamic peace, tolerance and kindness by killing them.

Attacking merchant caravans, fighting during the sacred months, killing innocent people, stealing the goods unlawfully, demanding ransom for the 2 hostages, threatening to kill them, etc. are not acts that you would expect from a messenger of God.

The Battle of Badr (near Medina) is where Mohammed and his gang killed 70+ people, used the surviving prisoners for ransom money (again) and kept the loot from the raid. The below verse is about the Battle of Badr (which has a whole Sura/chapter, chapter 8 called Al-Anfal, in the Koran) -


Koran 008.012
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Step by step instructions on how to torture and kill the kaffirs if they don't follow Islam in the Battle of Badr. God/Mohammed is clearly instructing Muslims to commit these acts in the name of religion.

Koran 008.017
It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah.

One of the ways people can get people to kill other people is to remove the blame from them, like the earlier attack at Nakhla. An experiment in the 1970s in America whereby scientists made a member of the public administer electric shocks to someone in another room showed how taking the blame from the member of the public saw the member of the public continually administer the electric shocks without remorse.

Koran 008.050
If thou couldst see, when the angels take the souls of the Unbelievers (at death), (How) they smite their faces and their backs, (saying): "Taste the penalty of the blazing Fire."

I always envisage angels to be kind and lovable, which is why terms of endearment such as "he/she is angelic", "you're an angel" came about. In Islam, the notion that angels are compassionate is foolhardy as even the angels will be doing Allah's dirty work for him!

There are plenty of verses which state the outcome of us kaffirs or apostates. In Sura 17, Allah and Mohammed talk about ".....destroy a population......How many generations have We destroyed after Noah?". There is a strange verse in Sura 17 saying Allah makes us non-believers by putting "coverings over their hearts (and minds)" for fear we understand the Koran and "deafness into their ears" so we can't understand the Koran. If Allah makes sure us unbelievers can't understand the Koran by using our minds and ears, how else do we become Muslim? By force perhaps?

In Sura 21, we have Allah boasting about genocide "not one of the populations which We destroyed believed", "How many were the populations We utterly destroyed because of their iniquities."

The Koran uses "we" a lot in the verses which probably refers to God and Mohammed but "there is no God but Allah" so saying "we" means God has another mate, namely Mohammed. Surely Mohammed didn't write the Koran?!?

A number of poets were murdered at Mohammed's behest for having mocked him in verse. The first poet stabbed to death while she was nursing her youngest child. A poet who was reportedly more than 100 years old was murdered next. A Jewish poet was next after him. Lo and behold, a timely "revelation" in the Koran said all poets were inspired by Satan (Sura 26.221-227). Mohammed was allegedly illiterate so maybe he was just jealous at the literary work of these poets.

Recently we had Salmon Rushdie write a book, The Satanic Verses, which dares to mention that Mohammed wasn't the upstanding man Muslims regard him to be but was in fact just as fallible as any other human. How did Muslims react to this and the fact that Rushdie was a (Muslim) apostate? They tried to do what Allah wants ("if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them") and what Mohammed tried to do with writers who confronted Islam, tried killing him. The Satanic Verses is supposed to be an excellent book which attacks rigid, self-righteous orthodoxies, parodies life and religion, and celebrates doubt, questioning, disruption, innovation. Instead we got intellectual and freedom of speech repression in Europe!

I have only mentioned only a few verses from the Koran to show how rage filled Muslims can come about. I've omitted a major source that, with very little effort, is used to justify the attacks on Western nations and other parts of the civilized world. That source is, of course, the Hadith. It was the Hadith plus the Koran that justified the Taliban to plunge Afghanistan back into the dark ages. It is the same two 'moral guides' that propel many of the kamikaze martyrs up to the houris ("women with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes") in heaven.

