At this rate in Iraq... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-08-2003, 02:00 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:02 AM
I hope this happens Sting. I just hate it that our troops are still getting killed and the Iraqi people are still having to put up with this chaos.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 03:43 PM   #17
Refugee
 
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: your skull
Posts: 2,311
Local Time: 03:02 AM
the troops are paying for the arrogance, ignorance, green and stupidity of the bush administration.

its a family war. the true intentions are finally being seen by the american public.
__________________

__________________
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 04:00 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 03:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
First, I don't think it was a mistake at all to disarm Saddam. Lets not forget the reasons why US troops are in Iraq in the first place.


Another thing we need to look at is where the attacks are taking place. 90% of the attacks on coalition forces are taking places in the area from around Baghdad up to Tikrit. This is a rather small area when one looks at all of Iraq. People here forget that the Kurdish area's and Shia area's of Iraq have been rather peaceful comparitively.


1. people aren't saying that they didn't want saddam disarmed. it's not like "hi, i'm not for this war because i want a completely crazy guy to have weapons that could kill me at any second!" it's more like "hi, i'm not for this war because the US shoved it on everyone and when its own allies said 'wait, wait, wait' the US broke most allegiances as well as undermined the UNITED NATIONS to go to war with iraq and that's the lamest shit that was ever performed to get into a war."


2. just because the place where the attacks are taking place are small doesn't mean many many people won't die. tikrit is SO dangerous, especially right now, and clearly there will be more american deaths. how do we stop it? well it'd be nice to be able to fall back on our allies at this point, but we let them go to get into a forced war.


if the war was as justifiable as rumsfeld and bush jr want us to think, why couldn't it have waited till our allies and the UN were ready to go?


it can't be the impending 2004 election, right?
__________________
Lilly is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 05:43 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:02 AM
Lilly,

"it's more like "hi, i'm not for this war because the US shoved it on everyone and when its own allies said 'wait, wait, wait' the US broke most allegiances as well as undermined the UNITED NATIONS to go to war with iraq and that's the lamest shit that was ever performed to get into a war.""

Thats not what happened. If anything the opposite happened and the USA and international community waited to long.

At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement that required him to give up all his WMD. UN resolutions, 678, 687, and more recently 1441, all authorized the use of force if Iraq failed to cooperate in disarming itself. The USA and other member states followed the UN course and allowed nearly 12 years to past before decisive action was taken to disarm Iraq. If Saddam had cooperated 100% from the begining, Iraq could have been disarmed by 1992. Saddam lied and cheated and fooled the international community time and again. To see how long this type of disarmament takes when the countries agree to do what they say, just look at Ukraine, Kazakstan and South Africa. Disarmament in those countries was accomplished in a matter of months.

The international community approved the military action to disarm Iraq through resolutions 678,687, and in the fall of 2002, 1441. Then in May of 2003, resolution 1483 recognized the USA, UK and Australia as the Authority in Iraq. If operation Iraqi Freedom was illegal, the UN would be calling for the removal of US, UK and Australian troops rather than recognizing them as the Authority.


". just because the place where the attacks are taking place are small doesn't mean many many people won't die. tikrit is SO dangerous, especially right now, and clearly there will be more american deaths. how do we stop it? well it'd be nice to be able to fall back on our allies at this point, but we let them go to get into a forced war."

Don't forget there are British, Australian and Polish troops on the ground. Just because the French and Germans are not there, does not mean it is not an international operation. Over 50 countries supported the operation and I think most others want to see Iraq rebuilt and stabilized after 24 years of Saddam.

"if the war was as justifiable as rumsfeld and bush jr want us to think, why couldn't it have waited till our allies and the UN were ready to go?"

The coalition has waited for 12 years!!!!! The UN approved the use of force despite what vocal Lawyers, the French, German and Russians say. The French, German, And Russians unfortunately would never have gone. They wanted to see Saddam remain in power.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 05:47 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 04:02 AM
so where are those dang WMDs? Remember the ones that we just could not wait for Hans Blix to find? The ones that Rummy is now telling us to "be patient" in finding? I gotta say, the irony is amusing.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 05:53 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 03:02 AM
Quote:
Thats not what happened. If anything the opposite happened and the USA and international community waited to long.

At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement that required him to give up all his WMD. UN resolutions, 678, 687, and more recently 1441, all authorized the use of force if Iraq failed to cooperate in disarming itself. The USA and other member states followed the UN course and allowed nearly 12 years to past before decisive action was taken to disarm Iraq. If Saddam had cooperated 100% from the begining, Iraq could have been disarmed by 1992. Saddam lied and cheated and fooled the international community time and again. To see how long this type of disarmament takes when the countries agree to do what they say, just look at Ukraine, Kazakstan and South Africa. Disarmament in those countries was accomplished in a matter of months.

