THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, It doesn't matter what the US government does to approve an illegal action against a sovereign nation; it's still illegal. There is no international law that approves of attacking any country based on "fear."

Since there is no international law that disapproves or forbids "attacking based on fear", it is not a violation of international or domestic law to launch such an attack. This is especially true of a pre-emptive attack to defend oneself before one is attacked again by members of the same group (i.e., al-Qaeda)--a group that had sponsored 19 suicidal murderers of almost 3,000 USA residents. This same group, after fleeing Afghanistan into Iraq, had began growing again to renew its threat.

0 Replies

ican, What in hell are you talking about? Don't you know anything correctly?

From Wiki:

The coalition forces were commanded by General Tommy Franks. The Iraqis named commanders a few days before the invasion: General Izzat Ibrahim in the north, General Ali Hassan al-Majid in the south, Mizban Khadr Hadi in the central Euphrates area and Qusay Hussein in the central area including Baghdad and Tikrit.

Around 02:34 UTC, more than 40 satellite-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles are launched from U.S. warships in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, "surgically" striking a bunker in Baghdad believed to be holding top Iraqi officials. At 03:15 UTC, President Bush said in addressing the nation, "On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign." The military action is being dubbed "Operation Iraqi Freedom". [1] Later, on May 29, 2003, CBS Evening News reports that the bunker never existed. [2]

Protests take place around the world. In Australia, they take such forms as a "NO WAR" slogan being painted on the Sydney Opera House, Greenpeace demonstrators chaining themselves to the gates of the Australian Prime Minister's residence (the Lodge) and a former Navy officer burning his uniform outside Australia's Parliament House. In Denmark, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is sprayed with red paint for his pro-US stand. In the United Kingdom, Tony Blair survives a rebellion within his own party to win parliamentary support of war actions in Iraq.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, What in hell are you talking about? Don't you know anything correctly?

From Wiki:

The coalition forces were commanded by General Tommy Franks. The Iraqis named commanders a few days before the invasion: General Izzat Ibrahim in the north, General Ali Hassan al-Majid in the south, Mizban Khadr Hadi in the central Euphrates area and Qusay Hussein in the central area including Baghdad and Tikrit.

Around 02:34 UTC, more than 40 satellite-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles are launched from U.S. warships in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, "surgically" striking a bunker in Baghdad believed to be holding top Iraqi officials. At 03:15 UTC, President Bush said in addressing the nation, "On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign." The military action is being dubbed "Operation Iraqi Freedom". [1] Later, on May 29, 2003, CBS Evening News reports that the bunker never existed. [2]

Protests take place around the world. In Australia, they take such forms as a "NO WAR" slogan being painted on the Sydney Opera House, Greenpeace demonstrators chaining themselves to the gates of the Australian Prime Minister's residence (the Lodge) and a former Navy officer burning his uniform outside Australia's Parliament House. In Denmark, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is sprayed with red paint for his pro-US stand. In the United Kingdom, Tony Blair survives a rebellion within his own party to win parliamentary support of war actions in Iraq.

This has nothing to do with whether or not our invasion of Iraq was illegal or legal. It has nothing to do with whether international law approves or disapproves of "attacking based on fear".

Cice, "what in hell are you talking about? "Don't you know anything correctly" about what is international or domestic law, and what is 100, or 100 million protesters' opinions?

0 Replies

ican wrote :

Quote:

But what if anything does this have to do with the legality of the USA's invasion of Iraq March 18, 2003

i am not going to insert a rather long article on this subject from TIME magazine here - and there are plenty of others , as you no doubt know - i'll just post the link for anyone who wants to read the article .
of course , you are free to dismiss the article , as i'm free to dismiss your entries and arguments .
hbg

"How Close Were Iraq and Al-Qaeda?" - link to article from
TIME MAGAZINE 2003

0 Replies

And the following words from the above link deserves much attention.

"The idea of an Iraq-al Qaeda link is certainly appealing to anyone making the case for going to war: Since 9/11, attacks by al Qaeda have ranked, and continue to rank foremost in the anxieties of America's collective psyche. And opinion surveys routinely find these days that a majority of Americans believe that the U.S. has found evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link. More interesting, perhaps, is how the number of Americans suspecting an Iraq link to the events of 9/11 grew in the year following the attacks: Within days of the attacks, only 3 percent cited Iraq as a possible culprit. Yet, by January of this year, 44 percent were telling pollsters they believed Saddam was involved, and a similar number believed most or some of the hijackers were Iraqi nationals. (None were.)

0 Replies

as the old saying goes : "you can't fool all people all the time"
- to which i would add rather sadly : "but you can fool lot of people for an awfully long time" .
hbg

0 Replies

And that includes ican.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

ican wrote :

Quote:
But what if anything does this have to do with the legality of the USA's invasion of Iraq March 18, 2003

i am not going to insert a rather long article on this subject from TIME magazine here - and there are plenty of others , as you no doubt know - i'll just post the link for anyone who wants to read the article .
of course , you are free to dismiss the article , as i'm free to dismiss your entries and arguments .
hbg

"How Close Were Iraq and Al-Qaeda?" - link to article from
TIME MAGAZINE 2003

The closeness of Iraq and al-Qaeda prior to our invasion is certainly debatable. However, nothing I've said or written implies that Iraq and al-Qaeda were close prior to our invasion of Iraq. I have repeatedly provided substantial evidence that close or not some members of al-Qaeda fled Afghanistan into northeastern Iraq, after we invaded Afghanistan October 2001. Thereafter, up to our invasion of Iraq March 2003, they grew steadily in Iraq--just as steadily as they had grown in Afghanistan May 1996 to October 2001.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

And that includes ican.

