I have to say it ...
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: When this is over and Saddams stash of WMDs is found, the UN is going to look pretty stupid. I don't think anybody pretended SH hadn't WMD, except Iraq. The point was more IMO what was the best way to ensure they would be destroyed.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
what was the best way to ensure they would be destroyed. and you think the best way is to invade a country who have all the rights to own any thing and kill innocent women and children does america not own WMD or they are attacking Iraq using icecream sticks who are kidding here 1.Oil 2.mre room for Israel this is what GW is doing and will be doing for the next 20 years La ILah Ila allah Mohamed Rasoul Allah
-
The illegal (the UN didn’t approve the attack) and immoral invasion of Iraq has started. It seems (not confirmed) that right now Iraq is responding with chemical weapons (which by the way were provided by USA some years back) in the border with Iraq. G. Bush promised that if Iraq was going to use chemical weapons, they will respond with a nuke. Yes, I know this should be posted in the soapbox, but I felt I had to say it here.
If it is legality you seek then what about the legality of gassing your own people ? What about the legality of routine torture and murder of political opponents ? I could go on . Surely the question is not one about narrow definitions of legality , but whether or not the action is justified .After all the quickest way to get 5 opinions is to put 3 laywers in a room . Nukes ? If nukes where used then it would signify such a change in the perception of what nukes are for that the world would become a vastly more dangerous place. Nukes must remain a weapon of last resort . Am I the only one forever playing catch up with technology , while all the juicy opportunites keep rolling by ?
-
If it is legality you seek then what about the legality of gassing your own people ? What about the legality of routine torture and murder of political opponents ? I could go on . Surely the question is not one about narrow definitions of legality , but whether or not the action is justified .After all the quickest way to get 5 opinions is to put 3 laywers in a room . Nukes ? If nukes where used then it would signify such a change in the perception of what nukes are for that the world would become a vastly more dangerous place. Nukes must remain a weapon of last resort . Am I the only one forever playing catch up with technology , while all the juicy opportunites keep rolling by ?
-
what was the best way to ensure they would be destroyed. and you think the best way is to invade a country who have all the rights to own any thing and kill innocent women and children does america not own WMD or they are attacking Iraq using icecream sticks who are kidding here 1.Oil 2.mre room for Israel this is what GW is doing and will be doing for the next 20 years La ILah Ila allah Mohamed Rasoul Allah
Samer12 wrote: and you think the best way is to invade a country who have all the rights to own any thing and kill innocent women and children I suppose the "you" is not targetting me, or you didn't read the Soapbox these last weeks :) I would say that some innocents will die, but some guilty ones too. I don't think it's fair, of course, but pragmatically it's not totally negative.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Samer12 wrote: and you think the best way is to invade a country who have all the rights to own any thing and kill innocent women and children I suppose the "you" is not targetting me, or you didn't read the Soapbox these last weeks :) I would say that some innocents will die, but some guilty ones too. I don't think it's fair, of course, but pragmatically it's not totally negative.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
The illegal (the UN didn’t approve the attack) and immoral invasion of Iraq has started. It seems (not confirmed) that right now Iraq is responding with chemical weapons (which by the way were provided by USA some years back) in the border with Iraq. G. Bush promised that if Iraq was going to use chemical weapons, they will respond with a nuke. Yes, I know this should be posted in the soapbox, but I felt I had to say it here.
Kosovo was illegal... Davy Blog for Software Testing, Bugs, Quality, Security and Stability - www.latedecember.com
News From Angus, Scotland - The Angus Blog -
I haven't read the soap box actualy but why does any one have to die Iraq is suffering since 91 they dont have food or medicine what are they going to do in this stae La ILah Ila allah Mohamed Rasoul Allah
Samer12 wrote: I haven't read the soap box Generally, we use the Soapbox for political threads, it gives more freedom to expose a point of view, or to start a flame war :) Samer12 wrote: why does any one have to die Iraq is suffering since 91 they dont have food or medicine what are they going to do in this stae Putting the responsability on US alone is IMO a mistake, as absolving them from any responsability. Should SH have resigned 12 years ago would Iraq be in a much healthier state.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
The illegal (the UN didn’t approve the attack) and immoral invasion of Iraq has started. It seems (not confirmed) that right now Iraq is responding with chemical weapons (which by the way were provided by USA some years back) in the border with Iraq. G. Bush promised that if Iraq was going to use chemical weapons, they will respond with a nuke. Yes, I know this should be posted in the soapbox, but I felt I had to say it here.
