Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ikebut

Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Recommended Posts

I have not proved myself wrong, you basically insulted my intelligence by saying "I do not know what I am talking about" so the least you can do is point out what if any aspects of my case are flawed. I think it was just a rouse by you to make yourself seem more intelligent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no where in that declaration does it give the United States or any of her allies the permission to attack Iraq. It states that the United Nations is going to investigate the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder that too, I think we should have been in country there a long time ago.  We're getting sluggish if you ask me.

 

Im falling from grace more huh?  :bawling:  

 

Angela

We've always taken the diplomatic course first. Saddam failed to comply with diplomacy and paid the price.

 

We must choose diplomacy first with N. Korea also.

That is where you are wrong, he did comply. It was the United States that did not comply with international law when they attacked Iraq.

targeting international planes in the no-fly zone....keeping economic and food aid for himself...throwing out inspectors...not giving inspectors the full rights to inspection when they were there....yep thats compliance. Any of these gave case to attack Iraq, they are all breach of a treaty.

 

Oh what about the traditional weapons that have been found that he wasnt supposed to have?

Edited by one2gamble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone mentions weapons that countries are not supposed to have, but that is dictated by the United Staes when they themselves are not in accordance with that. It is disgusting the hippocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone mentions weapons that countries are not supposed to have, but that is dictated by the United Staes when they themselves are not in accordance with that. It is disgusting the hippocracy.

they arent supposed to have them because the UN said so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who said iraq did comply, thats the dumbest :censored: thing ive heard in a while. he booted the inspectors which the UN put there, these werent us inspectors, they were UN Inspectors. this clearly showed he was not complying with the resolution put into place after the gulf war. No wmd's eh, the proof he had them is in his actions. Let me ask u this, say u got a pound of weed stashed in your room and the cops come up asking to search, your gonna try to get rid of em. Now say you dont have anything and they wanna search, ud want them in there so you are proven innocent. Speak ur mind leftists, i like a good laugh anyhow. Its comforting to me that we WILL have a republican president for the next 4 years. Look at the democratic lineup, for gods sake, al sharpton is in there.

 

 

Please watch your language

Edited by Countrydave55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who said iraq did comply, thats the dumbest :filtered:in thing ive heard in a while.  he booted the inspectors which the UN put there, these werent us inspectors, they were UN Inspectors.  this clearly showed he was not complying with the resolution put into place after the gulf war.  No wmd's eh, the proof he had them is in his actions.  Let me ask u this, say u got a pound of weed stashed in your room and the cops come up asking to search, your gonna try to get rid of em.  Now say you dont have anything and they wanna search, ud want them in there so you are proven innocent.  Speak ur mind leftists, i like a good laugh anyhow.  Its comforting to me that we WILL have a republican president for the next 4 years.  Look at the democratic lineup, for gods sake, al sharpton is in there.

Now the cops have just scowered your room smashed all of your furniture, examined every square centimeter found nothing but they still say you have a stash of weed in your room. How practical is that. How many Americans have to die for this stupid #%^*! war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UN Resolution 1441 CLICK HERE

break one resolution if your an arab and expect to get invaded by the US...

break one (or dozens) if your a jew , and the US will loan you more weapons.....

 

Is that a racist thought...?

 

And whos Al Sharpton ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

no where in that declaration does it give the United States or any of her allies the permission to attack Iraq.  It states that the United Nations is going to investigate the problem.

Let me help you out this one time:

 

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

 

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

 

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

 

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

 

These were all Chapter 7 resolutions.

 

The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayS...tory_id=1378577

 

Britain and the United States are to introduce a new UN resolution that paves the way for military action against Iraq, while still giving Saddam Hussein a final few weeks to co-operate fully with the arms inspectors.

 

The White House said President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair held a lengthy telephone conversation last night to discuss the wording of the resolution. It must be approved by a UN Security Council, which strongly opposes a rush to war.

 

Senior US and British officials said the short resolution, to be circulated later this week or early next week, would declare Iraq in “material breach” of its UN obligations to eliminate completely its weapons of mass destruction.

 

That would provide the legal justification for the use of military force, they said.

 

“It is time for the Security Council to consider a resolution that says Iraq is in material breach,” said Richard Grenell, spokesman for US Ambassador John Negroponte.

 

The Americans and British will then demand a decision on the resolution in two or three weeks, the diplomats said.

 

The deadline would put all parties on notice that war is looming unless Iraq demonstrates it is actively co-operating with inspections, the diplomats said.

