American & Allied Soldiers Rock!

“Cat got your tongue?”

Level 7

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11029 Jun 13, 2012
YellowPissreality wrote:
If Bush and his cartel are international criminals when will the Hague hand down an indictment against them ButtWhine ??
by the way Retard-o, US planes patrolling the no fly zone over Iraq were fired on by Iraqi missiles over 300 times, that is a breach of the Gulf War cease fire and allows the US to resume military action against Iraq
<quoted text>
Apparently you mistake insults for legitimate replies. That's ok sweetie. It's a mistake third graders make, too.

Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/05/us-...

Rumsfeld faces torture lawsuit in Iraq whistleblower case
http://www.france24.com/en/20110809-rumsfeld-...

Cheney Cancels Meeting in Canada With Spectre To Avoid Attempts To Arrest Him
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/13/cheney-c...

AS TOO THE ILLEGAL NO FLY ZONES...

Iraq Was Being Bombed During 12 Years of Sanctions (THAT WAS ILLEGAL)
..The Royal Air Force, together with the US, bombs Iraq almost every day. Since December 1998, the Ministry of Defense has admitted dropping 780 tonnes of bombs on a country with which Britain is not at war. During the same period, the United States has conducted 24,000 combat missions over southern Iraq alone, mostly in populated areas. In one five-month period, 41 per cent of casualties were civilians: farmers, fishermen, shepherds, their children and their sheep - the circumstances of their killing were documented by the United Nations Security Sector. Now consider Hain's statement that no bombing campaign exists. In truth, it is the longest such campaign since the Second World War....The February 2001 16 bombings included a large sortie of US and UK planes attacking sites near Baghdad. Usually the US and UK bombings in Iraq are within the no-fly zones that they have imposed since the Gulf War ended in 1991. These recent bombings too have been met with criticism and condemnation around the world, which are also ILLEGAL."

READ THIS CAREFULLY....
"Actually, it is interesting to note that it could be considered that Iraq has a right to defend itself while US and UK bomb it. That is, according to the Article 51 of the UN Charter, to which all nations are bound, a nation may only use force if it is threatened. Therefore, one could justifiably argue that Iraq would have THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM THE ILLEGAL NO-FLY ZONE--WHICH IS NOT ENDORSED BY THE UN--AND THE BOMBINGS.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/107/iraq-...

No More Immunity for George W. Bush – Abroad, at Least

On Monday, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) released the 'Preliminary Bush Torture Indictment', a document outlining the core aspects of the case against Bush for torture, and his violations of the Convention Against Torture to which the United States is a signatory.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/...

Torture claim is filed against Rumsfeld in France
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/world/ameri...

Just keep spouting the garbage the lame stream media spoon feeds you.

The court at the Hauge is controlled by the west. GW proclaimed that the court doesn't apply to the U.S....of course!

Level 5

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#11030 Jun 13, 2012
why don't you ever say anything to Chinky Charlie Dung about his Bull Shit causality reports !?!??!?!?!

OH that's right you hate America and Americans
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO! 10'S OF THOUSANDS? Site a source for that little piece of propaganda. I have my legitimate sources and NONE of them come anywhere close to "tens of thousands".
Here's a clue...
"A USA State Department Briefing the morning of June 4, 1989, reported 180 to 500 deaths. Renowned sinologist and Yale University professor Jonathan Spence has used the figure of 700 deaths in his writings on the events in Tiananmen Square."
http://www.sinomania.com/CHINANEWS/tiananmen_...
The number of dead and wounded remains unclear because of the large discrepancies between the different estimates, which range from several hundred to several thousand.(NOT tens of thousands) Some of the early estimates were based on reports of a casualty figure of 2,600 from the Chinese Red Cross. The official Chinese government figure is 241 dead, including soldiers, and 7,000 wounded.[105]
Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times wrote that due to the lack of physical evidence it is impossible to determine the actual number of casualties, but that "it seems plausible that about fifty soldiers and policemen were killed, along with 400 to 800 civilians.".....
"According to The Washington Post first Beijing bureau chief, Jay Mathews: "A few people may have been killed by random shooting on streets near the square, but all verified eyewitness accounts say that the students who remained in the square when troops arrived were allowed to leave peacefully."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square...
Oh.. I've got MUCH MORE. This is a complicated subject but I can assure you your claim of tens of thousands of people killed is a HUGE exaggeration.
Ever heard of the "Bonus Army? Go look it up.

