Why the US-agression in Iraq ist NOT justifiable

[Tarik]

I know that after the 11/09 attack the sense of a security in the USA has suffered damages, and thats understandable to me.

But I have the assumption, and I think I am not the only one, that the Bush administration is utilizing it for his aim.
What aim? the new world order, bush himself mentioned.

So I think that the Iraq campaign ist not the last medium-term viewed.

And about the arab support for the US troops. That is not a contradiction to what I said.
I said they declared, that they don't see Saddam as an "acute" threat to them. That was their official statement.

So why are they supporting this campaign? Cause their regimes (Jordania, Katar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuweit) are totally dependent on the USA:
An example:
Katar - The ruler of katar remains in power only with US assistance: A putsch against him was blighted by US marines 4-5 months ago

And about the turkish support: that was kind of a deal, remember the force of the US to the European Union to accept Turkey as a member. And not to forget the financial help.

 

[Tarik]

I know that after the 11/09 attack the sense of a security in the USA has suffered damages, and thats understandable to me.

But I have the assumption, and I think I am not the only one, that the Bush administration is utilizing it for his aim.
What aim? the new world order, bush himself mentioned.

So I think that the Iraq campaign ist not the last medium-term viewed.

And about the arab support for the US troops. That is not a contradiction to what I said.
I said they declared, that they don't see Saddam as an "acute" threat to them. That was their official statement.

So why are they supporting this campaign? Cause their regimes (Jordania, Katar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuweit) are totally dependent on the USA:
An example:
Katar - The ruler of katar remains in power only with US assistance: A putsch against him was blighted by US marines 4-5 months ago

And about the turkish support: that was kind of a deal, remember the force of the US to the European Union to accept Turkey as a member. And not to forget the financial help.


And the other point: I don't think you can compare saddam and osama. The Al qaida is an organization which comes from a country, it is an INTERNATIONAL terror organisation.

And to argue with " what saddam is supposed to produce after '98" is in my opionion to vague to start a war like this.

 

[V Nura]

I know that after the 11/09 attack the sense of a security in the USA has suffered damages, and thats understandable to me.

But I have the assumption, and I think I am not the only one, that the Bush administration is utilizing it for his aim.
What aim? the new world order, bush himself mentioned.

So I think that the Iraq campaign ist not the last medium-term viewed.

And about the arab support for the US troops. That is not a contradiction to what I said.
I said they declared, that they don't see Saddam as an "acute" threat to them. That was their official statement.

So why are they supporting this campaign? Cause their regimes (Jordania, Katar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuweit) are totally dependent on the USA:
An example:
Katar - The ruler of katar remains in power only with US assistance: A putsch against him was blighted by US marines 4-5 months ago

And about the turkish support: that was kind of a deal, remember the force of the US to the European Union to accept Turkey as a member. And not to forget the financial help.


And the other point: I don't think you can compare saddam and osama. The Al qaida is an organization which comes from a country, it is an INTERNATIONAL terror organisation.

And to argue with " what saddam is supposed to produce after '98" is in my opionion to vague to start a war like this.

I can't compare saddam and osama?....I just did...and it seems to contradict you



you can't tell m I can't compare something just because it makes your point less valid.

Osama based his operations out of afganistan and killed 3,000 americans...saddam could easily do the same


And like everyone else who I bring this up to


you didn't adress the issues of resolution 687 and 1441..why? because there is no justification to say this war isn't justified when viewed in light of those two resolutions.

turkey did not let us base groud troops there. Public opinion in kuwait supports this war. so it proves that turkey was free to set conditions on teh terms of it's involvment as did saudi by saying we couldn't use the prince sultan airbase.



Did the arab world think saddam was an acute threat before he took kuwait? did they think 16 hijackers would be threat to US saudi relations?


My point? ....just because the middle east doesn't see saddam as an acute threat....really doesn't mean much. Because at the end of the day..he may be an acute threat to the US.

 

[Tarik]

Well ok, you can compare saddam and osama...why not.

I can compare saddam with the pope...but lets be serious now.

I just wanted to tell you the difference between international terrorism and a COUNTRY that financially supports families of suicide bombers as Saddam does, like Saudi Arabia like I said before.
This is not the same. We can now talk about "what saddam could do " or not, but I'm not convinced by that argument that Hussein is a "threat to the USA". (Maybe it would be right to say that he ist a threat to the INTERESTS of the United States but anyway)


The last resolution regarding Iraq, which is 1441 said that if saddam does not cooperate with the UN he has to expect "serious consequences" . So I think that this is the contentious point here. What does these consequences mean? The US and his alllies say yes, but most countries say no, as well as Kofi Annan, who said, that an US attack on Iraq would "breach the UN charta".
And why? Cause a mandate for a war against a country must be clear (like it was for example in '91) articulated.