In the hadiths, Mohammed supports ostracising yourself from your family if they don't believe in God, he advocated the murder of a pregnant woman simply because she dared to make fun of Mohammed in front of her husband, on his death bed Mohammed commanded his cult to kill the pagans, Mohammed ejaculated in the presence of his 8 year old bride Aisha, Mohammed kept slaves, Mohammed advocated his cult to have sex with women from the settlements they conquered, Mohammed had sex with a girl who's family he had murdered hours before, Mohammed said the "majority of women would go to hell". The list goes on.

Third Degree

Xeamus
07-02-2004, 11:51 AM
You can get 3 WMD for the price of 2!! :)

Xeamus
07-02-2004, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Black Jack
Experts on this situation are calling for a very quick victory. From anywhere to one week to 3 weeks.

Acutally the armed forces this time around are MUCH greater in terms of military might and technology than they were back in 1991. We are talking LEAPS and BOUNDS. Not to mention a solid coalition of troops and support from Britian, Poland, Aussiland, Spain, Italy, Ireland and Bulgaria (sp?) to name a few. As well as moral support from Japan.

LOL dude :D

MasterKiller
07-07-2004, 07:59 AM
Where's your psuedo-military Che' Guerra wannabe identity at, Xeamus? All those pork pies in your belly got you feeling sluggish?

red5angel
07-07-2004, 08:30 AM
what, you've given up your hopes of fighting me MK to pursue your hard on for xeamus?

MasterKiller
07-07-2004, 08:36 AM
I didn't give up on fighting you. All you have to do is show up.

Don't waste your time replying to anymore of my posts. They won't be answered.

red5angel
07-07-2004, 08:52 AM
I said I'd show up if you could promise me a minimum of 7 minutes. Can't you even toy with me a little before embarrassing me in front of the whole wushu world? Knock me down then stand around and flex or something? That's worth a good 30 seconds or so, now all you have to do is find another minute and a half.

ZIM
07-07-2004, 09:11 AM
Proof (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040706/pl_usnw/u_s__removes_iraqi_nuclear_and_radiological_materi als__joint_operation_conducted_with_u_s__departmen ts_of_energy_and_defense145)

WASHINGTON, July 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham (news - web sites) announced today that the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have completed a joint operation to secure and remove from Iraq (news - web sites) radiological and nuclear materials that could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program.

"This operation was a major achievement for the Bush Administration's goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists," Secretary Abraham said. "It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons."

Twenty experts from DOE's national laboratory complex packaged 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and roughly 1000 highly radioactive sources from the former Iraq nuclear research facility. The DOD airlifted the material to the United States on June 23 and provided security, coordination, planning, ground transportation, and funding for the mission.

Due to safety and security issues surrounding the removed materials, the U.S., consistent with its authorities and relevant United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council Resolutions, took possession of, and removed the materials to ensure the safety and security of the Iraqi people.

DOE also repackaged less sensitive materials that will remain in Iraq. Radiological sources that continue to serve useful medical, agricultural or industrial purposes were not removed from Iraq.

The low enriched uranium will be stored temporarily at a secure DOE facility and the radiological sources will initially be brought to a DOE laboratory for further characterization and disposition.

The International Atomic Energy Agency was advised in advance of the U.S. intentions to remove the nuclear materials. Iraqi officials were briefed about the removal of the materials and sources prior to evacuation.

The nuclear research complex, now under the responsibility of the Iraq Ministry of Science and Technology, was once a central institution for Iraq's nuclear weapons program before being dismantled in the early 1990s, following the first Gulf War (news - web sites). The complex was also the consolidation point for highly radioactive sources collected by the Department of Defense with assistance by employees of the Ministry of Science and Technology within Iraq over the last year.

MasterKiller
07-07-2004, 09:25 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/iraq/main601876.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/18/iraq/main624663.shtml

Christopher M
07-08-2004, 05:57 AM
It was all medical uranium.


For glaucoma.

David Jamieson
07-08-2004, 06:11 AM
Is it just me or does **** Cheney look like the poster boy for gout?