Level 5

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#11031 Jun 13, 2012
because a lawsuit is the same as being indicted for war crimes by the Hague !?!?!?!? you are a DUFUS ButtSwine
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you mistake insults for legitimate replies. That's ok sweetie. It's a mistake third graders make, too.
Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/05/us-...
Rumsfeld faces torture lawsuit in Iraq whistleblower case
http://www.france24.com/en/20110809-rumsfeld-...
Cheney Cancels Meeting in Canada With Spectre To Avoid Attempts To Arrest Him
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/13/cheney-c...
AS TOO THE ILLEGAL NO FLY ZONES...
Iraq Was Being Bombed During 12 Years of Sanctions (THAT WAS ILLEGAL)
..The Royal Air Force, together with the US, bombs Iraq almost every day. Since December 1998, the Ministry of Defense has admitted dropping 780 tonnes of bombs on a country with which Britain is not at war. During the same period, the United States has conducted 24,000 combat missions over southern Iraq alone, mostly in populated areas. In one five-month period, 41 per cent of casualties were civilians: farmers, fishermen, shepherds, their children and their sheep - the circumstances of their killing were documented by the United Nations Security Sector. Now consider Hain's statement that no bombing campaign exists. In truth, it is the longest such campaign since the Second World War....The February 2001 16 bombings included a large sortie of US and UK planes attacking sites near Baghdad. Usually the US and UK bombings in Iraq are within the no-fly zones that they have imposed since the Gulf War ended in 1991. These recent bombings too have been met with criticism and condemnation around the world, which are also ILLEGAL."
READ THIS CAREFULLY....
"Actually, it is interesting to note that it could be considered that Iraq has a right to defend itself while US and UK bomb it. That is, according to the Article 51 of the UN Charter, to which all nations are bound, a nation may only use force if it is threatened. Therefore, one could justifiably argue that Iraq would have THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM THE ILLEGAL NO-FLY ZONE--WHICH IS NOT ENDORSED BY THE UN--AND THE BOMBINGS.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/107/iraq-...
No More Immunity for George W. Bush – Abroad, at Least
On Monday, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) released the 'Preliminary Bush Torture Indictment', a document outlining the core aspects of the case against Bush for torture, and his violations of the Convention Against Torture to which the United States is a signatory.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/...
Torture claim is filed against Rumsfeld in France
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/world/ameri...
Just keep spouting the garbage the lame stream media spoon feeds you.
The court at the Hauge is controlled by the west. GW proclaimed that the court doesn't apply to the U.S....of course!

“Never run from a fight.”

Level 3

Since: Dec 06

Vista, Ca.