The international community approved the military action to disarm Iraq through resolutions 678,687, and in the fall of 2002, 1441. Then in May of 2003, resolution 1483 recognized the USA, UK and Australia as the Authority in Iraq. If operation Iraqi Freedom was illegal, the UN would be calling for the removal of US, UK and Australian troops rather than recognizing them as the Authority.
i recognize that there were violations over the last 12 years, but my question was why, if they were such violations, did the rest of the world not want to help us disarm iraq? now, whatever the UN wants is moot, since the US just set the precidence that just because you're a member of the UN doesn't mean you have to abide by its rules.


Quote:
Don't forget there are British, Australian and Polish troops on the ground. Just because the French and Germans are not there, does not mean it is not an international operation. Over 50 countries supported the operation and I think most others want to see Iraq rebuilt and stabilized after 24 years of Saddam.
i'm not forgetting that we have those THREE countries behind us...but remember canada, mexico, germany, italy, austria, spain, and dare i say it france? these countries trade with us and used to like us a lot more than they do now. they won't be getting our backs anytime soon and it was all becasuse rumsfeld wanted a war RIGHT NOW. why right now? why not wait until the UN had agreed or at VERY LEAST until we had more allies?


Quote:
The coalition has waited for 12 years!!!!! The UN approved the use of force despite what vocal Lawyers, the French, German and Russians say. The French, German, And Russians unfortunately would never have gone. They wanted to see Saddam remain in power.
that's quite an assumption to make about france, germany, and russia.
__________________
Lilly is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 11:23 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly


i'm not forgetting that we have those THREE countries behind us...but remember canada, mexico, germany, italy, austria, spain, and dare i say it france?

Didn't Italy and Spain approve the use of force?
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 11:37 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


Didn't Italy and Spain approve the use of force?
I believe they were at the press conference. They did not send troops however. Not sure why!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-09-2003, 12:01 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I believe they were at the press conference. They did not send troops however. Not sure why!
I don't think we really needed any other country's troops for the actual war. They would really help right now, though.

Still, a word of approval counts for something. I'd post a link to the Don Cherry vs. Ron MacLean debate on Hockey Night in Canada, but it's no longer available on the CBC website.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 07-09-2003, 01:07 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:02 AM
sulawesigirl4,


"so where are those dang WMDs? Remember the ones that we just could not wait for Hans Blix to find? The ones that Rummy is now telling us to "be patient" in finding? I gotta say, the irony is amusing."

In case you forgot. It was the UN inspectors at the end of 1998, that Iraq had 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of tons of Mustard Gas and other WMD.

It was not about Hans Blix finding anything, it was for Saddam to give up those weapons or show the remains of their destruction. Saddam did neither.

Saddam had this stuff at the end of 1998. It was incubment upon Saddam once inspections began in late 2002 to either give up the WMD or show the remains of their destruction.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-09-2003, 01:28 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:02 AM
Lilly,

"now, whatever the UN wants is moot, since the US just set the precidence that just because you're a member of the UN doesn't mean you have to abide by its rules."

Thats incorrect. There are multiple UN resolutions that approved the use of military force by member states of the UN if Saddam failed to cooperate. The USA, UK, Australia and others abided by the rules and commitments they had made to insure that Saddam was disarmed.

"i'm not forgetting that we have those THREE countries behind us...but remember canada, mexico, germany, italy, austria, spain, and dare i say it france? these countries trade with us and used to like us a lot more than they do now. they won't be getting our backs anytime soon and it was all becasuse rumsfeld wanted a war RIGHT NOW. why right now? why not wait until the UN had agreed or at VERY LEAST until we had more allies?"

There were over 50 countries that supported us independent of what was going on at the UN. Italy and Spain were some of the heaviest supporters politically. Despite what France says, they approved Resolution 1441 which authorized the use of force against Iraq and then in May 2003 approved a resolution that recognized and approved the results of that war and the current post-war occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. But then again, France has always had a history of saying one thing and then doing another.

Saddam was supposed to have been disarmed years ago. Acting now completes what should of happened years ago. It prevents any possible unknown activities from continuing and then becoming a real threat in the future. It insures that Saddam is disarmed of Weapons that he was not allowed to have because of his past behavior.

There is no sense in continuing a process that requires the cooperation of another person when that person is unwilling to cooperate. That is why the coalition had to act now and did.


