9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 07:07 pm
BTW, The United States is a member of the United Nations - just in case you didn't know.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 07:15 pm
Further information: United Nations Charter and International law
Debate about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq under international law centers around ambiguous language in parts of UN Resolution 1441 (2002).[25] The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law describes it a war of aggression.[26]

The Iraq war was not based on self-defense.
The Iraq war was not sanctioned by the UN security council.

Both conditions were not met; therefore, it is illegal under UN Charter.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 07:33 pm
hamburger wrote:
this is what MSNBC reported in 2004 :

Quote:
MSNBC staff and news service reports

updated 6:48 p.m. ET, Wed., June. 16, 2004

WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States.


MSNBC full report :
FROM THE 9/11 PANEL

I know that to probably be a true fact.

I also know that it is an irrelevant true fact.

It is irrelevant because it is also an equally probable true fact that al-Qaeda had established sanctuary for itself in northeastern Iraq before the USA invaded Iraq, and less than 2 months after the USA invaded Afghanistan for the exact same reason (i.e., al-Qaeda had established sanctuary for itself in Afghanistan before the USA invaded Afghanistan).
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 08:19 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Further information: United Nations Charter and International law
Debate about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq under international law centers around ambiguous language in parts of UN Resolution 1441 (2002).[25] The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law describes it a war of aggression.[26]

The Iraq war was not based on self-defense.
The Iraq war was not sanctioned by the UN security council.

Both conditions were not met; therefore, it is illegal under UN Charter.

The Iraq war was based on self-defence. It continues to be based on self-defence. Until it ceases to be based on self-defence, the USA is justified remaining in Iraq. The UN has not passed any resolution stating that the USA violated international law by invading Iraq or by remaining in Iraq.

Quote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq


UN CHARTER wrote:
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Congress wrote:

Congress's Joint Resolution September 14, 2001

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
...
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Congress wrote:

Congress's Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002

Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...
[10th]Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/moussaouiindictment.htm
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-v-
ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI


Overt Acts
In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to effect its objects, the defendant, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, committed the following overt acts:
The Provision of Guesthouses and Training Camps
1. At various times from at least as early as 1989, Usama Bin Laden, and others known and unknown, provided training camps and guesthouses in Afghanistan, including camps known as Khalden, Derunta, Khost, Siddiq, and Jihad Wal, for the use of al Qaeda and its affiliated groups.
The Training
2. At various times from at least as early as 1990, unindicted co-conspirators, known and unknown, provided military and intelligence training in various areas, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Sudan, for the use of al Qaeda and its affiliated groups, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
Financial and Business Dealings
3. At various times from at least as early as 1989 until the date of the filing of this Indictment, Usama Bin Laden, and others known and unknown, engaged in financial and business transactions on behalf of al Qaeda, including, but not limited to: purchasing land for training camps; purchasing warehouses for storage of items, including explosives; purchasing communications and electronics equipment; transferring funds between corporate accounts; and transporting currency and weapons to members of al Qaeda and its associated terrorist organizations in various countries throughout the world.
The Efforts to Obtain Nuclear Weapons and Their Components
4. At various times from at least as early as 1992, Usama Bin Laden, and others known and unknown, made efforts to obtain the components of nuclear weapons.

The Fatwahs Against American Troops in Saudi Arabia and Yemen
5. At various times from in or about 1992 until the date of the filing of this Indictment, Usama Bin Laden, working together with members of the fatwah committee of al Qaeda, disseminated fatwahs to other members and associates of al Qaeda that the United States forces stationed on the Saudi Arabian peninsula, including both Saudi Arabia and Yemen, should be attacked.

The Fatwah Against American Troops in Somalia
6. At various times from in or about 1992 until in or about 1993, Usama Bin Laden, working together with members of the fatwah committee of al Qaeda, disseminated fatwahs to other members and associates of al Qaeda that the United States forces stationed in the Horn of Africa, including Somalia, should be attacked.

The Fatwah Regarding Deaths of Nonbelievers
7. On various occasions, an unindicted co-conspirator advised other members of al Qaeda that it was Islamically proper to engage in violent actions against "infidels" (nonbelievers), even if others might be killed by such actions, because if the others were "innocent," they would go to paradise, and if they were not "innocent," they deserved to die.

The August 1996 Declaration of War
8. On or about August 23, 1996, a Declaration of Jihad indicating that it was from the Hindu Kush mountains in Afghanistan entitled, "Message from Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden to His Muslim Brothers in the Whole World and Especially in the Arabian Peninsula: Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Mosques; Expel the Heretics from the Arabian Peninsula" was disseminated.