No, it doesn't include ican.

One more time just for you who chooses to believe whatever you need to believe:
The closeness of Iraq and al-Qaeda prior to our invasion is certainly debatable. However, nothing I've said or written implies that Iraq and al-Qaeda were close prior to our invasion of Iraq. I have repeatedly provided substantial evidence that close or not some members of al-Qaeda fled Afghanistan into northeastern Iraq, after we invaded Afghanistan October 2001. Thereafter, up to our invasion of Iraq March 2003, they close or not grew steadily in Iraq--just as steadily as they had grown in Afghanistan May 1996 to October 2001.

0 Replies

What has that got to do with anything about the Saddam-al Qaida connection?

The US had a no-fly zone in the north; they kept the Iraq military out of that zone. So what's your beef?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

What has that got to do with anything about the Saddam-al Qaida connection?

The US had a no-fly zone in the north; they kept the Iraq military out of that zone. So what's your beef?

No! It kept the Iraq airforce out of the no-fly zone.

My beef is that al-Qaeda was growing in Iraq before we invaded Iraq, and al-Qaeda was growing in Afghanistan before we invaded Afghanistan. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq was what we thought at the time was the best way to stop that. Before Bush, we tried eliminating al-Qaeda from Afghanistan without invading Afghanistan. That didn't work, so we invaded Afghanistan.

We invaded Iraq for the same reason we invaded Afghanistan. Whether or not that was a wise thing for us to do is beside the point of whether it was legal or not.

0 Replies

From Wiki:

After the invasion of the Gulf War of 1991, the U.S., and the international community maintained a policy of "containment" towards Iraq. This policy involved numerous and crushing economic sanctions, U.S. and UK patrols of Iraqi no-fly zones declared to protect Kurds in northern Iraq and Shi'ites in the south, and ongoing inspections to prevent Iraqi development of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Iraqi military helicopters and planes regularly contested the no-fly zones.[11][12]

ican You can't protect anyone from only the air. If that's a war tactic, you should tell the generals on the ground that they don't need to be there.

0 Replies

I swear, you could stay away from this board a year and still come back to the same conversation with Ican. He reminds me of that Korean guy on Giligans Island.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

I swear, you could stay away from this board a year and still come back to the same conversation with Ican. He reminds me of that Korean guy on Giligans Island.

You guys keep bringing up the same 'ol sorosaisms for your arguments. Naturally, I keep responding with my same 'ol truths.

If you were to ever able to bring up a new argument, I would give you a new response.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

From Wiki:

After the invasion of the Gulf War of 1991, the U.S., and the international community maintained a policy of "containment" towards Iraq. This policy involved numerous and crushing economic sanctions, U.S. and UK patrols of Iraqi no-fly zones declared to protect Kurds in northern Iraq and Shi'ites in the south, and ongoing inspections to prevent Iraqi development of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Iraqi military helicopters and planes regularly contested the no-fly zones.[11][12]

ican You can't protect anyone from only the air. If that's a war tactic, you should tell the generals on the ground that they don't need to be there.

Unbelievable. You don't appear to understand your own evidence.

0 Replies

Contesting something don't mean anything if you don't succeed. We had control over the no fly zones; we had control over saddam Hussein; he was contained for twelve years. Not only that; Bush had several chances to get the one little AQ group before the all out invasion in Iraq but chose to not to so he could force regime change.

NO WMD FOUND IN IRAQ October 7, 2004

Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind

This has all been debated and proved so many times; you just keep ignoring what you want to ignore and keep reprinting the same irrelevant posts over and over again. It's a never ending cycle we have all been on in this thread.

0 Replies

ican wrote :

Quote:

You guys keep bringing up the same 'ol sorosaisms for your arguments.

i don't quite understand what soros has to do with the invasion and occupation of iraq .
let's assume there would be no soros . in that case , would the united states NOT have invaded and occcupied iraq ?

soros must be a very mighty person , outstripping even president bush in wielding power in the united states and the world .
i find it kind of strange that one doesn't read or hear much of him in any news - does he perhaps control and suppress much of the newspapers and other newssources of the united states and the world ?
hbg - an unenlightened northerner .

0 Replies

The chaos spreading across nuclear-armed Pakistan after the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is part of the price for
the Bush administration's duplicity about al-Qaeda's priorities,
including the old canard
that the terrorist group regards Iraq as the "central front" in its global war against the West.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/122707.html

0 Replies

"The assassination of Benazir Bhutto underlines the risks that democracy advocates face in dangerous places around the world. It also underscores the relative cowardice of Washington politicians who acquiesce to disastrous policies rather than take a chance on losing a few points in opinion polls.

In this guest essay, former Democratic congressional staffer Brent Budowsky laments the absence of more pro-democracy heroes in the United States:

Benazir Bhutto was no angel, but she was a believer in democracy who gave her life for her country, retuning to Pakistan knowing she would probably give her life for her country.

Benazir Bhutto gives her life. Democrats in Washington cannot risk a point in the polls. Republicans in Washington cannot summon the courage to speak out against a president and war that many of them privately, silently, believe is a disaster for our country.

Meanwhile young heroes give their lives in this unwise war our insiders sent them to fight from the safety of their focus groups and polls and their smugness while they dispense their wisdom caked in makeup from the safety of their television studios.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/122907a.html

0 Replies

The decreasing numbers of Bush apologists hasn't fazed ican one iota; he's still talking trash about our security being at danger unless we continue our war on terror in Iraq. His view of the forest and trees will never improve; he's already blind.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know