The text I gave you was not my writing or the US Resolution or the UK Resolution - it was the UNSC Resolution. Those are the words of the relevant international community speaking.
The reasons I gave you were agreed upon by the countries in the UNSC.
“Yeah, and a reason for war would be nice. I mean seriously, if these would be prerequisites for war then Iraq would be one of the last countries on the list.”
Hogwash. Read up. We were at war with Iraq for over a decade, as Saddam would not comply with ceasefire obligations (no-fly zone, etc.). Saddam booted the inspectors in 1998 after a ridiculous cat-and-mouse game.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Without the benefit of the legal opinion, and with de minimus knowledge of the precise British laws applicable, I don’t claim any expertise on the specific question at hand.
However, please revisit this paragraph of the letter:
The government has resisted publishing the text that resulted, presumably because even it would reveal awkward reservations and legal quibbles, but a precis was produced as a parliamentary answer. What is striking is the centrality that disarmament plays in it as the justification for war. Thus Iraq is held to be in material breach of the ceasefire resolution because it had not fulfilled “its obligations to disarm”. There is a logical, inescapable conclusion from this chain of reasoning. If Iraq had in reality fulfilled its disarmament obligation there was no legal authority for the invasion.
The U.N. resolution specifically put the burden of proof for demonstration of disarmament on Saddam. Saddam was not cooperating, and actively promoted the idea that he indeed had weapons. Lord Cook references a “ceasefire resolution” – is this the U.N. resolution or a parliamentary resolution?
With the benefit of information gained only via the invasion of Iraq, the intelligence on Saddam’s actual WMD holdings appears to have been incorrect, but if the key to the legal case is the U.N. resolution, Saddam was clearly in breach simply via his non-cooperation. As to the logic of treating him, with his history, as if he was bluffing, I think we’ve discussed that already.[/quote]
I checked this out (from the 10 Downing Street Website): http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3287.asp
It is the official legal acceptance for the legality of the war in view of the UK. Hope it helps clarify things.
[quote]lothario1123 wrote:
Now don’t get me wrong here, I’m no avid Bush supporter or anything, but I wonder how you came to the conclusion in that thread, and then now you are so anti-war as to not make much sense.[/quote]
Oh, sorry I didn’t clarify. I meant the war in Afghanistan. I said that because I know alot of Bush lovers(not just Bush voters, but people who really take it to the limit such as some on that thread) like to say that had Gore or whoever been president, then we would not have went to Afghanistan. Which is absurd, obviously.
I’m not anti war or pro this or that, I’m just for common sense and I will bash the shit out of Kerry if he’s elected and pulls something rediculous.
w2097: Hehe… It’s getting hard to keep all these wars straight, isn’t it? Sometimes I wonder if they have a volume discount on those things, ya know? Like a buy two get one free deal or something…
Yeah, wars just aren’t what they used to be(all-consuming monumental events that are remembered by everyone for aeons). It’s TV to everyone now. I maintain that the average person in America takes the civilian death tolls in Iraq rather lightly.
[quote]w2097 wrote:
Yeah, wars just aren’t what they used to be(all-consuming monumental events that are remembered by everyone for aeons). It’s TV to everyone now. I maintain that the average person in America takes the civilian death tolls in Iraq rather lightly.[/quote]
Maybe they take them in historical perspective…
Seriously, casualties have been de minimus compared to just about any war you want to bring up – and don’t forget, they’re also much smaller than the number of Iraqi civilian casualties under Hussein, whether you want to compare overall or year-to-year (not to mention that almost all the civilian casualties now are from the actions of the terrorists).
BTW, back on topic for this thread, which is the LEGAL case,
Makkun, your links confirm what I said above – The British based their case on the U.N. resolutions. If you go to the text of the resolutions, you will see that Saddam had the duty to demostrate the WMD were destroyed. He did not, and did not even cooperate with the inspectors who were trying to verify that. That put him in breach, which was all that was necessary for the legal cause.
