Failure Finding Iraqi WMDs - or would Powell have supported this war if he'd knew... - 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 10-03-2003, 05:13 PM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,675
Local Time: 03:01 PM
I'm sure it matters to the parents, spouses, and children who lost a child, spouse, or parent. I'm sure it matters to them knowing their loved one may have died under false pretences. What are you going to do send they copy of the resolutions, I'm sure that will help them sleep better at night.

Maybe by your interpretation of the resolutions it made this war legal despite any proof of what we had been sold, but does it make it right? Just because something may be legal still doesn't qualify doing it.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-03-2003, 05:25 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Even if you believe the war was legal, it doesn't mean it was right. There are many things that aren't against the law, but are immoral all the same.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 10-03-2003, 05:30 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
Even if you believe the war was legal, it doesn't mean it was right. There are many things that aren't against the law, but are immoral all the same.
That raises a larger and more difficult question - is it immoral to stand by while a dictator or rebel groups kills off a segment of the population? Saddam was only the latest in a long line.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2003, 07:14 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:01 PM
BonoVoxSupastar,

"I'm sure it matters to the parents, spouses, and children who lost a child, spouse, or parent. I'm sure it matters to them knowing their loved one may have died under false pretences. What are you going to do send they copy of the resolutions, I'm sure that will help them sleep better at night."

Thats the whole point, there never was any false pretence. The resolutions and the fact that the USA and other nations would have to enforce them with military force if Saddam failed to comply is a FACT that has been known since the Ceacefire Agreement was signed back in March 1991. The international community in March 1991 decided that Saddam must give up all his WMD and passed resolutions specifically under Chapter VII rules so military force could be used to enforce the resolutions if Saddam failed to comply.

I have a several good friends that fought in this war and served in the country afterwards. Several of them saw exstensive combat. These are friends I have had since Grade School. They are like brothers to me. I've thought very long and hard about this conflict and I have dear loved ones that have fought in it. Both them and I agreed that this war was a Just one.

"Maybe by your interpretation of the resolutions it made this war legal despite any proof of what we had been sold, but does it make it right?"

Could you please tell me which resolution specifically said it was incumbent upon on member states of the UN to prove that Iraq had WMD? There is nothing in the Resolutions and Ceacefire Agreement which says member states have to prove anything. The conduct that is being judged and watched is that of the violator, Saddam. He was the one following his invasion of Kuwait, that was required to give up all WMD.

"Just because something may be legal still doesn't qualify doing it."

The Moral Justification for the war is in someways even more compelling than the legal and security arguement.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-03-2003, 10:16 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,289
Local Time: 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
That raises a larger and more difficult question - is it immoral to stand by while a dictator or rebel groups kills off a segment of the population? Saddam was only the latest in a long line.
Yes, it's immoral. We're not liberating many people around the world, are we?

I also find it immoral to now claim that this was the primary motivating factor in fighting the war. That's revisionist history. The moral thing would be not having had anything to do with him 20 years ago, either, but I suppose he was no longer useful to us.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-04-2003, 12:16 AM   #21
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,675
Local Time: 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Yes, it's immoral. We're not liberating many people around the world, are we?

I also find it immoral to now claim that this was the primary motivating factor in fighting the war. That's revisionist history. The moral thing would be not having had anything to do with him 20 years ago, either, but I suppose he was no longer useful to us.
Yes, thank you.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-04-2003, 02:25 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 10:01 PM
Sting, Maybe we should give you the deathpenalty and look for evidence later,...
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 10-04-2003, 02:31 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono
Sting, Maybe we should give you the deathpenalty and look for evidence later,...
but if we don't find the evidence
that does not mean there is no evidence.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-04-2003, 10:21 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Rono,

Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990. The United Nations passed multiple resolutions against Iraq because of this including Resolution 678 which authorized member states to remove Iraq from Kuwait and to use all means necessary to bring about compliance with current and subsequent UN resolutions. Resolution 687 following the Gulf War reaffirmed resolution 678 and laid down a number of conditions for Saddam to follow including 100% disarmament of all WMD. Saddam was required to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. Failure to do so was a violation of the Ceacefire agreement and multiple UN resolutions. It was Saddam's responsibility to prove he had fully disarmed of all WMD. He was required to do this in a way that was verifiable by the UN inspectors. Again, failure to do this was a violation of the agreements under which member states of the UN were authorized to take military action. Member States of the UN were never required to prove anything. This is how the Ceacefire Agreement was written and Saddam signed it and agreed to the conditions.