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/0.../story88886.asp

 

The 2003 invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003, when forces belonging primarily to the United States and the United Kingdom invaded Iraq, leading to the collapse of the Ba'athist Iraqi government in about three weeks and the start of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. Ground forces from Australia and Poland and naval forces from Denmark and Spain also took part. The international community was divided on the legitimacy of this invasion; see worldwide government positions on war on Iraq.

 

The start of hostilities came after the expiration of a 48-hour deadline which was set by U.S. President George W. Bush, demanding that Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq, ending the diplomatic Iraq disarmament crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

 

The UN failed to act. We had every right to attack, and with good cause.

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

break one resolution if your an arab and expect to get invaded by the US...

break one (or dozens) if your a jew , and the US will loan you more weapons.....

 

Is that a racist thought...?

 

And whos Al Sharpton ?

Please list the UN Resolutions that Israel has broken. I would like to read them.

 

Thankyou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

The resolutions against Israel are all Chapter 6 resolutions, meaning they are not enforceable and hold little if any power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please list the UN Resolutions that Israel has broken. I would like to read them.

http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pa...resolutions.htm

 

Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory; (S/19868) 5/10/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)

Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) 12/14/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention; (S/19466) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. 2/17/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. 6/9/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. 11/7/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. 5/31/1990 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 5/17/1995 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. 3/7/1997 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories 3/21/1997 Vetoed 13-1,1 (US)

Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US),

with four abstentions

(Britain, France, Ireland and Norway)

Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/15/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US)

with two abstentions (Britain and Norway)

 

 

 

 

The resolutions against Israel are all Chapter 6 resolutions, meaning they are not enforceable and hold little if any power

You mean ..they were not unanimous....... as they were vetoed by the .......US ...?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Source: U.S. State Department

Edited by Tankus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that like saying there is a double standard then Deuces?

Kinda like a sin is not bad if it is commited by a priest...I know it's a bad comparison but :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

The seriousness of the charge is apparently taken into account by the UN members acting on the resolution and deciding if it is a chapter 6 (unenforceable) or chapter 7 (enforceable) resolution.

 

Double standard? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

must be nice to have the UN there when you need it and be able to break it when you do not need it.

That statement, combined with the one you made asking for Bush to be held on war crimes, only shows that indeed you do not have any knowledge of the UN, the Iraqi War or world events. Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

(Now look at it from my perspective: A man and his family are eating dinner and suddenly

the cops rush into his house, they murder his family and destroy the house. Then the man

is taken and tortured and harrassed regarding terrorist operations. Without knowing the cops

ran into his house, killed his family and stole this mans livelihood.)

 

Sadam did this lots and lots of times to his own people..

 

Quote:

(If they were to wait and get international permission then they would have been justified

on their attack but rather they rushed it )

 

They waited, waited, and waited. Time was up. They waited to long, it gave

Sudam time to hide or move the weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayS...tory_id=1378577

 

double standard....yes

 

--------------------

I would write a letter to the UN security council and lodge a complaint. :mrgreen:

 

The US is only one vote in deciding if a resolution is chapter 6 or chapter 7.

 

I can offer numerous other links disputing the opinions made in the one you offered Tankus, although your link proves what I have been saying all along. Did you even read it?

 

The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven. By imposing sanctions—including military ones—against Iraq but not against Israel, the UN is merely acting in accordance with its own rules.

 

The distinctiveness of Chapter Seven resolutions, and the fact that none has been passed in relation to Israel, is acknowledged by Palestinian diplomats. It is, indeed, one of their main complaints. A Palestine Liberation Organisation report, entitled “Double Standards” and published at the end of September, pointed out that, over the years, the UN has upheld the Palestinians' right to statehood, condemned Israel's settlements and called for Israel to withdraw. But “no enforcement action or any other action to implement UN resolutions and international law has been ordered by the Security Council.”

 

But what if, for the sake of argument, the main Security Council resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict had been Chapter Seven resolutions? The problem would then arise that Resolution 242 of 1967, passed after the six-day war and frequently cited in the double-standards argument, does not say what a lot of the people who quote it think it says (see article). It does not instruct Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the territories occupied in 1967. It does not condemn Israel's conquest, for the good reason that most western powers at that time thought it the result of a justifiable pre-emptive war. It calls for a negotiated settlement, based on the principle of exchanging land for peace. This is a very different matter.

 

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: leprechanmonkie

(Its comforting to me that we WILL have a republican president for the next 4 years. Look at the democratic lineup,)

 

 

New pole on the presidential election, 50 percent said they

would vote to re-elect Bush while 38 percent support an

unknown Democratic candidate.

 

That's good news, for the Democrats, if they can keep their

nominee unknown, they might actually

have a chance of winning.... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...