[quote]w2097 wrote:
Wonder what the citizens of Iraq thought of the death toll in the US on Sept. 11th.
Think they took it lightly?
They sure weren’t the ones responsible. We ,however are.[/quote]
Conspiracy nut, conspiracy nut, conspiracy nut.
If you blame us for 911, you are ignorant. You listen to Coast to Coast too often. Don’t take those shows so seriously. Even Art Bell said he doesn’t believe 40% of it.
How do we determine which dictators are ok to leave in power, and which must be eliminated?
What about all the other dictators in the world?
Who put (read: financed) many of them into power in the first place?
What about all the other corrupt governments with political puppets who ?won? their elections?
What about the atrocities committed by so many governments, including our own?
Shouldn?t we be ?protecting? ourselves from all the terrorists, both domestic and abroad?
Why do we attack Iraq and not the rest?
Shouldn?t we be helping those people too? But?they don?t have oil.
This isn?t about Democrat vs. Republican, it?s about money. Money and only money (well, with money comes power), don?t confuse the issue. There is a price tag on human life. It’s called money in my pocket. IT’S ALL ABOUT ME in our society.
And to those of you who think that the Iraqis, and other Arabs for that matter, were rejoicing on 9/11, ask yourselves WHY. What does our foreign policy do to them?
Try gathering your news from some sources outside the US.
[quote]pocoloco wrote:
Why all the talk about Iraq?
What about all the other countries?
How do we determine which dictators are ok to leave in power, and which must be eliminated?
What about all the other dictators in the world?
Who put (read: financed) many of them into power in the first place?
What about all the other corrupt governments with political puppets who ?won? their elections?
What about the atrocities committed by so many governments, including our own?
Shouldn?t we be ?protecting? ourselves from all the terrorists, both domestic and abroad?
Why do we attack Iraq and not the rest?
Shouldn?t we be helping those people too? But?they don?t have oil.
This isn?t about Democrat vs. Republican, it?s about money. Money and only money (well, with money comes power), don?t confuse the issue. There is a price tag on human life. It’s called money in my pocket. IT’S ALL ABOUT ME in our society.
And to those of you who think that the Iraqis, and other Arabs for that matter, were rejoicing on 9/11, ask yourselves WHY. What does our foreign policy do to them?
Try gathering your news from some sources outside the US.[/quote]
Alright, I just got back from some well-deserved drinking, so here goes. Pocoloco: Let’s admit it, the U.S. is not capable of solving all the world’s problems. But, what we can do, is at least solve the problems that pose the biggest threat to us. That’s not being selfish, and that’s not being arrogant. That is looking out for the well-being of our nation. Think about that. What the hell would you do as president? Would you say; “Oh, we cant help everybody, so we shouldn’t help ANYONE.” If any of us were president, we would do our damndest to better ensure our safety and prosperity. I hate to say this, but sometimes in order to keep yourself afloat in this cruel world, you just gotta do what you gotta do. So, how do you determine which dictators can stay and which gotta go?? That’s easy. The ones that are the biggest problem to US. In today’s world, we have to do what’s best for us. Live with it. Welcome to today’s world. RLTW
[quote]pocoloco wrote:
Why all the talk about Iraq? [/quote]
Duh!
Which ones? France? You do know how many countries there are in the world don?t you? We are not trying to take over the world here. (That would be a different strategy.) We are attempting to improve it by dealing with what we determine is the biggest threat. And the idea of Saddam with nukes sounds like a big threat to me.
We only dealt with one here, and after years of attempting to get him to settle down. I don?t understand why so many fail to see the threat. Did you agree with him paying $25,000 to people for killing themselves as long as they took some Jews along?
We are not going to be the world?s police, but we won?t allow someone like Saddam to become a military superpower.
Read above.
You? How about oil? Dealing with dictators is not putting them in power. Sometimes we do support the lesser of two evils. This is a strategy to prevent bigger problems. But obviously you are attempting to blame America for everything.
