Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119138] |
Fri, 08 October 2004 23:57   |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| warranto |
Who here is defending Saddam? I'm not, I don't think Javaxcx is. Infact, I don't think anyone wanted him to ramain in power.
It still doesn't make it right to do so through illegal means.
|
If you're so worried about "international law," why aren't you as angry at Iraq for disobeying numerous U.N. resolutions and playing footsie with weapons inspectors for 12 years? You're willing to forget all the bad and illegal things Saddam's regime committed in an attempt to weaken the legitimacy of the Iraq war.
You're attempting to weaken the force that is trying to remove Saddam. Therefore, you're defending him.
Something else to think about: If Saddam's removal was "illegal," then the U.N. has an obligation to place him back in power.
Do you really want that?
| Quote: |
America is a threat to people right now.
|
If you mean terrorists when you say people, you're right.
| Quote: |
You and Nodbugger are amazing.
|
I'll take that as a compliment. 
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119177] |
Sat, 09 October 2004 07:46 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
If you're so worried about "international law," why aren't you as angry at Iraq for disobeying numerous U.N. resolutions and playing footsie with weapons inspectors for 12 years?
|
Playing "footsie" as in letting them go wherever they wanted, and making the offer to the UN of doubling the number of weapons inspectors? Besides, how "footsie" could he be playing if there was nothing there, since 1992 or so?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119209] |
Sat, 09 October 2004 11:09 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Playing "footsie" as in letting them go wherever they wanted, and making the offer to the UN of doubling the number of weapons inspectors? Besides, how "footsie" could he be playing if there was nothing there, since 1992 or so?
|
I thought you were smarter than this, SuperFlyingCommunist.
When did the Duelfer report come out, SuperFlyingEngi? Two fucking days ago!!! When did Saddam let the inspectors back in? A few days before the invasion!!! He kept inspectors out for FIVE YEARS before then!!!!
Jesus, I have never met someone as dense as you.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119229] |
Sat, 09 October 2004 12:29 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
| warranto |
Who here is defending Saddam? I'm not, I don't think Javaxcx is. Infact, I don't think anyone wanted him to ramain in power.
It still doesn't make it right to do so through illegal means.
|
If you're so worried about "international law," why aren't you as angry at Iraq for disobeying numerous U.N. resolutions and playing footsie with weapons inspectors for 12 years? You're willing to forget all the bad and illegal things Saddam's regime committed in an attempt to weaken the legitimacy of the Iraq war.
You're attempting to weaken the force that is trying to remove Saddam. Therefore, you're defending him.
Something else to think about: If Saddam's removal was "illegal," then the U.N. has an obligation to place him back in power.
Do you really want that?
| Quote: |
America is a threat to people right now.
|
If you mean terrorists when you say people, you're right.
| Quote: |
You and Nodbugger are amazing.
|
I'll take that as a compliment.
|
I never ONCE stated that I wasn't "angry" at Iraq for breaking the law themselves. However, that is a moot point, and only shows a desperate attempt by you to avoid the topic at hand. It was NOT America's responsibility to police the world, regardless of the UNs ineptness to do its job. Iraq broke the law as well, yes. I never once stated otherwise. However, America broke the law as well, and no amount of "Look, he did it too!" is going to change that.
I am NOT trying to "weaken the force that removed him", however as I continuously state, that DOES NOT mean America didn't break any laws as well.
No the UN does not have an obligation to put Saddam back into power. What they would have an obligation, if any, to do would to discipline America for its actions; but you know as wel as I do that the UN won't do anything.
...wow. I can't believe you think everyone that is not an American is a terrorist. You did say that after all...
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
America is a threat to people right now.
|
If you mean terrorists when you say people, you're right.
|
After all, America has the potential to launch massive nuclear srikes at ever country in the world, so they are a threat to everyone in the world. What is more amazing, however, is that YOU actually think everyone in the world is a terrorist. We can only hope you're never in charge, because I'm sure you would be that person that DID launch the WMD's America possesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119263] |
Sat, 09 October 2004 14:14 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| warranto |
I never ONCE stated that I wasn't "angry" at Iraq for breaking the law themselves. However, that is a moot point, and only shows a desperate attempt by you to avoid the topic at hand. It was NOT America's responsibility to police the world, regardless of the UNs ineptness to do its job. Iraq broke the law as well, yes. I never once stated otherwise. However, America broke the law as well, and no amount of "Look, he did it too!" is going to change that.
|
America broke no law when it invaded Iraq as a protection of its own national security. Terrorism is a very real threat. Iraq has had a history of aiding terrorists.
