Justice and an Illegal war. - Page 2

As I have pointed out to you before the Oil for Food program was devised
under the two preceeding Secretary General (De Cuelliar and Boutros Gali).
And was established in the early 1990's following Gulf War One.
The Oil for Food program was operated on the basis of an escrow-account
held in New York.
This means that money paid from the procedes of oil sales were to be held and controlled within the escrow account, as mandated when the account was created, in a bank in New York City.

Your claim about a supposed scandal concerning oil for food funds - if it is a valid claim, which I very much doubt - would need to be addressed in the following way.
Which banker allowed access to the escrow account ?
Who authorised the banker to transfer funds ?

If an escrow account is setup - no one can move funds without due authorisation.
So, if the funds were moved as you contend - the question needs to be asked
who gave the banker in question the authority to move funds from the escrow
account.

Just back from vacation.

Hope it was good one.

Read up. It wasn't just a few people...

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=15135

Well, thanks Bikerman, yes it was a very nice trip to Northern Spain - Barcelona, Pamplona and San Sebastian.
Through a region called the Pays Vasco (Basque Region).
A lot of driving, but very well worth it.

I don't know if you've ever been to the Basque Country - if you haven't and you get the chance to go to this region, I'd recommend it.
Plenty of nice hotels/restaurants and very scenic.
People are very nice too.

I wasn't trying to compare the two subjects just using the two issues to illustrate how two or more people can have the same information and arrive at totally opposing view points and yes I do agree the issues have far different implications. Cycling is far more important. Just kidding! Maybe.

__________________
Dope,when training and talent just aren't enough.

Never been to Spain. The only thing that would've made it better would be able to bike some of that area. Did you get the chance?

So now Russia is supporting terrorism? Hey, maybe we oughta threaten THEM with pre-emptive military strikes! And if Kofi Annann was supporting Saddam through the UN Food-for-Oil program...well, let's threaten the UN with pre-emptive strikes, too. And St. Kitts, they better mind their P's and Q's or we'll threaten pre-emptive strikes on them, too!

I wasn't allowed to bring my bike - unfortunately.
Mrs Limerickman made this clear before going there.

Plenty of cyclists though out there - there's a lot of climbing round Pamplona/
San Sebastian (Indurain country - Pyrennees).

Welcome - you now have some taste of just how deluded some the Bu****es
are on this Forum.

Instead of examining the fact that they're own goverment lied to them - the Bu****es continue to waffle on about alleged oil for food scams (which is the type of activity our friends condone when it comes to their own party), they make excuses for the theft of the US Presidential election in 2000 - they still hold that WMD were in Iraq (when they weren't).
One of them even suggested that the WMD was spirited away to Syria before the invasion ! (this last one is from the same person who alleges that underground tunnels from Egypt were made to move arms in to Palestine).

The news out of Iraq tonight though shows that the situation is simply becoming worse.
The execution of another hostage is terrible news.

However, the assisination of two Sunni Clerics might just be the catalyst for this whole situation to really kick off.
The moderates in both the Sunni and Shia (Ayotallah Sistani) have managed to keep a lid on warfare until now.
I fear that the assisination of two clerics will spark civil/holy war.

The so-called UB/Brit alliance could barely contain Al Sadr's men.
If the mainstream Sunni and Shia start getting involved, the Brits and Yanks will then have a major problem.

And my questions would be.....

1. If this is an illegal war, what international law was violated?

2. In Kofi Annan's declaration that the war in Iraq is illegal, he accuses the United States, Britian and its allies of the very serious crime of violating the UN charter. If he really believes that international law has been violated, why has he not taken action against the United States and her allies for changing the regime of another UN member?

3. Why have no other UN members sought out a special session of the Security Council in which to produce evidence of the alleged illegal acts and demand redress?

4. Since no other UN member has sought out a special session of the Security Council, why hasn't Kofi Annan himself asked the Security Council to convene and deal with the charges of illegal action? He has both the power and duty to do so if he truly believes this is an illegal war.


5. How can an organization, whose chief executive accuses the principal members of its board of violating its charter with impunity, be taken seriously?

6. Why didn't Annan resign when he clearly saw that the U.N. Charter was being violated by a group of "rogue states" led by America? And why, if the toppling of Saddam was illegal, is the U.N. helping consolidate regime change in Iraq by supervising elections for a new government?

Once again the UN does what it excels at. Nothing. The UN passes meaningless, toothless resolution after resolution, yet they fail to enforce them. The action taken by the United States and its allies was backed by no fewer than 12 mandatory Security Council resolutions. UN Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted in November of 2002, gave Hussein “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations,” which included its production of a “currently accurate, full and complete declaration” of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and weapons programs within 30 days. Furthermore, the resolution – adopted unanimously – “Recalls…that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.”

Yet again you come here talking crap,before the war even the french and germany thougth they had weapons but they wanted to disarm him by useing the UN

I see you said nothing about you mates (UN)if we sat back and waited for the UN to protect us we would end up like the 2000 women and kids in a church in rawanda yep the ones that are dead .if you can only ever see wrong in what the good guys are doing then i hope you one day you and your family get taken by the ass hole you are protecting for me the war is legal ,if you seen bad guy sitting out side waiteing to kill ur famile when you left home i would sya you have the rigth to go and fix them before they come after you

gooooooooooooooooooooooooo bush

If I quote, I always provide the source. http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re...le.asp?ID=15135

Do you have your single brain cell on a timeshare basis? Look at Vlad Putin and his shift of stance, they will now go anywhere to track down terrorists. Spain did a limp-wrist about face. Russia is going for blood.

