This topic has been moved to Political Discussion.
Iraq, again
-
You’re wrong, he has been shown to support terrorism. Primarily Palestinian terror groups: Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. He’s supplied them with extensive funding and even provided them with chemical & biological weapons to use. Definetely as guilty as Osama in my opinion.
http://www.idf.il/iraq/english/info13.stm
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.htmlAlso DS, when i said “who cares” that simply referenced the M122’s that Saddam had. The ones that he is allowed for home defence, the ones that are empty, and not in use. From the sounds of things, it’s like a wooden watergun in the hands of a man - he might be able to club someone with it, but other than that it’s not going to do a whole lot of “damage”.
Well, I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not willing to wait to attack the man until he’s actually got the missiles loaded and firing across the desert. At that point it’ll be too late. And to those who say he wouldn’t even try something like that, then why strive to develop such weapons?
I didn’t argue that he wasn’t “legally” allowed to have them. However, he didn’t declare them in the 12,000 page declaration he showed us.
-
Well, if Saddam sponsors terrorists linked to any attemped, planned, or executed attacks on Americans, by all means I’d love Bush to show me. Then there might be cause for war. But since Bush has lost so much political capital on this issue, it would of been in his best interests months ago to show proof. Until he shows me proof, I assume there is none.
-
First, Sadam has breached the U.N. declaration already, he was supposed to say if he got rid of his weapons or still had them, he pretended he never had them, essentially. I’m not neccessarily saying we should go to war, but Sadam has not complied with the U.N.
Second, what international laws has the U.S. broken?
Third, Yanny, it is bad in Iraq. MIllions have starved in the most fertile country in the middle east. They are not starving because of the U.S./U.N. How do I know this? They were starving before the War and before the sanctions, way back in the 80s, because of Sadam’s evilness and incompetentness.
-
Thank you YB.
At least somebody is looking at this realistically, and not through the eyes of “Bush isn’t playing fair.”
-
You are welcome Deviant
-
First, Sadam has breached the U.N. declaration already, he was supposed to say if he got rid of his weapons or still had them, he pretended he never had them, essentially. I’m not neccessarily saying we should go to war, but Sadam has not complied with the U.N.
SH didn’t say “never”, but “after Desert Storm”. And if he has none, then he is not pretending. Alone the question “if he got rid or still has them” implies he had them in the first place (first place here being after the first U.N. inspectors were forced to leave (that was against the current resolutions, but dealt with by the UN)).
I mean, if you stand in trial accused of shooting someone, and the question you have to answer is wether you still own the gun or dropped it… that has no meaning wether you actually did the killing or not.Second, what international laws has the U.S. broken?
One of them:
denying foreigners who are accused of a crime to contact their embassies for legal help. -
@Deviant:Scripter:
Man, the US are the most selfish country in this world,
Then why are you living here if it’s such an awful place?
May i blame the US ignorance again? Read my profile, read other messages from me or about me……
I am not from the U.S.We’ve been fighting with them for the last 11 years.
Hmmm, on what legal grounds did you?
YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH THESE PEOPLE! You peaceniks just want keep placating to this maniac while he accumulates more and more weapons.
Well, i don’t believe the second until i see proof, so i can do the first.
-
Mispost, to be deleted
-
First, Sadam has breached the U.N. declaration already, he was supposed to say if he got rid of his weapons or still had them, he pretended he never had them, essentially. I’m not neccessarily saying we should go to war, but Sadam has not complied with the U.N.
Second, what international laws has the U.S. broken?
Third, Yanny, it is bad in Iraq. MIllions have starved in the most fertile country in the middle east. They are not starving because of the U.S./U.N. How do I know this? They were starving before the War and before the sanctions, way back in the 80s, because of Sadam’s evilness and incompetentness.
well, the Iran-Iraq war did not help either country very much. I think that having a country like Iran across the desert is a good reason to allow anyone to keep a few guns with a range of 10 km or less. It’s not like he can target Israel with those things, never mind Chicago.
-
Hmmm, on what legal grounds did you?
On the legal ground that he was firing at our aircraft.
denying foreigners who are accused of a crime to contact their embassies for legal help.
Which foreigners? Because there’s a big difference between a criminal from the UK and an Al-Qaeda captive…
SH didn’t say “never”, but “after Desert Storm”. And if he has none, then he is not pretending. Alone the question “if he got rid or still has them” implies he had them in the first place (first place here being after the first U.N. inspectors were forced to leave (that was against the current resolutions, but dealt with by the UN)).
I mean, if you stand in trial accused of shooting someone, and the question you have to answer is wether you still own the gun or dropped it… that has no meaning wether you actually did the killing or not.How is that relevent to the situation at hand? We already know he did the killing. He did have them in the first place, there’s no implication needed. We know there were around 1,000 canisters of weapons still there when we left in the 90’s. He needs to show us where those 1,000 are because he was the last person to account for them. He hasn’t done that.
-
One of the most important phrases uttered in medicine in this age is “show me the evidence”. Right now this consists of 12 year-old actions of a impoverished nation, statements issued from a VERY questionable organization (does anyone REALLY trust the CIA even in America?) - one formerly run by Bush’s father, as well as the propaganda-like rhetoric which while lacking in reason or proof more than makes up for in inflammatory statments by a president clearly bound by conflicts of interest.