Just because somebody is in power does not mean we put them there. If everyone was put there by us, it would all be peace because we would control everything over there. Is that happening? No, so obviously we are not in charge.
Again why are we supposed to deal with all problems when we deal with one? We obviously have to deal with things that affect the entire world, and we have to deal with things that affect us. Yes, this is because of America?s self interests. But who else is going to care about us? We have to deal with our self interests first. Any country does the same.
What atrocities specifically? Be specific with proof, not some conspiracy nut crap. [quote]
Shouldn?t we be ?protecting? ourselves from all the terrorists, both domestic and abroad? [/quote]
Uh, what do you think this was about? Saddam was supporting terrorists. Not all terrorists are Al-Qaeda. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism, and has stated he wants to destroy America on repeated occasions. Open your eyes.
[quote]Why do we attack Iraq and not the rest?
Shouldn?t we be helping those people too? But?they don?t have oil. [/quote]
Again the conspiracy theory BS. All the intelligence we had showed Saddam was a threat. Maybe that intelligence was not correct, but what if it was? If Bush had not acted, he would have been impeached.
Yeah, it is called Food for Oil. Screw the Iraqi people, fill Sadam?s pockets, and put him in a position to build a more powerful military then he ever had before in no time, just so some slime bags can make some money. Attempt to see the truth here. See where the money was going.
And here is your blindness. When a black man dies, and the KKK rejoices, do we think what did the black man do to the KKK? No, we see the hate and ignorance.
Just because we are hated does not mean it is justified. You do understand why the World Trade Center was attacked don?t you? It was considered the modern Tower of Babel. The extremists saw it not only as a center of American financial power, but as evil in and of itself.
Please don?t attempt to justify mass murder.
Like what? Al Jazeera? The (I hate America) Guardian? Do you know how many newspapers in the world are Anti-American? (Attention Lumpy. Notice the word Anti-American. These papers have nothing to do with being Un-American because they are not American. Learn English yet?)
You have to understand this bias. All news sources have bias. You have to understand it to be able to read the newspapers. It would be nice to find some sources that don?t have some sort of agenda.
All of these news sources have obviously brainwashed you. Think when you read anything. Be careful of trusting anything. Use intelligence, logic, and wisdom in your reading, otherwise you will fall for anything.
Carnies used to find people who were gullible for those unwinnable games at fairs. They would actually use chalk to place a big X on their backs. That was called a mark. Don?t become a mark.
The Mage wrote:
"Conspiracy nut, conspiracy nut, conspiracy nut
If you blame us for 911, you are ignorant. You listen to Coast to Coast too often. Don’t take those shows so seriously. Even Art Bell said he doesn’t believe 40% of it."
If you read my post and derived that I blame us for 9/11 you are a retard. Then you go ahead and prove to be a conspiracy nut yourself by immediatly going with assumptions about what I listen to. I have never heard of Coast to Coast. Get some coffee and shove it up your ass(I bet you thought I was going to let you drink it, huh?).
If you blame us for 911, you are ignorant. You listen to Coast to Coast too often. Don’t take those shows so seriously. Even Art Bell said he doesn’t believe 40% of it."
If you read my post and derived that I blame us for 9/11 you are a retard. Then you go ahead and prove to be a conspiracy nut yourself by immediatly going with assumptions about what I listen to. I have never heard of Coast to Coast. Get some coffee and shove it up your ass(I bet you thought I was going to let you drink it, huh?).[/quote]
If you read my post and derived that I blame us for 9/11 you are a retard. Then you go ahead and prove to be a conspiracy nut yourself by immediatly going with assumptions about what I listen to. I have never heard of Coast to Coast. Get some coffee and shove it up your ass(I bet you thought I was going to let you drink it, huh?).[/quote]
Then exactly what did you mean we were responsible? How else was I supposed to take this?
“What about all the other dictators in the world?, etc.”
Let’s put this to bed.