#11032 Jun 13, 2012
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you mistake insults for legitimate replies. That's ok sweetie. It's a mistake third graders make, too.
Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/05/us-...
Rumsfeld faces torture lawsuit in Iraq whistleblower case
http://www.france24.com/en/20110809-rumsfeld-...
Cheney Cancels Meeting in Canada With Spectre To Avoid Attempts To Arrest Him
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/13/cheney-c...
AS TOO THE ILLEGAL NO FLY ZONES...
Iraq Was Being Bombed During 12 Years of Sanctions (THAT WAS ILLEGAL)
..The Royal Air Force, together with the US, bombs Iraq almost every day. Since December 1998, the Ministry of Defense has admitted dropping 780 tonnes of bombs on a country with which Britain is not at war. During the same period, the United States has conducted 24,000 combat missions over southern Iraq alone, mostly in populated areas. In one five-month period, 41 per cent of casualties were civilians: farmers, fishermen, shepherds, their children and their sheep - the circumstances of their killing were documented by the United Nations Security Sector. Now consider Hain's statement that no bombing campaign exists. In truth, it is the longest such campaign since the Second World War....The February 2001 16 bombings included a large sortie of US and UK planes attacking sites near Baghdad. Usually the US and UK bombings in Iraq are within the no-fly zones that they have imposed since the Gulf War ended in 1991. These recent bombings too have been met with criticism and condemnation around the world, which are also ILLEGAL."
READ THIS CAREFULLY....
"Actually, it is interesting to note that it could be considered that Iraq has a right to defend itself while US and UK bomb it. That is, according to the Article 51 of the UN Charter, to which all nations are bound, a nation may only use force if it is threatened. Therefore, one could justifiably argue that Iraq would have THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM THE ILLEGAL NO-FLY ZONE--WHICH IS NOT ENDORSED BY THE UN--AND THE BOMBINGS.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/107/iraq-...
No More Immunity for George W. Bush – Abroad, at Least
On Monday, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) released the 'Preliminary Bush Torture Indictment', a document outlining the core aspects of the case against Bush for torture, and his violations of the Convention Against Torture to which the United States is a signatory.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/...
Torture claim is filed against Rumsfeld in France
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/world/ameri...
Just keep spouting the garbage the lame stream media spoon feeds you.
The court at the Hauge is controlled by the west. GW proclaimed that the court doesn't apply to the U.S....of course!
In your mind does Saddam and Iraq bare any responsibility for what happened to them?

Have you read UN Resolution 687 that Saddam and the Iraqis agreed to and then never complied with?
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687...
Why were Iraqi soldiers firing their weapons over the heads of the UN Inspectors who merely wanted to see the contents of a truck? In 12 years, Saddam and the Iraqis never completed what they agreed to complete within 45 days.

In WW2 if the Germans and Japanese continued to fight even after they signed the articles of surrender, what do you think we would have done?

“Untouchable!!!!”

Level 3

Since: May 07

Whitney Pier

#11033 Jun 13, 2012
Morning everyone...just doing a drive by. Shout out to all the troops and may they be safe.

Take care all...talk soon..
Annie Muk

Sweden

#11035 Jun 13, 2012
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
....
Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/05/us-...
Once again, Nancy .... Thank You. I was looking for that article (so I could shove it in that idiot's face) but I failed to find it.

I didn't even know about the other info you've linked!
Annie Muk

Sweden

#11036 Jun 13, 2012
RADEKT wrote:
why don't you ever say anything to Chinky Charlie Dung about his Bull Shit causality reports !?!??!?!?!
<quoted text>
Whatsa' matta' RapeKit? Is DENG kicking your butt so badly ...

http://www.animationplayhouse.com/rasp1.gif

... that you're forced to ask your "enemies" to give you a hand?
Annie Muk

Sweden

#11037 Jun 13, 2012
Dave C wrote:
<quoted text>
Why were Iraqi soldiers firing their weapons over the heads of the UN Inspectors who merely wanted to see the contents of a truck?
That group was not a legitemat inspection team, but a CIA operation disguised as UN inpectors. THAT is the reason those soldiers were given the order to stop them.

The allegation of that group being CIA-infiltrated proved to be true and the UN inspection team was re-organized under the leadership of Hans Blix. This new, legitemate team was given free reign to inspect each and every site they wished.

“Never run from a fight.”

Level 3

Since: Dec 06

Vista, Ca.

#11038 Jun 13, 2012
Annie Muk wrote:
<quoted text>
That group was not a legitemat inspection team, but a CIA operation disguised as UN inpectors. THAT is the reason those soldiers were given the order to stop them.
The allegation of that group being CIA-infiltrated proved to be true and the UN inspection team was re-organized under the leadership of Hans Blix. This new, legitemate team was given free reign to inspect each and every site they wished.
So you are saying the Iraqi soldiers didn’t want the UN Inspectors or the CIA to see the contents of a truck??? That is not what Saddam said.

I understand your support for communism. The first people they kill are the intellectuals; people who have made fun of you all your life.

