Justice and an Illegal war. - Page 3

A little tough to understand (paragraphs help, Razor!) and nearly impossible to read in one sitting, but an essentially lucid and passionate post with a lot of keen logic.

It's no secret that I only agree with about 35% of your observations, but your disregard for paragraphs doesn't hide that you're a thinking man. Break it in to a few bite-sized points, and we might have a nice chat on our hands.

With regard to my answer - I specified Iraq.

There are plenty of examples where I think the UN failed - Rwanda, Srebrenica July 1995 stands out as a particularly cruel and wanton neglect of
7,000 men and boys who were murdered over a weekend.
I also recall the brave French general Phillippe Morillion having to circumvent the UN in order to grant protection to people in Sarajevo and Srebrenica.
So the UN isn't blameless, 390000.

But let's be clear here - in respect of Iraq, it is the British and USA administrations who have blood on their hands and not the UN.

funny you mention that...and I even went back and revised a ton of it. I will work on the paragraphs. good point!

__________________
RAZOR_USMC

Support Our Troops * SEMPER FI

Mrs Bikerman won't let me take my bike on vacation. I even tried the 'if the car breaks down I can ride for help' reasoning. No go. Oh well.

Scroll up to the ORIGINAL LINK:

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

I don't agree with how President Putin is doing it but what he is doing is a bit too late, hence the need.

Response to initial body before the questions:

The United States needs to learn that the world hates us. Nothing we could do other than roll over and bow down to the anti US UN would be good enough. Even then someone would still find something wrong with the way we did it. Give up on trying to please other countries kick ass when needed and then sort everything out.

Who are the architects of the Iraq war? The people that were screaming "whatever it takes" hours, days, and weeks after the downing of the World Trade Center towers.



Answers to your questions:
1. NO. If you think like that then why not have one world country with each current country being a state. If this happens I hope there is life on mars so I will have somewhere to go.

2. NO. Every country should be responsible for its own defense and protection. If countries would like to cooperate in this effort then all the better.

3. Part 1: Who is the international community? Would this be the UN? If so then who cares what the UN thinks anyway. They are an organization that is largely funded by the United States and are as anti US as you can get. The next thing we should do is ask whose turn is it to provide a building and security for the UN. Any country that wants to step up, please do.
Part 2: By this question I will assume that you are considering the United States a rouge country. There are rouge countries all over the place. What about all the atrocities that are committed around the world every day. Was Iraq considered a rouge country for the last 10 years for all of its goings on under the Sadam regime. It has only become a concern when people consider the United States the rouge country and that gives them something to go on about. The big bully pushing the little guy around. No one seemed to mind when the Soviet Union was a world power and went in to Afghanistan. It only seems to matter when the United States does something. People need to wake up and realize that worlds are not fair, countries are not fair, provinces/states are not fair, cities and towns are not fair, and people are not fair. Sorry went on a bit on that one. It just never ceases to amaze me at all the idiots out there.

4. If countries are to be ruled by international law see response to question #1. Then what happens when something is illegal under international law but not in the country the illegal act was committed. How about having the international law people come in snatch them up and have an international law trial. Then put them in an international prision (Who will fund that one).

[

.

. The big bully pushing the little guy around. No one seemed to mind when the Soviet Union was a world power and went in to Afghanistan. It only seems to matter when the United States does something.

Well the Afghans did! My take on this is perception .The Soviets were perceived (at least by most Americans) as the be agressors and non-sympsthetic to anything but there own agenda therefore they were expected to be bad boys and heartless as a schoolyard bully but if a perceived honor student and choirboy that was say a football player started smacking people around then that might cause an ouroar.

4. If countries are to be ruled by international law see response to question #1. Then what happens when something is illegal under international law but not in the country the illegal act was committed. How about having the international law people come in snatch them up and have an international law trial. Then put them in an international prision (Who will fund that one).[/QUOTE]

We have been moving toward a unified world economy for years now due to communication and travel technology. A "World Order Government". Scary thought and concept. I personally am not over the states rights issue.

