WMD in iraq. - Page 3




 
--
Boots
 
March 24th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 

Topic: Re: uh...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boobies
I can understand where Doody is coming from.

The cop analogy is a bit off if look into magnitude of the matter and given conditions.

Cop, under the law, has rights to protect themselves if dangerous situation arised. Whereas, Iraq is not the US and it is a foreign country. You can't just attack a foreign country under uncleared presumptions. Eventually, it is upto the UN to determine who need/must be toppled by sheer force.

No it's not up to the UN to decide. Do we really have to go thru that again. Nations do not need permisson from the UN to defend their National interests or National Security.
March 24th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: Oh...


so, it is ok to invade other nations or regions for your own national interest. Bully, no? Another version of manifestation of destiny, no?

Hmm, then China and Russia should drum up the plans (and nothing wrong with it) of invasion under the US definition of national interests. If the US can get away with it, why can't anyone else?
March 24th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Didn't say invade I said Defend. Two different things. And you need to remember the US and UK asked for the UN 's approval to enforce UN Resolutions the UN would not even back their own rhetoric ( maybe because some member Nations had been violating the embargo?). So why would any Nation depend on them for approval of anything.
--
Boots
March 24th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Basically when a governing body fails to even back things like this... it's like having the courts IGNORE law. When you pass a resolution, that thing is not just a good idea to toy around with, that is a legally binding document. If that body which WRITES the document laughs it off, then it has made its own words mean absolutely zip. When their words mean nothing, why do you need their permission?
March 24th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: ok...


ok, point taken. Let me digest some of the info.
March 24th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 

Topic: Re: uh...


Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boobies
I can understand where Doody is coming from.

The cop analogy is a bit off if look into magnitude of the matter and given conditions.

Cop, under the law, has rights to protect themselves if dangerous situation arised. Whereas, Iraq is not the US and it is a foreign country. You can't just attack a foreign country under uncleared presumptions. Eventually, it is upto the UN to determine who need/must be toppled by sheer force.

No it's not up to the UN to decide. Do we really have to go thru that again. Nations do not need permisson from the UN to defend their National interests or National Security.
It is if you are claiming to have UN backing for your actions.
Using your argument about a nations Security and Interests the US/UK actions are no different than Saddams invasion of Kuweit after all he felt that was in Iraqs best interests as well.

Quote:
Didn't say invade I said Defend. Two different things. And you need to remember the US and UK asked for the UN 's approval to enforce UN Resolutions the UN would not even back their own rhetoric ( maybe because some member Nations had been violating the embargo?). So why would any Nation depend on them for approval of anything.
Have you ever stopped to think that the reason the UN didnt approve the action was that they didnt believe Iraq was a threat?.
Really you have to accept that if you are going to be part of a UN then you are going to have to look at nations saying "No" once in a while and in this case in particular they have been proven right as there is no WMD program, there is no Al Queada link and there is no nuclear threat.

So please stop the "UN didnt do what we want therefore they are useless" argument it really doesnt wash anymore, and lets be realistic if the US wanted out of the UN then there is nothing stopping it.
March 24th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
Basically when a governing body fails to even back things like this... it's like having the courts IGNORE law. When you pass a resolution, that thing is not just a good idea to toy around with, that is a legally binding document. If that body which WRITES the document laughs it off, then it has made its own words mean absolutely zip. When their words mean nothing, why do you need their permission?
The UN is not a governing body and it doesnt have a military mandate, the role of the UN is to rationally solve problems as they arise, your argument seems very reliant on a notion that if the US/UK roll up and say someone is in breach of a resolution the UN will whip out an invasion permit and say "here ya go, try not to blow up too many buildings on the way".
Well believe it or not if you are going to use the UN as weapon of war then you need to prove to them (Them=rest of world) that you are right.

Now to use the "Cop" analogy everyone seems to love, think of it as a cop seeing a guy crawling through a house window, rather than pulling a gun and shooting the guy most police will investigate to find out if the is robbing the house or just a guy thats locked out of his house.

In this case you have the investigation team (Hans Blix and co) saying we he says he is locked out and we cant find any keys, the cop then shooting him anyway and then the crime scene investigators saying well thats his name on the letterbox so we think he probably lived here as well at which point the cop suddenly decides well he was a bad man and I was freeing his family.
March 25th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
I never said the UN backed it. They didn't have the stomach too

The comparison between the invasion of Kuwait and OIF is crap and you know it. Iraq's invasion was a power play that Saddam thought he could get away with.