Christopher M
07-08-2004, 06:21 AM
It's just you - the undead are entirely immune to gout.

David Jamieson
07-08-2004, 06:33 AM
well, as John Kerry would say:

"who among us doesn't enjoy the undead"

David Jamieson
07-08-2004, 06:34 AM
sorry, I meant nascar!

that's "who among us doesn't enjoy nascar"

totally unrelated to Cheney ghoulish/goutish appearance

snarl snarl, leave my turkey leg be!

red5angel
07-08-2004, 06:39 AM
ZIM - How dare you try to imply that Iraq has materials tha could be used as WMD! We all know there is nothing in Iraq that could in anyway be used to hurt people. ;)

MK - nice spin. I especially like the "imminent" and "no direct ties" parts. Funny though if you start to dig a little you find that we were in Saddam's sites, just like he was in ours. The difference, we hit him directly, using our military forces and going after his. He would have fed terrorist what they needed to do damage. I'd say it was a good try but it's along the same lines as all your other crap.

MasterKiller
07-08-2004, 07:37 AM
This is my favorite picture of W's #1 monetary supporter.

MasterKiller
07-08-2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by ZIM
Proof (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040706/pl_usnw/u_s__removes_iraqi_nuclear_and_radiological_materi als__joint_operation_conducted_with_u_s__departmen ts_of_energy_and_defense145)

WASHINGTON, July 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham (news - web sites) announced today that the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have completed a joint operation to secure and remove from Iraq (news - web sites) radiological and nuclear materials that could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program.

"This operation was a major achievement for the Bush Administration's goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists," Secretary Abraham said. "It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons."

Twenty experts from DOE's national laboratory complex packaged 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and roughly 1000 highly radioactive sources from the former Iraq nuclear research facility. The DOD airlifted the material to the United States on June 23 and provided security, coordination, planning, ground transportation, and funding for the mission.

Due to safety and security issues surrounding the removed materials, the U.S., consistent with its authorities and relevant United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council Resolutions, took possession of, and removed the materials to ensure the safety and security of the Iraqi people.

DOE also repackaged less sensitive materials that will remain in Iraq. Radiological sources that continue to serve useful medical, agricultural or industrial purposes were not removed from Iraq.

The low enriched uranium will be stored temporarily at a secure DOE facility and the radiological sources will initially be brought to a DOE laboratory for further characterization and disposition.

The International Atomic Energy Agency was advised in advance of the U.S. intentions to remove the nuclear materials. Iraqi officials were briefed about the removal of the materials and sources prior to evacuation.

The nuclear research complex, now under the responsibility of the Iraq Ministry of Science and Technology, was once a central institution for Iraq's nuclear weapons program before being dismantled in the early 1990s, following the first Gulf War (news - web sites). The complex was also the consolidation point for highly radioactive sources collected by the Department of Defense with assistance by employees of the Ministry of Science and Technology within Iraq over the last year. Of course, what this article (or ZIM) leaves out is this snippet:


The Tuwaitha nuclear complex was dismantled in the early 1990s after the first Gulf War.

But tons of nuclear materials remained there under the seal of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, until last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq when it was left unguarded and looted by Iraqi civilians.

The IAEA learned a week ago that the transfer had taken place on June 23, the agency said in a letter to the U.N. Security Council made public Wednesday. So, it's not like this material was 'unaccounted for' or in a secret, hidden location, or being processed in all those 'missing' mobile labs. Hell, it was being controlled by the U.N. while Saddam was in power.

red5angel
07-08-2004, 11:16 AM
yeah, and we all know how effective the UN is.......

ZIM
07-08-2004, 04:32 PM
Sure. And that's why the UN wants it returned to Iraq, right?

Low-enriched Uranium is a 20% upgrade, unsuitable for most peacetime uses. It is a pre-cursor for further enrichment.