If anything, America was enforcing the law Saddam broke.
| Quote: |
I am NOT trying to "weaken the force that removed him", however as I continuously state, that DOES NOT mean America didn't break any laws as well.
|
You're attacking the reasons for invading Iraq and removing Saddam. You are trying to remove the force that is finally getting rid of that brutal dictator.
Again, I state, America broke no international law.
| Quote: |
No the UN does not have an obligation to put Saddam back into power. What they would have an obligation, if any, to do would to discipline America for its actions
|
If it was indeed found to be unlawful for America to invade Iraq for the reasons it did, then the U.N. would have not only an obligation to discipline America for its wrongdoings but to rectify the damage done to Iraq. What was the "damage" done? The removal of Saddam's regime.
| Quote: |
but you know as wel as I do that the UN won't do anything.
|
Right, because the U.N. would most likely lose the 85% of funds America provides for its operation.
| Quote: |
...wow. I can't believe you think everyone that is not an American is a terrorist.
|
| Quote: |
You did say that after all...
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
America is a threat to people right now.
|
If you mean terrorists when you say people, you're right.
|
...Wow, I can't believe you got THAT out of what I said.
|
You're smart enough to know I did not mean "you're a terrorist if you're not American!" in that statement. I shouldn't even have to explain it to you.
| Quote: |
After all, America has the potential to launch massive nuclear srikes at ever country in the world, so they are a threat to everyone in the world.
|
So does China, Russia, Israel, Great Britain, Pakistan, and India (the former states of the Soviet Union and Russia more than anyone else). I guess they would be threats to the rest of the world, too, going by that definition.
| Quote: |
What is more amazing, however, is that YOU actually think everyone in the world is a terrorist.
|
You're smart enough to know I did not mean that.
C'mon, Warranto, that's not like you.
| Quote: |
We can only hope you're never in charge, because I'm sure you would be that person that DID launch the WMD's America possesses.
|
Now what the hell gave you that idea?
| Nodbugger |
You are fucking retarded.
|
Nodbugger, though the rest of your post is correct, Warranto is anything but retarded.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119272] |
Sat, 09 October 2004 14:56 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Playing "footsie" as in letting them go wherever they wanted, and making the offer to the UN of doubling the number of weapons inspectors? Besides, how "footsie" could he be playing if there was nothing there, since 1992 or so?
|
I thought you were smarter than this, SuperFlyingCommunist.
When did the Duelfer report come out, SuperFlyingEngi? Two fucking days ago!!! When did Saddam let the inspectors back in? A few days before the invasion!!! He kept inspectors out for FIVE YEARS before then!!!!
Jesus, I have never met someone as dense as you.
|
No, no, the U.S. sent the inspectors a notice to get out a few days before the invasion.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119315] |
Sat, 09 October 2004 18:26 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
Everything in your last post; just to save space
|
Only one thing wrong with the first part. International Law was broken. If you search, you can find mulitple threads where this was proven.
In the event that the reason of America enforing the law, that as well is just as bad. Regardless of the UNs inaction, it is not up to America to produce the world.
As for the stuff thats "not like me", I'm well aware of that, but I was trying to prove a point, and through those other threads that I mentioned above, this type of posting was a last resort in explaining it.
The point I was tring to make is that future action, because they are not known, can not be used to explain the actions of someone. The ONLY way that something can be acted on before the act occurs is if actions are taken by the suspected to ensure the act is completed. According to the UN, Iraq was, albeit slowely, getting rid of the weapons it was told to get rid of.
In the event that what Blazer posted was true, until they actually made attempts to follow through with those acts, (ex. Building up its weapons again) nothing could 'legally' be done. Anything prior to that is conspiracy, and is a lesser charge.
In keeping with this out-of-character point, that definition of a threat, and it involving China, Israel, Canada, in fact every nation in the world could be a potential threat. This is exactly the point I was trying to make about future actions not being able to be considered. It turns into ludicrous reasoning such as this.
Anf that "You being in charge comment" was a bit out of line, but I was getting frusterated in trying to get my point across. I appologise.
