Another Abu Ghraib? - Page 16




 
--
Boots
 
March 21st, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
He presented a threat to our own security and that of others, but I guess a nod is as good as a wink to a blind man, eh?
how?
March 21st, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
The Charter of the UN is just that. A Charter. Bylaws of an Organization.


Not International Law. Not in anyway shape or form can it be construed as such. The most that can be effected by the Charter is removal of the Nation from Organization.

So yes they have a lot to say. Mostly US bashing as they get deeper into Oil for Food Scandals. But no they don't legislate anything.
I think you should read a litle bit about this issue. The charter are the rules countries accepted to rule their relations, and YES it is international law, one of the most importants. They CAN legislate. What do you think that the UN Resolutions are???????? I think that if you wanna write you opinion you should know what you are talking about, and obviously you are not.

Just take a look: http://www.un.org/ga/59/
March 21st, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
He presented a threat to our own security and that of others, but I guess a nod is as good as a wink to a blind man, eh?


And chewie, as 03USMC has said MANY times, world opinion has absolutely zilch, zero, nothing to do with whether our actions were right or not, they were right for our own security and that of our citizens. And that is the only justification I believe we need.
That sounded really arrogant. If you read carefully you will see that art 51 says if an army attack occurs...Never heard of Iraqui missiles hiting in Missouri, did you?????
--
Boots
March 21st, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
And chewie, as 03USMC has said MANY times, world opinion has absolutely zilch, zero, nothing to do with whether our actions were right or not, they were right for our own security and that of our citizens. And that is the only justification I believe we need.
but it is world opinion and it does affect the way the world deals with the US. look at europe sizing up china. how to you think condaliza rice's request last week will be recieved?

how much belief do you think there will be the Next time WMD's are mentioned?

if all of your friends and everyone around you are saying what you're doing is wrong....there's a pretty good chance you ARE doing something wrong.

the ONLY good thing to come out of the invasion of iraq is that saddams gone...THATS THE ONLY THING
March 21st, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by staurofilakes
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
The Charter of the UN is just that. A Charter. Bylaws of an Organization.


Not International Law. Not in anyway shape or form can it be construed as such. The most that can be effected by the Charter is removal of the Nation from Organization.

So yes they have a lot to say. Mostly US bashing as they get deeper into Oil for Food Scandals. But no they don't legislate anything.
I think you should read a litle bit about this issue. The charter are the rules countries accepted to rule their relations, and YES it is international law, one of the most importants. They CAN legislate. What do you think that the UN Resolutions are???????? I think that if you wanna write you opinion you should know what you are talking about, and obviously you are not.

Just take a look: http://www.un.org/ga/59/

No they cannot legislate. For the UN to Legislate Nations would have to give up their own right to Self Goverment and put it in the hands of the UN.

The UN is not a Governing body, Judical Body, or Legislative Body.
The Charter is not International Law. It is a set of bylaws adopted by the UN to govern the actions of that particular Organization. It has no legal or binding effect on Nations outside of how it relates to their membership in the UN. On nonmember nations it has no effect.

Resolutions are not laws, not legislation they are nothing more than the UN's opinion on issues. Notice Rwanda, Congo, Somilia. The UN passes resolutions daily condemning actions of Nations and Groups with little to no effect. Not legislation.


chewie I do understand your view as far as perception in the World goes. But I believe as Redneck we did what we felt was necessary.
March 21st, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
ok....my perception is this;


the US was attacked by al quieda. so the US destroys afghanistan, the Taliban and hunts osama to the end of the world. fair enough

but before finishing THAT job (ie by capturing Osama) Bush draws valuable troops away to iraq to start a war on pretty dodgy reasoning (WMD). how saddam was able to build/hide WMD in the period after gulf war II is pretty hard to understand seeing that military targets were being bombed almost every week for years.

so then, no WMD. that leaves the US with;

saddam is a bad man (which he was) and

it was self defence.

riiiiiight.

self defence from a nation pretty much bombed right into the stone age during and after the gulf war. a nation with questionable ability to reach out past it's own borders let alone to the other side of the world.

