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?
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.
Is it Scott Ritter you’re referring to Yanny? Anyways, Ritter only knew what he (and the other inspectors) destroyed. He has no idea whatsoever that Saddam was even showing him the full extent of what he had stored away, nor does he know what Saddam has accomplished in the last 10 yrs.
Really, it doesn’t even matter. A “cause for war” (as you like to call it) is any violation of the UN resolution that was imposed upon Saddam. You’re missing the point here Yanny, it is not up to us to prove that he has these weapons. This is not an easter egg hunt where we’re supposed to play hide-n-seek with this fool. We simply need to prove that he has violated the terms of the agreement set forth, and I’m fairly confident that Bush will present a strong case for this after the inspectors make their report (January 23?). We knew that Saddam had “x” amount of chemical/biological weapons (that were undestroyed) when the inspectors left Iraq. Now, we need to know where those weapons are; yet so-far Saddam will not tell us where these weapons are.
Realistically, it is not feasible to think that the inspectors are actually going to uncover some “profound” discovery while they’re on their little vacation over there. Do you really think Saddam was stupid enough to leave his stuff in the same places we checked in before we left in the 90’s (with the addition of his palaces.) Of course not. In fact, it’s more practical that he has either:
A.) Moved the weapons to a country such as Syria.
B.) Given control of the weapons to his military, which (so-far) has not been under the dissection of the inspectors.
Here’s a story (I’m not even sure if it’s true, but it’s interesting to hypothethize–read the last question when the interviewer asks where the weapons are): http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=247
it would not be unjust for us to invade Iraq right now. even if our inspectors can’t find the chemical/nuclear weapons that they are hiding, we could still go to war for all the times that they have broken the UN resolution since desert storm.
Scott Ritter sounds right…
A “cause for war” (as you like to call it) is any violation of the UN resolution that was imposed upon Saddam
So, we allow Israel to violate countless UN resolutions, while supplying them with billions in weapons every year, yet we declare war on Iraq.
You’re missing the point here Yanny, it is not up to us to prove that he has these weapons.
Let me explain to you how the American justice system works. Accuser makes an accusation. Defender pleads Guilty, Not Guilty, or No Contest. If Not Guilty is plead, it is up to the Prosecutor to provide evidence of the crimes accused.
Bush has made an accusation, it is up to him to provide evidence backing it up. Iraq is innocent until proven guilty. There has yet to be proof of guilt presented to the American people. There is no Clear and Present Danger.
And I do not mean on the Weapons of Mass destruction issue. The only reasons for going on a legitimate war are 1) Clear and Present Danger, 2) Extreme (meaning Mass Genocide going on at this moment, ala Kosovo) Humanitarian problems and 3) Defending allies. Anything else is an imperialistic, offensive war, akin to Hitler.
A.) Moved the weapons to a country such as Syria.
B.) Given control of the weapons to his military, which (so-far) has not been under the dissection of the inspectors.
A) If there was any proof of this, we would know. He did not move them to Syria.
B) They will be if the inspectors stay around a bit longer. Right now they are just going to old sites and sites on the Iraqi declaration. There was plenty on the Iraqi declaration, Saddam was trying to save face by calling them “Dual Use facilities”.
Let me explain to you how the American justice system works. Accuser makes an accusation. Defender pleads Guilty, Not Guilty, or No Contest. If Not Guilty is plead, it is up to the Prosecutor to provide evidence of the crimes accused.
Bush has made an accusation, it is up to him to provide evidence backing it up. Iraq is innocent until proven guilty. There has yet to be proof of guilt presented to the American people. There is no Clear and Present Danger.
And I do not mean on the Weapons of Mass destruction issue. The only reasons for going on a legitimate war are 1) Clear and Present Danger, 2) Extreme (meaning Mass Genocide going on at this moment, ala Kosovo) Humanitarian problems and 3) Defending allies. Anything else is an imperialistic, offensive war, akin to Hitler.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that this situation falls under the jurisdiction of the American justice system. Different rules apply.
Bush has made an accusation, it is up to him to provide evidence backing it up.
Not according to the resolution.
There is no Clear and Present Danger.
Did the Taliban represent a clear and present danger to the US? No, but they were still supporting terrorists, and therefore we had to destroy them.
B) They will be if the inspectors stay around a bit longer. Right now they are just going to old sites and sites on the Iraqi declaration. There was plenty on the Iraqi declaration, Saddam was trying to save face by calling them “Dual Use facilities”.
So, how long are you suggesting we give to these guys before you admit they are not capable of destroying everything?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that this situation falls under the jurisdiction of the American justice system. Different rules apply.
Justice is an American principle. Just because we’re not dealing with an American doesn’t mean our ideals don’t hold up. Oh wait, I forgot, Bush doesn’t believe in the Constitution.
Not according to the resolution.
Are you listening? I said Bush has the prove to the American people that Saddam Hussein is plotting to kill Americans. Someone viotating a UN resolution is not a cause for war, unless the UN votes for a war, which has yet to happen.
Did the Taliban represent a clear and present danger to the US? No, but they were still supporting terrorists, and therefore we had to destroy them.
We were able to prove that the Taliban were harboring terrorists, and providing resources, funding, and military support for Al-Quaeda. That was a cause for war. There is no proof of Iraq giving similar support to terrorists, no proof whatsoever.
So, how long are you suggesting we give to these guys before you admit they are not capable of destroying everything?
Personally I think we leave them in there, and keep an eye on Saddam. No more is needed. It is not in Saddam’s best interests to attack us, in fact, it is in his best interests to maintain a peaceful, oil-rich relationship with the US and her businesses.
Yanny, Sadam has broken 2 articles of the ceasefire, rendering it void.
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.
DS said that the Inspectors knew of the existance of 1000 canisters when they were forced to leave. If they also knew what was in them….
why did they not destroy them? If the canisters where hidden from the Inspectors, how could they know that they exist and what’s in them?
saddam tries to kill american pilots just about every day that are flying in Iraqi no-fly zones.
Yup. The Iraq defends itself against US and UK pilots who violate the Iraqs borders.
There is nothing that puts the no-fly zones on any legal ground: they actually are a continual breaking of international law by the side of the US and UK.