Level 5

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#11039 Jun 13, 2012
Chinky only kicks ass in FANTASY LAND where he is the Village Idiot
and you are the Mayor
Annie Muk wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatsa' matta' RapeKit? Is DENG kicking your butt so badly ...
http://www.animationplayhouse.com/rasp1.gif
... that you're forced to ask your "enemies" to give you a hand?

An NFL Fan

“Brevity is the soule of wit”

Level 3

Since: May 09

USA

#11040 Jun 13, 2012
Annie Fuk wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatsa' matta' RapeKit? Is DUNG kicking your butt so badly ...

... that you're forced to ask your "enemies" to give you a hand?
Still searching for pertinence through spammy agitation, Dad?
Only you would consider that 'Dung' creep's mindless propaganda to carry any validity.

“Cat got your tongue?”

Level 7

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11041 Jun 13, 2012
Dave C wrote:
<quoted text>
In your mind does Saddam and Iraq bare any responsibility for what happened to them?
Have you read UN Resolution 687 that Saddam and the Iraqis agreed to and then never complied with?
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687...
Why were Iraqi soldiers firing their weapons over the heads of the UN Inspectors who merely wanted to see the contents of a truck? In 12 years, Saddam and the Iraqis never completed what they agreed to complete within 45 days.
In WW2 if the Germans and Japanese continued to fight even after they signed the articles of surrender, what do you think we would have done?
The U.S. set Saddam up. WE gave him chemical weapons which he used on his own people. The U.S. does that, ya know....set weak leaders up only to knock them down in about 20 years...when they become expendable.
THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 80

"As a result of the U.S. and British campaign, and after prolonged negotiations between the United States, Britain, France, Russia and other U.N. Security Council members, the United Nations declared that Iraq would have to accept even more intrusive inspections than under the previous inspection regime - to be carried out by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)- or face "serious consequences." IRAQ AGREED TO ACCEPT THE UN DECISION AND INSPECTIONS RESUMED IN LATE NOVEMBER 2002. On December 7, 2002, Iraq submitted its 12,000 page declaration, which claimed that it had no current WMD programs. Intelligence analysts from the United States and other nations immediately began to scrutinize the document, and senior U.S. officials quickly rejected the claims."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

OF COURSE, WE ALL KNOW BY NOW THE U.S.OFFICIALS WERE LYING AND FOS...Even the Bushy's hand picked boy, David Kay, denied the existence of WMD's...and then resigned from the Bush administration. He knew they were FOS.

"David Kay resigns
On 23 January 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kay#David_...

"The trigger for military action preferred by the British government, other allies, and at least some segments of the Bush administration, was a second U.N. resolution that would authorize an armed response. Other key U.N. Security Council members - including France, Germany, and Russia - argued that the inspections were working and that the inspectors should be allowed to continue. When it became apparent that the Council would not approve a second resolution, the United States and Britain terminated their attempts to obtain it. Instead, they, along with other allies, launched Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 19, 2003 - a military campaign that quickly brought about the end of Saddam Hussein's regime and ultimately resulted in his capture.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

THE IRAQ WAR WAS AN ILLEGAL WAR..
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/i...

An NFL Fan

“Brevity is the soule of wit”

Level 3

Since: May 09

USA

#11042 Jun 13, 2012
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
The U.S. set Saddam up. WE gave him chemical weapons which he used on his own people. The U.S. does that, ya know....set weak leaders up only to knock them down in about 20 years...when they become expendable.
THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 80
"As a result of the U.S. and British campaign, and after prolonged negotiations between the United States, Britain, France, Russia and other U.N. Security Council members, the United Nations declared that Iraq would have to accept even more intrusive inspections than under the previous inspection regime - to be carried out by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)- or face "serious consequences." IRAQ AGREED TO ACCEPT THE UN DECISION AND INSPECTIONS RESUMED IN LATE NOVEMBER 2002. On December 7, 2002, Iraq submitted its 12,000 page declaration, which claimed that it had no current WMD programs. Intelligence analysts from the United States and other nations immediately began to scrutinize the document, and senior
"David Kay resigns
On 23 January 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kay#David_...
"The trigger for military action preferred by the British government, other allies, and at least some segments of the Bush administration, was a second U.N. resolution that would authorize an armed response. Other key U.N. Security Council members - including France, Germany, and Russia - argued that the inspections were working and that the inspectors should be allowed to continue. When it became apparent that the Council would not approve a second
More of your ponderous copy/paste spam. After having read your efforts to write on your own, one can hardly blame you.