Apparently the UN thought it was enough of a threat to draft resolutions, employ an embargo and attempt to dispatch Inspection teams. As late as 1991 after the Gulf War there were NBC capable facilities in Iraq. Many of these facilities had an unk status at the beginning of the war.

As far as other Nations telling the US, UK, Mexico , Peru, or whoever no. That doesn't wash whether it's the much Vaunted UN or Trinidad. Each Nation makes it's own decisions. No one. Let me repeat that. No one. Is beholding to the UN.

As far as Blix goes the Iraqi's managed to hide their Nuke weapons program from him until the end of the 1st Gulf War

I never said the UN was useless. They are good at diaster relief and food distribution and thats about the extent of their prowess. Oh and Food for Oil. Other than that well ................................
March 25th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
never said the UN backed it. They didn't have the stomach too
Has nothing to do with not having the stomach to do it, a majority simply didnt accept the US case sorry about that but its reality whether you choose to accept it or not is irrelevant.

Quote:
The comparison between the invasion of Kuwait and OIF is crap and you know it. Iraq's invasion was a power play that Saddam thought he could get away with.
And it can be easily said that the invasion of Iraq was GWB's power play that he thought he could get away with and indeed he has but he also has a really big clean up bill that world nations so far are refusing to pay.

Quote:
As far as other Nations telling the US, UK, Mexico , Peru, or whoever no. That doesn't wash whether it's the much Vaunted UN or Trinidad. Each Nation makes it's own decisions. No one. Let me repeat that. No one. Is beholding to the UN.
See this I think is the major point for the first time in recent history people said no to the almighty US, this combined with an administration that only seems to respect strength was a kick in the nuts so rather than simply pulling their heads in they decided follow their current course of action. Fortunately the UN (rest of the world) has left you to it with a resounding "you broke it you buy it" response which means you wont be attacking anyone else in the near future.

Quote:
I never said the UN was useless. They are good at diaster relief and food distribution and thats about the extent of their prowess. Oh and Food for Oil. Other than that well ................................
And all because they didnt back the poor USA its sad day when peoples opinions vary from what they are told is right.
March 25th, 2005  
Doc.S
 

Topic: WMD in iraq


My humble opinion is that the UN (The Rest of the World) thingy whisper of sour whipcream. Apperently the UN have been a healthy organisation for a very long time through history. The UN have done alot of good things in the world, but unfortunately this organisation have IMHO rotten from the inside out when it comes to more offensive actions towards evil leaders that kills their own ppl and threaten others just to stay in power.

With what I recognize amongs the UN nations different agendas -I can only see what they have become. A nest of corrupted and sarcastic smiling diplomats and experts that doesn`t want to act but serve their own national interests and political agendas rather then act and help ppl from Tyranny and massmurder beacause it doesnt serve their interests. Just look at Africa and the ethnic-cleansing that is going on,"that is not an ethnic-cleansing". If US and the U.K are so called hypocrites just tell me what the heck the U.N is today?

I dont find any words for that shadow organisation anymore to be honest, It is a club of powerful men/women that would not lift a finger if their own country was attacked, I hardly believe they would act even then, they would do like Spain-scare the hell out of their ppl, and let the villians continue to terrorise the country, with threats of even more attacks if Spain continue to support the war against terrorism. Clearly Iraq had something to do with the terrorism, otherwise they wouldn´t have attacked spain in the first place.This is a good example of how Europe and the U.N today are playing on the grand chessboard.

The WMD question in Iraq is something that destroyed alot of the profits for them that lived of the black oil for food BS story. And when they were threaten to loose their profits they simply refused to carry out their airship resulotion. Talking about WMDs (weapons of mass-destruction) that can kill hundreds of thousands of innocent ppl is nothing you should bring forward to the UN ppl today if you want to save your own ppl´s neck thats for sure.

My trust in the UN is simply forfeit. I would never trust a theif with my keys if I did know he would rob me off when it suited his agendas. This is my opinion, whatever the U.S or the U.K or other allies may have done aginst Iraq, because no matter how you turn it, there is only one winner in this destructive war, and that is the Iraqi ppl in the end of the line. And that is what counts in my eyes.

Doc.S