But there is one potential use for that grade of ore. Dirty bombs.

you were saying? (http://stapler.ytmnd.com/)

David Jamieson
07-08-2004, 05:18 PM
so, does that mean the iraqis aren't allowed to have xray machines or microwave ovens anymore??


besides, when it comes to wmds, the US calling foul on anyone about it is like... well, it's ridiculous simply because the US has the largest stockpiles of wmds on the planet and every four years they let some new guy have control over them.

That's pretty weird too and a good case for the UN to oversee global breakdown of all stockpiles of chemicals and nuclear stockpiles.

say...didn't all that anthrax your us senators got in the mail come from USAMRID?

I mean, who's kidding who here? LOL

whatever, I suppose this will be argued to death, that is to say, so long as it's not out fat arse lazy bone tv zombie citizen of paradise death and instead it's some dirt poor sand eating dangerous muslims death.

whatever

BAI HE
07-08-2004, 05:20 PM
Yeah and it was closely monitored by the ICEAC. Who do you think blew the whistle on the US?

Also, Saddam is public enemy #2 to Islamic Fundamentalists. Imagine their intolerance for us and then imagine one of their own playing the "western puppet dictator" in their part of the world.

Why do you think he brutally persecuted Muslim factions that weren't aligned with him?
Where did he get his chem/bio warfare program from?
Ever see the pic of Rumsfeld and him gleefully shaking hand?
How do you think he developed the world's 4th largest conventional military force in the 80's and 90's?
Wht didn't he use WMD's or chemically equipped scuds in Desert Storm?

BAI HE
07-08-2004, 05:23 PM
BTW -

You don't have to take my word for it... Go see Farenheit 9/11.

At the outset of the administration, Raice, Bush and a few others go on to state that Iraq is not a threat and has been seriously "marginalized" by UN sanctions and Us Vigilance and poses no threat. Then Bush comes back from vacation...

SifuAbel
07-08-2004, 06:14 PM
Now, Now, we all know that the unanium was just used as grow lamps for the medical marijuana sold to Cuba.

but seriously, proof was found when an amatuer Iraqi squad launched an RPG at US troops that turned out to be filled with serin gas. A nerve agent. And just where did these boys get a serin RPG? hmmmmmmmmmm. let me think.

BAI HE
07-08-2004, 06:29 PM
What is Sarin a by product of....

Is it hard to come by or hard to make?

Do a search.

C'mon Rudy, I wouldn't **** yah on this one.
You know me better than that Online HAHAHAHaha).

Hope you are well,
Pete

Christopher M
07-08-2004, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by BAI HE
Iraq is not a threat

If by 'Iraq' you mean 'the Hussein Regime', it is unquestionably a threat to some. I guess the question is whether or not we dismiss threats provided they aren't pointed at us.

My proposed answer is a resounding 'no.' But your mileage may vary.

ZIM
07-08-2004, 08:34 PM
Iraq is the only country in which large amounts of cyclosarin have ever been produced for use as a chemical warfare agent. As with most issues surrounding the Iraqi chemical weopons programs, the basis for their decision to produce GF is somewhat unclear. However, it seems likely that the choice was driven by a combination of a desire for a more persistent agent combined with problems with obtaining alcohol precursors for sarin (due to an embargo). link (http://www.cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Nerve/GF.shtml)

And then there's the Polish find. (http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=7/5/2004&Cat=4&Num=004)

But yeah, when Iraq gets a space program, you guys will finally believe it was for the better.

Also BH, don't use Moore to defend your POV. Bad move. He's scum, and to support his propaganda is to side with mass-murdering thugs.

In fact, let me make myself perfectly clear: If he joined the KKK he could not make me think less of him than I already do. If you do support his views, thats all I need to know about you.

What an Iraqi thinks of F911 (http://www.roadofanation.com/blog/archive/2004_07_01_roadofanation_archive.html#108918450965 633448%22)

Christopher M
07-08-2004, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by ZIM
What an Iraqi thinks of F911...