Level 5

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#11043 Jun 13, 2012
"On the basis of the intelligence we had at the time and the publicly available knowledge, there was a credible and reasonable argument in favour of the legality of the war. The authorisation to use force in [UN resolution] 678 included the restoration of international peace and security as well as the liberation of Kuwait. Resolution 687, after the 1991 ceasefire, included getting rid of... weapons of mass destruction.

The run of resolutions after that shows there was still backing for it in the security council. The possession of such weapons constituted a threat to international peace and security. Resolution 1441 [in 2002] reiterated that. It was the common belief of the security council that Iraq had such weapons, and that they constituted a breach of binding resolutions. We know [from the Blix report] that Iraq did not fully cooperate. Through that period there was a long series of security council resolutions condemning the Iraqis for what was believed to be their possession of WMD." - Malcolm Shaw QC, Professor of international law, Leicester University
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
The U.S. set Saddam up. WE gave him chemical weapons which he used on his own people. The U.S. does that, ya know....set weak leaders up only to knock them down in about 20 years...when they become expendable.
THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 80
"As a result of the U.S. and British campaign, and after prolonged negotiations between the United States, Britain, France, Russia and other U.N. Security Council members, the United Nations declared that Iraq would have to accept even more intrusive inspections than under the previous inspection regime - to be carried out by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)- or face "serious consequences." IRAQ AGREED TO ACCEPT THE UN DECISION AND INSPECTIONS RESUMED IN LATE NOVEMBER 2002. On December 7, 2002, Iraq submitted its 12,000 page declaration, which claimed that it had no current WMD programs. Intelligence analysts from the United States and other nations immediately began to scrutinize the document, and senior U.S. officials quickly rejected the claims."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/
OF COURSE, WE ALL KNOW BY NOW THE U.S.OFFICIALS WERE LYING AND FOS...Even the Bushy's hand picked boy, David Kay, denied the existence of WMD's...and then resigned from the Bush administration. He knew they were FOS.
"David Kay resigns
On 23 January 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kay#David_...
"The trigger for military action preferred by the British government, other allies, and at least some segments of the Bush administration, was a second U.N. resolution that would authorize an armed response. Other key U.N. Security Council members - including France, Germany, and Russia - argued that the inspections were working and that the inspectors should be allowed to continue. When it became apparent that the Council would not approve a second resolution, the United States and Britain terminated their attempts to obtain it. Instead, they, along with other allies, launched Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 19, 2003 - a military campaign that quickly brought about the end of Saddam Hussein's regime and ultimately resulted in his capture.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/
THE IRAQ WAR WAS AN ILLEGAL WAR..
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/i...
Annie Muk

Sweden

#11044 Jun 13, 2012
Dave C wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying the Iraqi soldiers didn’t want the UN Inspectors or the CIA to see the contents of a truck??? That is not what Saddam said.
I guess you still haven't learned how to read. Saddam had no problem with the UN inspectors. He did not, however, want the CIA sticking their noses into his business and (possibly) plantng false evidence. Saddam was right, too! The first team was infiltrated by the CIA. Personally? I wouldn't give the CIA the opportunity to look into my pocket even if it were completely empty. For all the slander about Saddam Hussein - he was more often correct then he was wrong.
Dave C wrote:
<quoted text>I understand your support for communism. The first people they kill are the intellectuals; people who have made fun of you all your life.
You are first and foremost an idiot who will say the most ridiculous things if you think it will create a smoke screen through which you can slither out the back door on your yellow belly. You've been caught (by me) planting BS about Saddam and the UN inspection team and now you're desperatly seeking a way out.
Annie Muk

Sweden

#11045 Jun 13, 2012
"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal."