OCid wrote: The illegal (the UN didn’t approve the attack) They don't have to. Not to link this issue with terrorism, but I forgot which UN resolution the approval of attacking the US with hijacked airplanes fell under? Can you remind me? - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
If it is legality you seek then what about the legality of gassing your own people ? What about the legality of routine torture and murder of political opponents ? I could go on . Surely the question is not one about narrow definitions of legality , but whether or not the action is justified .After all the quickest way to get 5 opinions is to put 3 laywers in a room . Nukes ? If nukes where used then it would signify such a change in the perception of what nukes are for that the world would become a vastly more dangerous place. Nukes must remain a weapon of last resort . Am I the only one forever playing catch up with technology , while all the juicy opportunites keep rolling by ?
Aaaaj i know whar you are talking about. You mean that tv documentation where they where talking about Mr. Rumsfeld working for an american inteligence agency in the 50s and 60s. He was working on chemical drugs to make a man say everything he knows aren't you ? Yes i remebmer it is the story where another member of this research group "jumped" out of the window of a hotel in america with the little broken glas parts inside the room. But this only happens in banana republics !! Another question: Did Mr. Rumsfeld ask the foreign trading goverment to allow american companys to delvier weapons to the iraq in the early 80s ? Can you answer this ? Regards Sascha
-
OCid wrote: The illegal (the UN didn’t approve the attack) They don't have to. Not to link this issue with terrorism, but I forgot which UN resolution the approval of attacking the US with hijacked airplanes fell under? Can you remind me? - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
Nitron wrote: The illegal (the UN didn’t approve the attack) They don't have to. Yes, they have to, otherwise US is violating the international legality and so invading a country unilaterally. G. Bush should pay his war crimes Nitron wrote: Not to link this issue with terrorism, but I forgot which UN resolution the approval of attacking the US with hijacked airplanes fell under? Can you remind me? UN condoned the 11th sept terrorist attack, but now US is committing another, probably more serious act of terrorism, government terrorism. There was no a single piece of evidence that there was a connection point between Iraq and Al Quaeda. Can you tell me what Iraq has to do with Bin Laden? Perhaps you don't know that it's Saudi Arabia who is supporting terrorist groups.
-
Yeh, right. As if that's going to happen. I didn't see the UN rushing to prosecute NATO countries when innocent Serbians were killed during the conflict in 1999 - is anyone actually naive enough to think this situation is going to be any different? When this is over and Saddams stash of WMDs is found, the UN is going to look pretty stupid.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
If it is legality you seek then what about the legality of gassing your own people ? What about the legality of routine torture and murder of political opponents ? I could go on . Surely the question is not one about narrow definitions of legality , but whether or not the action is justified .After all the quickest way to get 5 opinions is to put 3 laywers in a room . Nukes ? If nukes where used then it would signify such a change in the perception of what nukes are for that the world would become a vastly more dangerous place. Nukes must remain a weapon of last resort . Am I the only one forever playing catch up with technology , while all the juicy opportunites keep rolling by ?
Andrew Torrance wrote: If it is legality you seek then what about the legality of gassing your own people ? What about the legality of routine torture and murder of political opponents ? Sure, but what about the hundred of children that die everyday in Saudi Arabia because the lack of food when their dictators are rotted with money from the oil? Not to mention the situation of women there, many of them are simply slaves… What about North Korea? I could go on as well ... Why US only attacks Iraq and does nothing in the other countries? Andrew Torrance wrote: Nukes must remain a weapon of last resort . So do you really believe that Nukes dropped at Hiroshima and Nagashaki were the last resort?
-
are you saying that the war is legal and it is Americas right to attack Iraq La ILah Ila allah Mohamed Rasoul Allah
There is no right in a case like this, only wrongs. By his conduct Saddam has betrayed the whole of humanity as well as his own people, and therefore he has brought this upon Iraq, not GWB (much as I dislike him, I think he's sincere). It's too late to point fingers (IMHO most of the diplomats have been acting like children, making war more likely, not less). We should all be praying for an outcome to this war that benefits the people of Iraq and humanity as a whole. Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
Kosovo was illegal... Davy Blog for Software Testing, Bugs, Quality, Security and Stability - www.latedecember.com
News From Angus, Scotland - The Angus Blog...but justified, I think. The UN did themselves no favours by dithering while people died. It should have got involved in the Balkans long before it did. Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
Nitron wrote: The illegal (the UN didn’t approve the attack) They don't have to. Yes, they have to, otherwise US is violating the international legality and so invading a country unilaterally. G. Bush should pay his war crimes Nitron wrote: Not to link this issue with terrorism, but I forgot which UN resolution the approval of attacking the US with hijacked airplanes fell under? Can you remind me? UN condoned the 11th sept terrorist attack, but now US is committing another, probably more serious act of terrorism, government terrorism. There was no a single piece of evidence that there was a connection point between Iraq and Al Quaeda. Can you tell me what Iraq has to do with Bin Laden? Perhaps you don't know that it's Saudi Arabia who is supporting terrorist groups.