And once again the last two Blix reports were positive regarding saddams cooperation, also he said that there are some opened questions left. That is why I believe that a peaceble disarming was possible, of course if the military force on saddam were continued thats true.


And you said that the turkish parliament didn't let the US troops ground there. Officially thats true. But also there is no legitimation to be there, US troops are in Turkey (in Iskenderun).

And that the kuwaiti ppl (the only arab nation who is against saddam) want a regime change is not much a surprise.

 

[Tarik]

Ok, I forgot to state the exil iraqis who are also against saddam....but this is a attribute of all "exiles" (cuba, Iran, etc.)

 

[V Nura]

Well ok, you can compare saddam and osama...why not.

I can compare saddam with the pope...but lets be serious now.




The last resolution regarding Iraq, which is 1441 said that if saddam does not cooperate with the UN he has to expect "serious consequences" . So I think that this is the contentious point here. What does these consequences mean? The US and his alllies say yes, but most countries say no, as well as Kofi Annan, who said, that an US attack on Iraq would "breach the UN charta".
And why? Cause a mandate for a war against a country must be clear (like it was for example in '91) articulated.

let's be serious???..tarik I am serious.



I said read 1441 and 687...not read 1441


the inspectors already determined saddam to be in amterial breach ..and saddam theowing the inspectors out the first time was reson enough to go to war...the Us has been more than patient

serious consequences are laid out in 687...ie...a revokation of cease fire.

 

[Klaus]

Arun V:
to be exact saddam didn't threw them out of the country, they left Iraq for security reasons (Bombing of US/British air force) and Saddam didn't let them inside Iraq again because he had the proof that the US lead UNMOVIC gave the data to US government which used these data in a military context.

Klaus

 

[V Nura]

they still weren't allowed in


and if saddam disarmed...we wouldn't be using that data to currently rid his country of those weapons.


it's not saddams job to dictate to the UN the terms of the ceasefire he signed.

 

[hiphop]

Its not the U.S. job to dictate the weapons inspectors how they have to work.

By the way, stop this ridiculous discussion about 1441 and 687. This war is breaching international law, go search some of my posts, I?ve made it quite clear, ask any foreign relations legal expert.

 

[Salome]

By the way, stop this ridiculous discussion about 1441 and 687.

that's not a ridiculous discussion

I have heard many very intelligent people who are recognized as knowledgable re. the situation in Iraq refer to these articles as a reason why war against Iraq is justified
the ones who do think it justifies a war generally feel that preferably this war should have been fought through the UN but recognize that since the United Nations are anything but united the US is the only power who can reinforce UN resolutions
that is a great shame, but - alas - it is the current situation

 

[hiphop]

Anyway, if the Security Council says no, it means no. There is no legal way around that.

The UN Charta doesn?t say that "If a permanent member of the Sec Council votes against war, the strongest member has the right to reinforce its interpretation of UN resolutions".

This war keeps breaching international law.

 

[Dreadsox]

Its not the U.S. job to dictate the weapons inspectors how they have to work.

By the way, stop this ridiculous discussion about 1441 and 687. This war is breaching international law, go search some of my posts, I?ve made it quite clear, ask any foreign relations legal expert.

Interesting, I have read many opinions and linked articles that say the opposite of yours. So have others.

THe security council is a fault for passing vague resolutions.

 

[hiphop]

I don?t think it is about vague resolutions, but we may have different opinions here. Still, all five permanent members of the Sec Council have not agreed with war. Thats why it is breaching international law. It?s as simple as that, Dread.

 

[hiphop]

I meant to say not all five permanent members of the Sec Council have agreed with war. Excuse the mistake.

 

[V Nura]

Its not the U.S. job to dictate the weapons inspectors how they have to work.

By the way, stop this ridiculous discussion about 1441 and 687. This war is breaching international law, go search some of my posts, I?ve made it quite clear, ask any foreign relations legal expert.

hip hop....if you have this view I want you to do the following




post both resolutions and analyze both of them in relation to each other...and tell me how this war is illeagal withing the context of those two resolutions.


you can't just say stop it it's wrong..you have to post facts and reason (I'm not trying to be condescending but it's a bit ridiculous to just say stop...am I supposed to take your word for it?)(....I've posted those resolutions in other threads..and analyzed them


Also if the Us was using inspections to gather intelligence so what


the NSA intercepts 75 percent of all the phone calls made on this planet....you think gathering intelligence from weapons inspection is a huge deal?

 

[hiphop]

I?ve done this already Arun V. Do your homework.

 

[V Nura]

re post it...it wont take any effort.

 

[Dreadsox]

Where is STING when we need him?????