Yeah, thanks for the link that DOESN'T WORK.

Yes, Vlad Putin will go anywhere and do anything to track down the terrorists, including removing the personal freedoms that the Russian people have just gotten (in the name of security). By building up the federal government and putting emphasis on federal police agencies. By tearing down the fledgling foundations of democracy (like taking away the popular vote for regional governors). And also by threatening pre-emptive strikes and invasion.

Hmmmm...I take it back, they're becoming more and more like the US everyday!

Illegal...is in the eye of the beholder.

Okay pals and gals...let me be the one jerk to not jump on the "I hate America and George W. Bush" bandwagon and play devil's advocate. Open your mind, if not for a moment and ponder these "possiblities".

Any country that has no chance of a September 11 EVER happening to them and has EVER asked for/received aid from the USA or Great Britain needs to think twice before pointing the finger.
Secondly... I admit we don't and will NEVER, repeat, NEVER know all the truths about what Saddam was or wasn't going to do, who he did or who he didn't have ties with and if he did, or didn't have WMD.
Cutting through ALL the beuracratic red tape that we had to go through to just implore the UN to take a peek at Iraq and see if they indeed HAD any WMD gave Saddam enough time to do ANYTHING that he wanted with possible WMD, the people who worked on them, the facilites where they were being made and any ties to all of it. He had weeks, if not months. It was announced on every friggin news network and trust me, he watched CNN.
Third...Iraq is mostly SAND...how friggin hard is it to bury evidence of something that will bring holy hellfire from the world in a country comprised almost entirely of SAND? This guy executed a zillion people and a few more who could spill the beans about WMD would be a cakewalk for this guy. Plus, the fact that even though all those countries might not get along all the time, do you think for one minute another radical muslim group in one of the border countries would not be TOO Happy to hide Saddams WMD for him knowing eventually they will be used against the infidel Americans and Brits?? Not on your life!
Fourth...yes, the USA and GB should have waited for UN approval and backing prior to going in. However...
Fifth... the UNs track record, as previously mentioned by an earlier post is far from perfect. There have been countless nations that have suffered genocide from a dominant ruler and the UN has done NOTHING. The UN sits on their butts while all the innocents get murdered. Oh, sure there is the occasional food drive to make it look successful, but when two countries who have a possible situation brewing present their findings to the UN, the other countries who are not in the line of fire flex their Muscles for all the world to see. Who has the balls to stand up to the Americans and Brits and tell them "NO"!? I'm not saying all the UN countries should've agreed to invade if they didn't think it was warranted, but it took forever just to get an investigation committee going. I honestly feel often this slap in the face is done just for the sake of doing it. The point is the system, albeit "legal" sucks. The US and GB tried to go through channels and do the right thing, but fewer jumped on the bandwagon than we had hoped, and we rushed in with crummy intel and tried to nip this in the bud before we got hit with another September 11, while the self important beuracrats sat on their hands waiting forever to do anything proactive. Germany's head honcho got elected, part of his platform was that he dislikes Americans and the US Government... and France...don't get me started. When Khaddafi attacked US ships in the Med in the 80's we "legally" flew our US bombers from Britain to retaliate. WHO do you think didn't let us do something as simple as fly over their airspace to carry out a "legal" retaliation? Good 'ol France. So Hmmmm I wonder why we couldn't get the UN to rush and at LEAST investigate the alleged WMD Saddam may have had in Iraq weeks and weeks before SOMEONE FINALLY went in. Oh and by the way, Saddam didn't exactly open the doors wide for the UN inspectors. If he had nothing to hide, after the buttwhipping he got in the 90's, knowing what was at stake, if there was nothing to hide he would've had tea and cookies waiting for them and given them the grand tour..
Lastly... pretend for one second that this whole Iraq thing isn't going on right now...how many of you really would want a major terrorist attack to happen to your country before your government responded, regardless of that response? Pre-emptive is NOT a dirty word when it saves the lives of thousands from an imminent attack. Maybe the USA overreacted to Sept. 11th. While this is not an excuse...it is a possiblity. Maybe, Pres. Bush did what he thought was best (albeit with crappy, innacurate intel, which is his job to confirm prior to action) to prevent what we Americans suffered on Sept. 11th. A horrible day that I can only PRAY never happens to you other folks. Another American was beheaded today. I'm sure the countries who blow their nose at the USA's foreign policy right now have not lost a lot of sleep over this, but it just shows the mentality of the fanatical regime we are involved with. I cannot justify the USA just barging into Iraq and whipping up a soggy, crap sandwich. We are going to have to eat it now, that is our burden, but the fact that so many terrorists have been taken out, who were sure to harm more innocents (regardless of the fact that most of you feel this cause was unjust) at least makes me feel that this raincloud has the faintest silver lining. Not trying to change your mind...just some thoughts to consider.

__________________
RAZOR_USMC

Support Our Troops * SEMPER FI