OCid wrote: Yes, they have to, otherwise US is violating the international legality and so invading a country unilaterally. It is in the interest of our own national security, and is not illegal. OCid wrote: Can you tell me what Iraq has to do with Bin Laden? Perhaps you don't know that it's Saudi Arabia who is supporting terrorist groups. Nothing that I know of. I was just livid at the time over your useless post and should have abstained from responding at all. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
Andrew Torrance wrote: If it is legality you seek then what about the legality of gassing your own people ? What about the legality of routine torture and murder of political opponents ? Sure, but what about the hundred of children that die everyday in Saudi Arabia because the lack of food when their dictators are rotted with money from the oil? Not to mention the situation of women there, many of them are simply slaves… What about North Korea? I could go on as well ... Why US only attacks Iraq and does nothing in the other countries? Andrew Torrance wrote: Nukes must remain a weapon of last resort . So do you really believe that Nukes dropped at Hiroshima and Nagashaki were the last resort?
Dude, what about the people here in america that chain their own children to the bed and starve them! Evil and illegality exist everywhere, and if everyone was simply a cannibis sativa plantation owning pacifist, then the world would be even worse than it already is. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: When this is over and Saddams stash of WMDs is found, the UN is going to look pretty stupid. When this is over and thousands of innocent citizens had been killed, the US is going to feel as Nazis.
-
I haven't read the soap box actualy but why does any one have to die Iraq is suffering since 91 they dont have food or medicine what are they going to do in this stae La ILah Ila allah Mohamed Rasoul Allah
Samer12 wrote: why does any one have to die Iraq is suffering since 91 they dont have food or medicine what are they going to do in this stae An how come Saddam has built a large amount of extremely rich palaces in the mean time? Why didn't he, as the leader of Iraq, use the available resources to feed and protect "his" people? I'll tell you why: because he doesn't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people. He only cares about himself. The thing is that everybody is quick to blame the US for all the maladies of the world instead thinking a bit more about the reality of the situation. It's like Microsoft, it's "cool" to blame Microsoft for every bad thing that happens. I wonder why nobody has said that Bill Gates started this mess so he could force all iraqis to install Windows in every computer the own. :)
There are only 10 kind of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Nitron wrote: The illegal (the UN didn’t approve the attack) They don't have to. Yes, they have to, otherwise US is violating the international legality and so invading a country unilaterally. G. Bush should pay his war crimes Nitron wrote: Not to link this issue with terrorism, but I forgot which UN resolution the approval of attacking the US with hijacked airplanes fell under? Can you remind me? UN condoned the 11th sept terrorist attack, but now US is committing another, probably more serious act of terrorism, government terrorism. There was no a single piece of evidence that there was a connection point between Iraq and Al Quaeda. Can you tell me what Iraq has to do with Bin Laden? Perhaps you don't know that it's Saudi Arabia who is supporting terrorist groups.
OCid wrote: single piece of evidence that there was a connection point between Iraq and Al Quaeda. Can you tell me what Iraq has to do with Bin Laden There is no "publicly known" proof of direct ties between al-qaeda and the Iraqi goverment but there is proof of al-qaeda members training in iraq. Also, Saddam sponsors palestininan terrorist groups by paying US$25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. I bet that money could feed a lot of iraqi people. I'm sure it could feed me and my family for a considerable amount of time. OCid wrote: Perhaps you don't know that it's Saudi Arabia who is supporting terrorist groups. I agree with you, this is an issues that definitely has to be addressed.
There are only 10 kind of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
What about the HUNDREDS of thousands of innocents killed by Saddam? Funny how people conveniently forget about them as they fall over themselves to condemn the US/UK.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: What about the HUNDREDS of thousands of innocents killed by Saddam? I'm not defending SH, he's a bastard assassin. But he’s not the only one out there. Just consider the situation in North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc …and now G. Bush wants to be at the same level. However, all I’ve said still holds.