As little faith as I have generally in the popular anti-Iraq-war movement, I really think this is their fundamental ****ing failure: they don't care what Iraqis think should happen in Iraq.

I remember in the protest days just before the war, a group of Iraqi ex-pats came to the big London protest to share their point of view on the whole thing - they were forcefully removed from the premises before they could say a word. Irony and hubris make for a nasty combination.

SifuAbel
07-08-2004, 10:00 PM
LOL! you must be hanging out at dragonslist.

One factoid I left out. The attackers didnt know that they even had the sarin(thanks for the spelling). It came from an iraqi army artillery cache.

MasterKiller
07-09-2004, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by ZIM
But yeah, when Iraq gets a space program, you guys will finally believe it was for the better. 16 rounds, huh? And the inspectors said it did not contain any agent, huh? Is that the best you can do? (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040709/ap_on_go_co/senate_intelligence_report_10)

red5angel
07-09-2004, 07:05 AM
your like some insane bulldog MK, you just keep hammering home the same pointless and wasted issues. If you'd actually start to pay attention your killing babies is ok attitude would disappear.

MasterKiller
07-09-2004, 07:16 AM
A year after the war began Iraqi civilians are still being killed every day. Over 10,000 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed since 18 March 2003 as a direct result of the military intervention in Iraq, either during the war or during the subsequent occupation. That's a lot of babies, all right.


In November 2003 the US military said it had paid out US $1.5 million to Iraqi civilians to settle claims by victims or relatives of victims for personal injury, death or damage to property. Some of the 10,402 claims reportedly filed concerned incidents in which US soldiers had shot dead or seriously wounded Iraqi civilians with no apparent cause.

http://news.amnesty.org/mav/index/ENGMDE140052004

red5angel
07-09-2004, 07:23 AM
Over 10,000 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed since 18 March 2003 as a direct result of the military intervention in Iraq

That's right, probably all killed by americans too. Or maybe, and I know this might seem crazy to you there MK, but just maybe all those crazy islamist extremists firing weapons, mortars and car bombs all over Iraq in dying spasms of an oprressive regime and outlook on life may have done some of this damage. Oh yeah, and where does 10,000 people rate againts the hundreds of thousands saddam killed again? But that's where you get when you don't listen, or pay attention, you get retarded fukkwads like yourself too busy crying in your milk about how nasty war is and how evil bush is when you should be opening your eyes and paying attention to the fact that there are bad people out there doing bad things and someone has to take the initiative to stop them.
Maybe what you should be discussing at length and arguing is how to pay attention properly, how to listen, reading comprehension and the study of history. These are all things you could use to pull your head out of your a$$, open your eyes and see where the truth is. Oh yeah but I forgot, you had freinds in the towers in 9/11. I guess tha means you can sympathize with terrorists, and the people of Iraq, you kow the same peopel being mustard gassed, and persecuted by the hundreds of thousands. You remember them don't you, while your sitting in your air conditioned world, making your big money, sitting on your couch and watching the world through the tv?

red5angel
07-09-2004, 07:26 AM
In November 2003 the US military said it had paid out US $1.5 million to Iraqi civilians to settle claims by victims or relatives of victims for personal injury, death or damage to property. Some of the 10,402 claims reportedly filed concerned incidents in which US soldiers had shot dead or seriously wounded Iraqi civilians with no apparent cause.


huh, some interesting facts in here, but since you don't pay attention very well I'll point them out for you -

a- you mean some of those families got paid money for the loss of their loved ones? What was it Saddam was offering again for the loss of loved ones in Iraq?

b- nice spin "shot dead or seriously wounded Iraq civilians with no apprent cause" Huh, wonder whose opinion this is? Oh wait, did I say opinion instead of informed factual statement?

MasterKiller
07-09-2004, 07:38 AM
Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made