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119337] |
Sat, 09 October 2004 21:00 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
If you're so worried about "international law," why aren't you as angry at Iraq for disobeying numerous U.N. resolutions and playing footsie with weapons inspectors for 12 years? You're willing to forget all the bad and illegal things Saddam's regime committed in an attempt to weaken the legitimacy of the Iraq war.
|
See, this is a neglectful problem on your part, and many pro-war types; especially on these forums. Warranto, AND myself have already stated that Iraq is in violation of international law. We have already conceded to the fact many times over many threads that Iraq is guilty of many charges. Since the majority of us here and around the world are probably in agreement on that issue as well, it really doesn't need to be brought up time and time again. When people such as yourself turn the focus of an argument off the people in question (in this case, the coalition), and back onto Iraq with the "Well he started it!" theorm, it does nothing but weaken your stance because, well, it simply means you can't defend yourself with anything else. I'd expect Nodbugger and his ilk to do something like that, but not you.
| Quote: |
You're attempting to weaken the force that is trying to remove Saddam. Therefore, you're defending him.
|
Now here is another problem. It is not defending Saddam to say "You got him, good. You did it the wrong way, though." Remember chief, you can do the right thing the wrong way.
| Quote: |
Something else to think about: If Saddam's removal was "illegal," then the U.N. has an obligation to place him back in power.
|
That is a very good point. Although, it does not deem the act legal. Especially when you have major figureheads of the U.N. (Like Kofi Annan) calling the war illegal. Let me be perfectly blunt: the U.N. is a farce. I can only suggest the coalition hasn't been repremended because it suits the U.N. to be on good terms with America and the United Kingdom. Again, and make sure you understand this: This does NOT deem the act legal.
| Quote: |
America broke no law when it invaded Iraq as a protection of its own national security. Terrorism is a very real threat. Iraq has had a history of aiding terrorists.
|
For the first part of that: There are several threads in this forum discussing and proving that America had absolutely no authority to invade Iraq under any U.N. resolution. In fact, because of key statements in resolution 1441 and like like, the coalition's actions can be deemed illegal for violation of Article 2 of the charter, and the commitment to the sovereignty of Iraq which was violated and manipulated for a time.
There is one possible way to justify the war, however. The whole "self-defence" schpiel at the U.N. For some insight onto that clause, take a look at this.
Find some evidence that Iraq was indeed branded and considered an imminent threat, not simply a threat that can escalate to imminent-- because that logic would allow you to attack any one in the world for any reason. It would also legally allow places like North Korea or Iraq (former) or Iran to blast the fuck out of the west because they figure America to be a threat that might become terminal.
If you cannot, then the self-defence clause may not be used, and that can only go further to appeal to the idea that you did the right thing the wrong way.
| Quote: |
If anything, America was enforcing the law Saddam broke.
|
As long as you are a Member State, you do not have the legal authority to do that at your whims. Don't like it? Pay the U.N. the fees you never bothered to pay for the last little while, and get out.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119543] |
Sun, 10 October 2004 18:22 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
No, no, the U.S. sent the inspectors a notice to get out a few days before the invasion.
|
You're taking information we learned three days ago and applying it to a situation two years ago. We didn't know Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction because he still wasn't letting weapons inspectors into his country.
Bush didn't lie since he didn't know the information we had learned three days ago (keyword: days) a year and a half ago (keyword: year).
| warranto |
Only one thing wrong with the first part. International Law was broken. If you search, you can find mulitple threads where this was proven.
|
Nope, still no law broken.
Article 51 of the outdated UN Charter:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations"
Members of a terrorist organization attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. That organization has been aided by Iraq in the past. Though it was not a direct attack, Iraq has still harbored and provided aid for known terrorists and terrorist organizations.
The world has changed since 1945 when the UN Charter was signed, and I have yet to see any amendments made to update it to the twenty-first century. The appeasement tactics of old do not work anymore (I don't they have ever worked, come to think of it).
Islamic terrorism is the threat, here, and there is no section in the UN charter to my knowledge that refers to an international threat such as this. Any nation that contributes to that threat is a threat as well and must be dealt with harshly, something the UN isn't prepared to do.
| Quote: |
Regardless of the UNs inaction, it is not up to America to police (I took the liberty of correcting that for you) the world.
|
It is, however, up to the United States to protect itself from outside threats of which Iraq was apart.
| Quote: |
The point I was tring to make is that future action, because they are not known, can not be used to explain the actions of someone. The ONLY way that something can be acted on before the act occurs is if actions are taken by the suspected to ensure the act is completed. According to the UN, Iraq was, albeit slowely, getting rid of the weapons it was told to get rid of.
|
The UN quite frankly had no idea what Iraq was doing with its weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was and always has been playing cat-and-mouse games with the inspectors since before he kicked them out in 1998, and during the five years weapons inspectors were not present, no one had any idea what he was doing with them. He may have been dismantling them, but if he was, why wouldn't he have let anyone know about it? Why kick the inspectors out if you're doing what you're being told to do?