Mmmmmmm. I wonder what he meant by that? Perhaps he meant that the U.S. invasion of Irak was ILLEGAL? Well I'l be damned! There it is in black and white!
Annie Muk

Sweden

#11046 Jun 13, 2012
Geo. w. Bush: "No one has ever suggested that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction".

Hmmmmmmm. I wonder what he meant by that? Perhaps he meant that he lied when he said that Saddam had WMD's? Well, I'll be damned! There it is in black and white!

“Cat got your tongue?”

Level 7

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11047 Jun 13, 2012
RADEKT wrote:
"On the basis of the intelligence we had at the time and the publicly available knowledge, there was a credible and reasonable argument in favour of the legality of the war. The authorisation to use force in [UN resolution] 678 included the restoration of international peace and security as well as the liberation of Kuwait. Resolution 687, after the 1991 ceasefire, included getting rid of... weapons of mass destruction.
The run of resolutions after that shows there was still backing for it in the security council. The possession of such weapons constituted a threat to international peace and security. Resolution 1441 [in 2002] reiterated that. It was the common belief of the security council that Iraq had such weapons, and that they constituted a breach of binding resolutions. We know [from the Blix report] that Iraq did not fully cooperate. Through that period there was a long series of security council resolutions condemning the Iraqis for what was believed to be their possession of WMD." - Malcolm Shaw QC, Professor of international law, Leicester University
<quoted text>
You should read your articles...

Sir Adam Roberts
Professor of international relations at Oxford University, and co-editor of Documents on the Laws of War

Was the war in Iraq legal? "At a conference organised by the Foreign Office in January 2003 I noted the obvious danger that a US-led assault on Iraq might happen in circumstances which large numbers of people and states considered did not justify such action. Sadly, this is exactly what happened....

The crucial weakness in the case for war was that the US and UK governments overstated the Iraqi threat, and underestimated the effectiveness of the ongoing processes of inspection and containment.

The governments have to be judged by the information available to them at the time. However, even by that standard the case for the lawfulness of war looked, and looks, thin. The failure to plan properly for occupation makes it thinner still."

Lord Alexander QC
Chairman of the legal organisation Justice and a past chairman of the Bar

Was the war in Iraq legal? "No. The attorney general based his argument on UN resolution 678 which was designed to enable George Bush senior to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait... Both George Bush and John Major took the view that it did not give them any authority to go to Baghdad or invade Iraq. For our government to pin their argument for the use of force on it 12 years later, in a quite different situation, seems quite contrary to the wording and spirit of that resolution.

It has always seemed a desperate attempt [to justify the war] and that without a second resolution in February-March last year, the US-British case did not have the legal basis for going to war."

“Cat got your tongue?”

Level 7

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11048 Jun 13, 2012
Radet..."We know [from the Blix report] that Iraq did not fully cooperate."

HANS BLIX....
U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq

Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" — looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.

"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/...

Hummm...no WMD's ...inspection cut short by US and UK...wonder why? LOL Let me guess!
Annie Muk

Sweden

#11049 Jun 13, 2012
Nancy Botwin wrote:
Hummm...no WMD's ...inspection cut short by US and UK...wonder why?
Oh! Pick me!! I know this one!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Topix Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Welcome To The Topix Internet Top Mod 21 (Feb '12) 43 min Sharrp Shooter 6,565
Word association game (Sep '12) 1 hr Sharrp Shooter 2,860
A-Z of "ANY WORD" that comes to mind! (Sep '12) 3 hr whatimeisit 1,197
~Last Post~ (Apr '12) 4 hr -Sprocket- 8,224
**** Last post wins a prop **** New game .. rea... (Jul '12) 4 hr -Sprocket- 597
play last word! (Aug '12) Tue So_da_lish_us 355
Looking to show off on skype to men Tue fictionw0000rthy 1