"Sting, Maybe we should give you the deathpenalty and look for evidence later,..."

Again, Saddam invaded Kuwait and the international passed a large number of resolutions against Saddam because of that action. If you believe Saddam never invaded Kuwait, never fired Scud Missiles at Israel, never attacked Saudi Arabia, never used WMD, never had WMD then you might have a case. But these things were the evidence, the evidence that allowed the international community to lay down certain conditions and penalties for the above violations. Saddam was guilty, and part of his sentence was 100% total disarmament of WMD. VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT! Failure to do so, is no different than a mass murderer who escapes from prison and could potentially harm the public at any moment.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-05-2003, 03:13 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 10:01 PM
I refuse to justify the war by using 12 years old paperwork,...Powell used shit evidence to bring the world in war hunger.

And if Saddam was able to verify that distruction of WDM`s it would not make any difference. The USA would not believe itanyway and the pre emptive attack was already planned years ago.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 10-05-2003, 04:19 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Rono,

"I refuse to justify the war by using 12 years old paperwork,...Powell used shit evidence to bring the world in war hunger."

Age is not a factor, these are requirments. Can a prisoner claim a law or sentence is not longer relevant because it happened 10 years ago? In any event, Resolution 1441 was passed in November 2002, so its not even a year old. The Authorization to use military force had already been given before Powells speach to the UN, regardless of what you think of the evidence. What is shit, is SADDAM's reasoning for being clean and not being able to verify it. Why do so many people defend this guy in regards to his serious violations on WMD?

"The USA would not believe itanyway and the pre emptive attack was already planned years ago."

Of course it was. It would be Stupid to require Saddam to comply with certain resolutions but not have any plan in place to enforce it if Saddam failed to comply.

Saddam's compliance would have made a difference. Notice the USA and other member states did not take military action for 12 years. They tried everything to work with Saddam to bring about compliance, but Saddam was not really interested in complying.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-05-2003, 05:23 PM   #27
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:01 PM
In most law systems it's illegal to punish people for things which have bin done 10 or 15 years before.
I don't think that this is also true for international law but it might be the reason why - even if people follow your argumentation and even if they ignore the fact that now the UN would have the control over the country and not the US if it was a operation under UN rules - it just dosn't feel like the justice we are used to

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-05-2003, 05:45 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Klaus,

But this is not a punishment for something done 10 or 15 years ago but rather a requirment just like one who must pay a fine or serve a jail sentence except this is far more serious than both. It is unbelievable to me, that people would defend Saddam on this and pretend that simply the passing of 12 years makes certain resolutions irrellevent. Rather, time is irrellevent to the resolutions. The requirements remain regardless of the passage of time. I know Saddam thinks differently. Any society that would let a man like Saddam wiggle out of his requirements risk suffering the same fate that Europeans did decades ago.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-06-2003, 08:24 AM   #29
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:01 PM
We allways have to remember that our enemies will interpret international law in the future like the US did it in that case and like Israel think it can do a few hours ago.

Why do you think Mr. Powell didn't praise the liberation of the Iraqi people but stoped the interview and left?

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-06-2003, 01:37 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:01 PM
The USA had the legal backing of the United Nations through Security Council Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. Israel has the right of self defense and certainly the right to target any terrorist organization in any country that is attacking it. Just as US strikes on Afghanistan were justified to get Al Quada, Israel is justified in striking Syria to get terrorist there.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 04:01 PM.


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