As you know, weapons inspectors must be present at any dismantling of any weapons of mass destruction in any country in the world. If the United States decides to dismantle a nuclear warhead, UN inspectors must be present to ensure that the weapon is dismantled properly and disposed of correctly.
Now, I ask you, if Saddam was indeed complying with the orders to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction after weapons inspectors were kicked out, why didn't he just let them back in to witness their dismantling?
Common sense tells you that something just doesn't add up here.
Accepted.
| Javaxcx |
See, this is a neglectful problem on your part, and many pro-war types; especially on these forums. Warranto, AND myself have already stated that Iraq is in violation of international law. We have already conceded to the fact many times over many threads that Iraq is guilty of many charges. Since the majority of us here and around the world are probably in agreement on that issue as well, it really doesn't need to be brought up time and time again.
|
Why, then, doesn't the world stand firmly when dealing with countries like Iraq who, as you say, is "guilty of many charges" and a threat to the world peace? The UN has allowed the situation in Iraq to escalate and worsen for twelve years by using simple appeasement tactics, and 9/11 should have been a wake-up call to the world that says even the most powerful nation in the world can fall victim to a horrendous terrorist attack.
The tactics of appeasement are outdated in a post-9/11 world, and given the UN's inability to deal with Saddam firmly as it should have, it leads me to believe that the UN is outdated as well.
| Quote: |
When people such as yourself turn the focus of an argument off the people in question (in this case, the coalition), and back onto Iraq with the "Well he started it!" theorm, it does nothing but weaken your stance because, well, it simply means you can't defend yourself with anything else.
|
I addressed this point earlier in this post. Moving on....
| Quote: |
I'd expect Nodbugger and his ilk to do something like that, but not you.
|
I'm flattered you have such high expectations of me.
(j/k)
| Quote: |
That is a very good point. Although, it does not deem the act legal. Especially when you have major figureheads of the U.N. (Like Kofi Annan) calling the war illegal.
|
So, the war was illegal, then. Do you want Saddam back in power?
Wouldn't it be sort of a contradiction on your part to say you don't want Saddam put back into power even though he was removed as a result of an illegal war?
| Quote: |
Let me be perfectly blunt: the U.N. is a farce.
|
Holy crap! We agree on something!
| Quote: |
I can only suggest the coalition hasn't been repremended because it suits the U.N. to be on good terms with America and the United Kingdom.
|
Probably because it doesn't want to lose the majority of its funding.
| Quote: |
There is one possible way to justify the war, however. The whole "self-defence" schpiel at the U.N.
|
That clause is a perfect example of how outdated the UN is. It basically says a country has to wait to be attacked before it can take the necessary action to prevent that attack. During a time when that attack can appear in the form of a mushroom cloud in Madison Square Garden at New Year's Eve, that clause has little to do with today's world.
With that aside, though, the United States was attacked not by a single country but by an international force that has the support of many other countries around the world and will stop at nothing to see the United States and its allies completely and utterly destroyed.
Such a force is not addressed in the UN Charter.
| Quote: |
Pay the U.N. the fees you never bothered to pay for the last little while, and get out.
|
We have been providing more than 85% of the total funds the UN uses to operate and carry out its actions around the world. I agree with the latter point, though.
A little sidenote: I realize I got a bit too carried away in my earlier posts and came off as overly aggressive, and for that I apologize.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119547] |
Sun, 10 October 2004 18:37 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I'll let Warranto respond to the parts addressed to him.
| Quote: |
Why, then, doesn't the world stand firmly when dealing with countries like Iraq who, as you say, is "guilty of many charges" and a threat to the world peace? The UN has allowed the situation in Iraq to escalate and worsen for twelve years by using simple appeasement tactics, and 9/11 should have been a wake-up call to the world that says even the most powerful nation in the world can fall victim to a horrendous terrorist attack.
The tactics of appeasement are outdated in a post-9/11 world, and given the UN's inability to deal with Saddam firmly as it should have, it leads me to believe that the UN is outdated as well.
|
You're right, they are outdated tactics. They SHOULD be changed. But that doesn't mean that you can go around playing vigilante cop until that happens and call it "legal". Iraq should be punished for its violations of those UN resolutions, and believe me, I don't want to see Saddam back in power, but you have to understand that two wrongs do not make a right in any circumstance.
| Quote: |
So, the war was illegal, then. Do you want Saddam back in power?
|
Of course not. I "want" all those in violation of the law to be punished. If Saddam is also in violation of that law, and if deemed necessary by the Security Council, he wouldn't be reinstated as president of Iraq and would be tried appropriately. But that doesn't mean that the agressors are free of blame. Not by a long shot.