"that's quite an assumption to make about france, germany, and russia."

Really? Could you explain the efforts those countries made to contain Saddam over the past 12 years and what efforts they made to unseat him from power? If they did anything, they did things that made containing Saddam difficult and seemed more interested in dealing with him in the long term, rather than making any effort to unseat him.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-09-2003, 01:30 AM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:02 AM
"I believe they were at the press conference. They did not send troops however. Not sure why!"

It might be because their military's have not entered the 21st century yet and would simply be in the way rather than aiding the operation.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-09-2003, 01:56 AM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:02 AM
Did Resolution 1441 and 1483 authorize and legalize the war? These lawyers think not!

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20030319.html

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020108.html

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh92.htm

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh99a1.htm

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh99.htm

[Q]'There was no threat. There was no resolution'

Professor Philippe Sands QC Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals, University College London The war was contrary to international law and it was contrary to international law whether or not they find weapons of mass destruction. The illegality was based on the absence of a Security Council resolution authorising the use of force. I think that is the view of almost every independent commentator. The claim by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith - that the war was legal because Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with UN resolutions dating back to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - has received almost no support outside the UK or the United States from independent academic commentators.

Professor Robert Black QC Professor of Scots law, Edinburgh University, and architect of the Lockerbie trial in The Hague It's simple and straightforward. There are only two legal justifications for attacking another country: self-defence, or if the Security Council authorises you to do so. It is perfectly plain that none of the Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq authorised armed intervention. It's possible to cobble together what looks like a legal argument, but the real test of any legal argument is whether a court would accept that argument. I challenged the Attorney General to say what he thought the odds were of the International Court of Justice in The Hague accepting his argument. In my view, the odds against were greater than 10 to 1.

Professor Sean Murphy Associate professor of law at George Washington University, Washington DC I think there's a real question to be raised about whether the US, UK and Australian coalition properly intervened in Iraq without Security Council authorisation, and I think there are very sound reasons for saying that the intervention was not permitted. The US-UK legal justification, which is based on Security Council resolutions dating back to 1990-91, isn't credible. When you look closely at the resolutions and the practice of the Security Council, it's clear that the majority of members of the Security Council believed that further authorisation was needed in March 2003 than, in fact, existed.

Professor James Crawford Whewell Professor of International Law, Jesus College, Cambridge On the information available, none of the exceptions that permit the use of force applied. There was no UN Security Council authorisation, and no imminent humanitarian catastrophe, and no imminent threat of the use of force by Iraq. I think it was unlawful in the beginning, and they haven't found anything since to make one change one's mind. The earlier Security Council resolutions were related to the occupation of Kuwait, and that situation has completely changed. It's very contrived to treat Resolution 1441 as if it authorises the use of force.

Professor Mary Kaldor Professor of global governance, London School of Economics Going back to the 1991 UN resolutions is the real weakness of their argument. It is an awfully long time ago, and it's as though this isn't a new war - as if it is the same war we fought in 1991. I think that it is an incredibly weak legal case. I don't think there's any way we can argue that the Iraq intervention was legitimate, and it's illegitimate for two reasons. There was no real case that the inspectors weren't dealing with the weapons of mass destruction. And, we're now seeing what a lot of people warned we would see: that this will be bad for [curbing] terrorism rather than good. [/Q]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...warillegal.htm

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh107.htm

Probably the best article I have read on how to manipulate the Security Council through vague resolutions is here:

http://www.asil.org/ajil/lobel.htm
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-09-2003, 03:04 AM   #29
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 02:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The USA has lost 30 soldiers in Iraq to hostile fire since May 1. Here is the breakdown by month.

May (8)

June (16)

July (4)

There were 2 more that I could not find the month for.

If we take the last full month, June, the rate of loss is about .55, slightly higher than the rate from May 1 to the present which is .44 per day. If June is was the rate until the end of the year, by year end there would be 129 US soldiers killed by hostile fire then, compared to the 107 total with the .44 rate.


I don't know if, when counting U.S. casualties, it's fair to only count soldiers killed by hostile fire. 69 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq since May 1. Most of the deaths not attributed to hostile fire have been due to military vehicle and aircraft crashes and inadvertant gunfire and explosions of ordinance.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 07-09-2003, 09:38 AM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler



I don't know if, when counting U.S. casualties, it's fair to only count soldiers killed by hostile fire. 69 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq since May 1. Most of the deaths not attributed to hostile fire have been due to military vehicle and aircraft crashes and inadvertant gunfire and explosions of ordinance.
I meant to put those stats up......I forgot to. Thanks Pub Crawler.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com