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

The UN sat back for TEN years to scared to force Iraq to let inspectors in , if they had DONE thier JOB they would have found that no WMD were there and no war would have been needed . how can you say NOW that it was not the UN fault

My point is no weapons no war needed i am sure EVEN you can see that then again i am not sure

BTW who was the first on out of Iraq after the first bomb yes the UN, I for one will never sit back and let the UN Protect me. well i would if i wanted to die or be inslaved

The UN sat back for TEN years to scared to force Iraq to let inspectors in , if they had DONE thier JOB they would have found that no WMD were there and no war would have been needed . how can you say NOW that it was not the UN fault

My point is no weapons no war needed i am sure EVEN you can see that then again i am not sure

BTW who was the first one out of Iraq after the first bomb yes the UN, I for one will never sit back and let the UN Protect me. well i would if i wanted to die or be inslaved Blame is 100 % UN

Succinctly phrased by Ben Johnson......

The irony of the war is that the United States defied the will of UN leaders in order to consolidate the power of the UN. By defying Kofi Annan, George W. Bush rescued the organization’s discredited threats from the quicksand of its own reticence. A dozen years of idle requests and toothless entreaties brought the Security Council well-earned disregard. Only when Coalition forces “unilaterally” enforced the UN’s resolutions did the world come to see the Hudson’s most prestigious debate society occasionally means action.

I hear what both you and 390000 are saying but in the case of Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction for Iraq to handover.

The question of Iraq was multi-faceted.
(1) the case was made that there were WMD by the politicians. Despite intelligence warnings, in the case of Britain, which made it clear, that no
substantive information could be found to bolster the conclusion that there
was WMD in Iraq.

(2) Two very senior Bush aides (O'Neill and Richard Clarke) have stated that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Bush concluded that Iraq "must have had some involvement in that attack" : despite the fact that there was no evidence linking Hussein to the attack, despite the fact that the bombers were Saudi Arabian, despite the fact that all intelligence shows that Bin Laden
would never align himself with Saddam - who in BinLadens interview with Robert Fisk in 1996 "is a bad Muslim".

Yes the UN may appear to issue directives which are not enforced.
But in the case of Iraq, there were no WMD that could be handed over to the UN or others.
It is immaterial whether or not the UN could/couldn't enforce it's directives.
The fact of the matter is that Iraq could not deliver what it never had.
And the premise for going to war was that Bush/Blair suggested that Iraq had WMD and was prepared to use WMD.
In the USA's case, Bush also added the lie that SH somehow had a part to play in Sept 11th.
This was also proven to be a lie.

(1) the case was made that there were WMD when S\H bomb the kurds

(2)"It is immaterial whether or not the UN could/couldn't enforce it's directives".
Then what use is the UN , what use is giving directives that you can not inforced
(3) If they ahd no WMD why did they stop the UN going in BTW tell the kurds they never had them mate
(4) Iraq has link to benkaden look at who is in Iraq now

We have been moving toward a unified world economy for years now due to communication and travel technology. A "World Order Government". Scary thought and concept. I personally am not over the states rights issue.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you 100 % why is it that only the USA has got to follow international law , I see so many people comign here talking about international law is it lawfull to shoot kids in the back as they run away
in war both side must follow rules if they don;t then treat them like they treat you. for me nothing the USA is bad enougth
I would just NUKE them

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "San Fran Nan"

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction! ."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F.. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, ! 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"Don't stay in bed, unless you can make money in bed."
- George Burns (1896-1996)

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."
- Yoda ('The Empire Strikes Back')

"Maybe this world is another planet's Hell."
- Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)

"I'll sleep when I'm dead."
- Warren Zevon (1947-2003)

"No one can earn a million dollars honestly."
- William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925)

"From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it."
- Groucho Marx (1895-1977)

"Vote early and vote often."
- Al Capone (1899-1947)

"I'm Batman."
- Batman