Look, you have to look at these legal situations as objectively as possible. You might not like the idea of that, but that is simply how the law works.
| Quote: |
Wouldn't it be sort of a contradiction on your part to say you don't want Saddam put back into power even though he was removed as a result of an illegal war?
|
Not if Saddam is also guilty of violation of the law.
| Quote: |
That clause is a perfect example of how outdated the UN is. It basically says a country has to wait to be attacked before it can take the necessary action to prevent that attack. During a time when that attack can appear in the form of a mushroom cloud in Madison Square Garden at New Year's Eve, that clause has little to do with today's world.
|
Take a look at that article I posted.
| Quote: |
With that aside, though, the United States was attacked not by a single country but by an international force that has the support of many other countries around the world and will stop at nothing to see the United States and its allies completely and utterly destroyed.
|
That's right. They were attacked by Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Therefore, under the very Charter of the U.N. (however outdated that we can agree it is), you cannot do what you did legally in terms of their sovereignty.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119551] |
Sun, 10 October 2004 18:44 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Nope, still no law broken.
Article 51 of the outdated UN Charter:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations"
Members of a terrorist organization attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. That organization has been aided by Iraq in the past. Though it was not a direct attack, Iraq has still harbored and provided aid for known terrorists and terrorist organizations.
|
Nope, sorry. Iraq is not Al-Queda. Regardless of "past association", the only way this link could affect the legality of the war is if Saddam hired Al-Queda for that attack. Otherwise, that comment holds no strength whatsoever. Oh, and as an extra, to my knowledge that link wasn't announced as a reason for going to war, so it doesn't make a viable defence anyways.
| Quote: |
It is, however, up to the United States to protect itself from outside threats of which Iraq was apart.
|
And we come full circle. Prove to me that Iraq was a real an imminant threat.
| Quote: |
The UN quite frankly had no idea what Iraq was doing with its weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was and always has been playing cat-and-mouse games with the inspectors since before he kicked them out in 1998, and during the five years weapons inspectors were not present, no one had any idea what he was doing with them. He may have been dismantling them, but if he was, why wouldn't he have let anyone know about it? Why kick the inspectors out if you're doing what you're being told to do?
As you know, weapons inspectors must be present at any dismantling of any weapons of mass destruction in any country in the world. If the United States decides to dismantle a nuclear warhead, UN inspectors must be present to ensure that the weapon is dismantled properly and disposed of correctly.
Now, I ask you, if Saddam was indeed complying with the orders to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction after weapons inspectors were kicked out, why didn't he just let them back in to witness their dismantling?
|
Moot point. The UN released documents stating that Iraq was complying. They may have been fooled, yes, but thats the information that they presented as accurate, therefore America had no legal basis to act on it.
| Quote: |
Wouldn't it be sort of a contradiction on your part to say you don't want Saddam put back into power even though he was removed as a result of an illegal war?
|
I'm not saying that I want this to happen, nor do I think that it would happen, but if it did, it would be the proper thing to do, if not the best thing. This is exactly why Police officers have strict guildlines when arresting someone. If they are not adhered to, the person arrested could be let go. The same thing applies here. If the UN actually decided to investigate and rule on this matter (they won't, but just as an example), Saddam could be let go. Forcefully returned to power is another thing though.
Edit: to clarify, letting Saddam go would be the proper thing to do. It would NOT be the best thing to do. -just if there was any misconception in the wording-
Edit 2:
(19:46:52) Carbon-12: What if Saddam was also guilty of violation of those resolutions?
>warranto: that would be delt with seperatly. In regards to him being removed via the war, the administrative law part was done incorrectly.
(19:48:06) @warranto: it would probably be, America lets him go, and the UN arrests him right after
Hopefully that fixes the understanding.
| Quote: |
Why, then, doesn't the world stand firmly when dealing with countries like Iraq who, as you say, is "guilty of many charges" and a threat to the world peace?
|
This can be explained by something I call hte "good guy-Bad guy" factor. When the publically viewed "Bad guy" does something bad it is expected of him, and therefor doesn't generate much public outcry (compared to what I'm going to explain next). The good guy, however, is expected to be good. So when the "good guy" does something bad, it is not expected of him, and the public outcry is extensive.