There are plenty of bad guys out there. But this ‘if you attack Saddam for being a bad guy, you have to attack others’ charge is fallacious.
There is no obligation that states ‘if I can’t help all, I can help none.’ If you think there is, remember that the next time you decide to drop a coin or two into a homeless person’s cup. Remember - you can’t help them all, so by your own logic, you can’t help the one, so walk on by.
Stupid, isn’t it?
There are lots of other dictators the West would like to topple, but it isn’t feasible or intelligent. We don’t such utopian luxuries - we do what we can under the circumstances.
And more besides - there is genocide going on in the Sudan. Where is the UN? Where is the Arab League? More poor black farmers have died at the hands of murderous Arabs in Sudan in one week than Palestinians in Gaza in the last month - and not a finger lifted.
You’d think someone other than the US would step into the breach, but what do we get? Crickets chirping in the night.
“Why do we attack Iraq and not the rest?”
See above. We are not obligated to go after every dictator on the planet just because we singled out Saddam. We were at war with Iraq. Saddam was a known international aggressor and trafficker in WMDs. Wouldn’t it make sense to go after one of the possible ‘nerve centers’ that could contribute to terror?
Moreover, don’t underestimate the power projection effect. How many bad guys will become compliant lapdogs because they see now that the West will use lethal force instead of bird-chested diplomats? Some, at least. That’s the Art of War.
“Shouldn?t we be helping those people too? But?they don?t have oil.”
Check the record. The oil isn’t ours.
“IT’S ALL ABOUT ME in our society.”
Yes, and you have the hedonism of the 60’s to thank for that bankrupt ‘liberation’.
“And to those of you who think that the Iraqis, and other Arabs for that matter, were rejoicing on 9/11, ask yourselves WHY. What does our foreign policy do to them?”
Not nearly as much as they do to themselves. Our foreign policy is not responsible for the plight of the Middle East. They rejoice because like most ‘victims’ who need to inspect their own responsibility for their self-induced misery, they want to blame someone for their suffering.
America could completely withdraw from the Middle East militarily, diplomatically, and economically and the result would be the same - barbaric cultures mired in gender apartheid, religious intolerance, the absence of liberty, no economic opportunity or education, and tribal warfare.
“Try gathering your news from some sources outside the US.”
The Mage wrote:
“Then exactly what did you mean we were responsible?”
That Iraqis had nothing to do with Sept 11th, while we are the direct cause of their huge civilian casualties. If you read the post that I replied to it should be clear then.
If you blame us for 911, you are ignorant. [/quote]
And if you blame Iraq for 911 you are just plain fucking stupid.
Like Bush, Cheney, et al. Although in reality they don’t actually believe it, they just insinuate so that dumb fucks who can’t think for themselves believe it.
“What about all the other dictators in the world?, etc.”
Let’s put this to bed.
There are plenty of bad guys out there. But this ‘if you attack Saddam for being a bad guy, you have to attack others’ charge is fallacious.[/quote]
Thunder, you’re misunderstanding the argument. The argument isn’t that ‘if you attack Saddam you must attack everyone else,’ the argument is that if we currently utilize options other than war to tame dictators just as ‘bad’ or worse than Saddam, then obviously war was not the last option (which is commonly held as a requisite for taking the country to war). Let me explain it simply:
The President had/has assured us that taking the United States to war is to be done as the last possible resort.
The President had assured us that there were WMD that posed an imminent threat to the United States. If that were true, than it would’ve proven years of sanctions/resolutions to have not at all worked and thus left us with no recourse except war.
When no WMD were found, the President justified the war by stating that a brutal dictator is now gone, and that war was still a last resort.
The President currently resorts to options other than war in dealing with other dictators, so being a “cruel dictator” is obviously not justification enough to call war a “last resort.” Understand?
I’m not saying I agree with this argument, and obviously this is not the only argument the Administration has made for war, but I think I have clearly demonstrated that while your simplified, misinterpretation of the argument can be “put to bed”, the actual argument is not so easy to dismiss.