Iraq has NEVER attacked the US.

if it really was about self defence north korea is probably pointing missles at US bases (such as guam) right now.

the US isolated it's self from world opinion, went it's own way and has ended up in a huge mess. i reckon that if Bush had just said, "you know what, saddams a bad guy and we're going to clean house abit (because after all it is our fault)", there probably wouldn't be as much argument.

but as it stands right now it is just too easy to believe that the US administration lied to the world.

so whenever i hear "we invaded Iraq because we were defending ourselves" it just doesn't wash.

IMHO
March 21st, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Okay as far as WMD's are concerned IMO. With the amount of time and warning Saddam had it's likely they are buried like the MIGs. And as far as their exsistance goes at the beginning of the war and prior too. The United Nations Inspection Teams could niether confirm or deny etheir. They had been blocked from inspecting. Not a big jump to assume he had them.
March 21st, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Okay as far as WMD's are concerned IMO. With the amount of time and warning Saddam had it's likely they are buried like the MIGs. And as far as their exsistance goes at the beginning of the war and prior too. The United Nations Inspection Teams could niether confirm or deny etheir. They had been blocked from inspecting. Not a big jump to assume he had them.
hans blix? remember what he said before hand?

"It's sort of puzzling, I think, that you can have 100 per cent certainty about the weapons of mass destruction's existence, and zero certainty about where they are."

"In the Middle Ages people were convinced there were witches. They looked for them and they certainly 'found' them."
Sarcastic reference to the British and American governments' insistence that there are WMD in Iraq after Blix had already concluded and reported there was nothing to be found.

re: Belief that Saddam Hussein destroyed WMDs without telling anyone (09/20/2003)
"You can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the Dog,' without having a dog."
March 21st, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Yes he thought it was a weak reason......................But this is the same Gentleman who was head of IAEA 1981 TO 1997. The same Gentleman from whom Saddam managed to hide a Nuclear Weapons program until it was discovered in 91 due to the 1st Gulf War. Grain of Salt as far as I'm concerned.
March 21st, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
While head of the IAEA in the 1980's, Blix made repeated inspection visits to Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor before its destruction by the Israeli Air Force. Blix and the IAEA never discovered a highly advanced nuclear weapons program being pursued by Iraq since 1971, and Iraq was repeatedly praised by the IAEA for its full cooperation. Blix personally praised the cooperation of the Iraqi government in August 1990, around the same time Iraq had began a crash nuclear weapons program to prepare itself for its Invasion of Kuwait. It was only after the first Gulf War that the full extent of Iraq's nuclear programs, which had greatly increased since the destruction of Osriaq, were known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

quick question...at what time was the US supporting iraq against iran and is it possible that this had anything to do with the IAEA not finding anything (not accusing, just questioning)


The issue of Iraq's disarmament reached a crisis in 2002-2003, when George W. Bush demanded a complete end to alleged Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction. Under United Nations actions regarding Iraq, in place since the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was banned from developing or possessing such weapons. Bush repeatedly backed demands for disarmament with threats of invasion. The Bush administration began a military buildup in the region, and pushed for the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which brought weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei to Iraq.

Bush and Tony Blair met in the Portuguese Azores for an "emergency summit" over the weekend of March 15-16 2003, after which Bush declared that "diplomacy had failed", and stated his intentions to use military force to force Iraq to disarm in compliance with UN 1441, according to Bush administration. On March 19, 2003 a coalition of primarily US and British forces invaded Iraq, see 2003 Iraq War. After the war, a number of failed Iraqi peace initiatives were revealed, including a U.S. offer conditioned on the abdication of Saddam Hussein.

No WMD were found by the Iraq Survey Group after the invasion of Iraq.


[/b]