Remeber though, this does not express the belief of individual people, just the collective.
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119554] |
Sun, 10 October 2004 18:54 |
 |
Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
You're right, they are outdated tactics. They SHOULD be changed. But that doesn't mean that you can go around playing vigilante cop until that happens and call it "legal". Iraq should be punished for its violations of those UN resolutions, and believe me, I don't want to see Saddam back in power, but you have to understand that two wrongs do not make a right in any circumstance.
|
It's becoming irrelevant as to whether or not it was vigilante justice. The fact remains that no one was going to do anything about it except for the United States. Russia, France, and Germany all had some nice deals going with Hussien. Removing him would have voided them. That is the only reason they opposed removing him from power by invading Iraq and finishing what he started in 1991.
This reminds me of those "realism superhero" comics. A mega villian attacks, destroys a lot of people and property, and someone like Superman comes along and stops them. After the fight is through, someone calls them a vigilante, and they get hunted down. Nevermind the fact that they saved the populace from further destruction, or the fact that they were the only ones willing or able to do anything about it.
I'll concede that what we did was "wrong" by "international law," but then again allowing Hussien to mutilate the Oil for Food program and bribe our allies into helping him does not really help your case either.
I personally view this as the real world equivilant of Star Trek's Kobiashi Maru simulation program - a no win situation. Arguing over it is futile - it won't change anything at all.
| Quote: |
And we come full circle. Prove to me that Iraq was a real an imminant threat.
|
The problem with your type of thought is that you probably won't acknowledge a threat until it makes itself known in a belligerent fashion.
| Quote: |
That's right. They were attacked by Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Therefore, under the very Charter of the U.N. (however outdated that we can agree it is), you cannot do what you did legally in terms of their sovereignty.
|
Unfortunately that holds little water when human lives are at stake. I care little for international law, as I've said before, because it always ends up being self-serving tripe for Europeans to try and "counteract US hedgemony in the world" as a sign of defiance, that they're not as weak as they really are. I suppose losing every major point of influence over the past 400 years really hurts European pride, only to get one-upped by a former British colony.
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119557] |
Sun, 10 October 2004 19:26 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
It's becoming irrelevant as to whether or not it was vigilante justice.
|
| Quote: |
I'll concede that what we did was "wrong" by "international law,"
|
Whether or not it is relevant isn't the point. It either was vigilante justice, or it wasn't. And if you conceded to the aforementioned, then you must agree that it was vigilante justice. And you're right, it does tie into that idea of "realism superheros", but it still doesn't change the fact that the law was broken to meet your agenda, no matter WHAT it was. But the difference here is that Superman never goes running around like a Nodbuggered moron screaming "IT WAS LEGAL FUK U ANTIWAR BIZTSCHX".
We've already agreed that it was the right thing to do, but we're firm in the fact that it was done the wrong way. It can be proven any number of ways, many of which have already been stated and restated in these, and on the Pitts.
| Quote: |
The fact remains that no one was going to do anything about it except for the United States. Russia, France, and Germany all had some nice deals going with Hussien. Removing him would have voided them. That is the only reason they opposed removing him from power by invading Iraq and finishing what he started in 1991.
|
You have to be careful with this argument because it can come back and bite Bush, Cheney, or any other places that are making a sweet buck off this war. I probably don't need to explain it to you, so I won't bother unless you want me too.
| Quote: |
but then again allowing Hussien to mutilate the Oil for Food program and bribe our allies into helping him does not really help your case either.
|
No one said anything about the allies being in the right either. If they are guilty of accepting bribes, then they too are in the wrong and should be punished.
| Quote: |
I personally view this as the real world equivilant of Star Trek's Kobiashi Maru simulation program - a no win situation. Arguing over it is futile - it won't change anything at all.
|
I suppose it doesn't change anything of major importance, but it does clarify many fallacies that people like Nodbugger or Cm2Play pull out of this situation. As much as these people want to think it, America isn't on the holy high horse that they seem to elevate it to.
| Quote: |
The problem with your type of thought is that you probably won't acknowledge a threat until it makes itself known in a belligerent fashion.
|
The problem with the "attack any threat" train of thought is that you can attack any country for any reason at any time and call it "self-defence". Neither train of thought sound very good at all, but the one right now that applies to the Member States is the idea that Warranto explained. Do I think it's a good call? Of course not. But is it the law? Yes.
| Quote: |
Unfortunately that holds little water when human lives are at stake.
|
There is plenty of time after the matter of fact to suffer the consequences.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 12 16:46:07 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01156 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