Show me the evidence of WMD, CURRENT hostile intentions, and then i would happily give my blessing to do what is needed to be done in order to correct the situation. Iraq has different values than the US, as does every other country in the world. At which point will all of these countries become as odious? Certainly Iraq is an easy target for a nation consumed by its consumption of oil which pretends to value democracy above all. I wonder when Chinese etc. values will conflict with America’s to the same degree (even tho’ it long ago had appeared to - annexing Tibet, generating nuclear weapons, menacing Taiwan . . . ).
one more word
hypocracy -
@F_alk:
if you stand in trial accused of shooting someone, and the question you have to answer is wether you still own the gun or dropped it… that has no meaning wether you actually did the killing or not.
Except the ceasefire didn’t require Sadam not to kill people with his WMD but to turn them over to a U.N. comission to be destroyed. He failed to do this, and (and as in addition to) expelled the weapons inspecters in 1998.
Sadam has violated two provisions of the ceasefire, effectively rendering it void.
-
Falk,
POWs do not have a right to contact their embassy, nor do they have a right to a trial, under international law. :D
Also, don’t blame American ignorance, blame Seattle ignorance. :)
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Hmmm, on what legal grounds did you?
On the legal ground that he was firing at our aircraft.
Sure he was, you would fire at any aircraft over the US from any nation, regardless wether that nation declared by itself (without backing of the UN) that some parts above the US are now a restricted area for your own planes, and that this any country declares itself being allowed to fly over that areas……
denying foreigners who are accused of a crime to contact their embassies for legal help.
Which foreigners? Because there’s a big difference between a criminal from the UK and an Al-Qaeda captive…
I know of at least three cases where “simple murderers” where not allowed to contact their embassies. Not terrorists, just people like you and me who happened to be accused of murder (i consider them innocent, as there trial they received was not proper for the abovementioned reason).
How is that relevent to the situation at hand? We already know he did the killing. He did have them in the first place, there’s no implication needed. We know there were around 1,000 canisters of weapons still there when we left in the 90’s. He needs to show us where those 1,000 are because he was the last person to account for them. He hasn’t done that.
Hmmm, i have never heard of these 1000 canisters of weapons… maybe you can enlight me a little bit further about those? What kind of weapons? chemical? then which one? where from? how do we know they exist(ed), and then lost trace …etc. ?
-
POWs do not have a right to contact their embassy, nor do they have a right to a trial, under international law. :D
The people imprisoned in Cuba are not considered POW by the americans. They are tortured, denied any rights they would have as POW.
They are not considered criminal either, because they won’t get a proper trial, don’t have lawyers to defend them etc.
Effectively, they are less than human. How can you defend Liberty, Freedom, and all this glorious stuff if you are not strong enough to hold on to some basic principles?Even an enemy of the state has to be proven to be an enemy of the state before court, in a fair trial. If there is overwhelming evidence, good, shortens the trial: But still, that has to be done.
Otherwise you are not much better than a fascist regime, concentrating captured enemy fighters and caught suspected (better: denounced) enemies of state in camps.Any country that does so, does not stand for the values of the western world.
-
The Prisoners in Cuba are another example of Bush contradicting himself. He claims we are at war, yet he does not treat those captured as Prsioners of war.
-
I think “the 1000 canisters” that DS refered to are the quantities of anthrax, small pox, mustard gas, VX, and serin gas that Saddam has at his disposal.
-
Except the ceasefire didn’t require Sadam not to kill people with his WMD but to turn them over to a U.N. comission to be destroyed. He failed to do this, and (and as in addition to) expelled the weapons inspecters in 1998.
Sadam has violated two provisions of the ceasefire, effectively rendering it void.
According to one of the former Inspectors (I forget his name, he wrote a book about his time in Iraq), 98% of Saddam’s weapon capability was destroyed. All of his creation ability that they knew about (And Saddam declared for the most part by the way) they destroyed. Saddam let them into most SCUD missle silos, which they destroyed.
So, that means that today, Saddam has (assuming none of it has expired or been destroyed), 2% of his original weapons capability, zero (except what he has been able to put together since 1998) creation capability, and a handful of 1970s era scud missles.
And if you claim Saddam has 1000 “Canisters” (incredibly vague term) of Biological/Chemical weapons, let Bush prove that. I’m sure he has much better intelligence than anyone else who claims he has 1000 Canisters. Let him lay out the evidence and prove to the American people (who he serveS) and the world that Saddam has what he says he has.
But I still don’t think thats cause for war. A cause for war would be proof that Saddam is involved in plots to kill Americans. I still have not seen a single shred of proof that he is doing this.
“But we should go into Iraq to bring Humanitarian aid to the people”. There are a HELL of a lot of worse off places to be than Iraq. And most of them would not require a 250,000 man war. As I’ve stated, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea are all more oppressive than Saddam Hussein. Any country in East Africa (Ex, Sudan, Ethipia, Somolia), needs Humanitarian assistance more than Iraq. The countries of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Pakistan all support terrorism.
Iraq? Iraq has violated UN resolutions, big deal. Israel has violated plenty of them. The US has violated it’s share. Hell, lets attack China if we’re going after Resolution-killers.
-
saddam tries to kill american pilots just about every day that are flying in Iraqi no-fly zones.
-
Falk, how is being locked up and interogated not being treated like prisoners of war?
And do you have proof they have been tourtered?
Suggested Topics