The February 1998 Fatwah Against American Civilians
9. In February 1998, Usama Bin Laden endorsed a fatwah under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Jihad on the Jews and Crusaders." This fatwah, published in the publication Al-Quds al-`Arabi on February 23, 1998, stated that Muslims should kill Americans - including civilians - anywhere in the world where they can be found.

10. In an address in or about 1998, Usama Bin Laden cited American aggression against Islam and encouraged a jihad that would eliminate the Americans from the Arabian Peninsula.

Bin Laden Endorses the Nuclear Bomb of Islam
11. On or about May 29, 1998, Usama Bin Laden issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Fighting the Jews and the Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of the Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."

Usama Bin Laden Issues Further Threats in June 1999
12. In or about June 1999, in an interview with an Arabic-language television station, Usama Bin Laden issued a further threat indicating that all American males should be killed.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 08:24 pm
By your reckoning, the US has the right to do a preemptive attack on any country it feels is a threat. You are sick. Bomb first, and ask questions later - like the Bush administration. But then, there is evidence that the Bush canard planned on attacking Iraq before 9-11.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 08:29 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
By your reckoning, the US has the right to do a preemptive attack on any country it feels is a threat. ...

By my reckoning, the US has the right to do a preemptive attack on any country that harbors any group that has declared war on the USA, waged war against the USA, and mass murdered USA civilian non-murderers.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 08:49 pm
ican711nm wrote:
By my reckoning, the US has the right to do a preemptive attack on any country that harbors any group that has declared war on the USA, waged war against the USA, and mass murdered USA civilian non-murderers.


So, by your reckoning, the US didn't have the right to attack Iraq. At least, I'm not aware that Ansar al-Islam had "declared war on the USA, waged war against the USA, and mass murdered USA civilian non-murderers."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 10:05 pm
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
By my reckoning, the US has the right to do a preemptive attack on any country that harbors any group that has declared war on the USA, waged war against the USA, and mass murdered USA civilian non-murderers.


So, by your reckoning, the US didn't have the right to attack Iraq. At least, I'm not aware that Ansar al-Islam had "declared war on the USA, waged war against the USA, and mass murdered USA civilian non-murderers."

As I have shown, Ansar al-Islam was an affiliate of al-Qaeda. That is it was a member of the al-Qaeda worldwide confederation. Al-Qaeda "declared war on the USA, waged war against the USA, and mass murdered USA civilian non-murderers."
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 02:55 am
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
By your reckoning, the US has the right to do a preemptive attack on any country it feels is a threat. ...

By my reckoning, the US has the right to do a preemptive attack on any country that harbors any group that has declared war on the USA, waged war against the USA, and mass murdered USA civilian non-murderers.


"The USA or its allies" President Bush said.

So why doesn't he attack Boston, where a lot of IRA criminals took sanctuary after bombings in Britain?

Fact is, the USA will attack any country which is sitting on substantial oil reserves, if some "terrorism" excuse can be fabricated.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 07:20 am
Quote:
Fact is, the USA will attack any country which is sitting on substantial oil reserves, if some "terrorism" excuse can be fabricated.


Sad but true;hoping it is just a Bush thing though.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 07:23 am
Iraq was not harboring AQ.

Saddam Hussein was not harboring AQ.

If AQ was so secure in Iraq why did they build their base a hop, skip and jump from the Iranian border?

If anyone was harboring AQ in Iraq it was George Bush. He had the power to take them out any time he wanted to without having to invade Iraq.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 11:54 am
xingu wrote: If anyone was harboring AQ in Iraq it was George Bush. He had the power to take them out any time he wanted to without having to invade Iraq.

ican will never admit to this simple fact; Bush screwed up from beginning to end, because he mismanaged everything he did in Afghanistan and Iraq. McCain wants to continue the Bush policy in Iraq until we "win." McCain claims that the current progress of lowered violence is the key to our winning in Iraq, but he ignores a very simple fact that Iraqis are killing Iraqis, and they don't have a viable government. Our staying in Iraq may reduce the violence, but it's temporary unless we plan to stay in Iraq for hundreds of years. After all, Iraq has been in a civil war for over one thousand years. Why sacrifice our men and women and billions more of our tax dollars that's needed at home? Those families who have lost sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers have made the ultimate sacrifice without having changed the security for our own country, but has instead brought us to the brink of bankruptcy.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 02:26 pm
Let truth win!

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 09/08/2006, wrote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq

Wikipedia wrote:

Ansar-al-Islam
Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001.
Ansar al-Islam comprised about 300 armed men, many of these veterans from the Afghan war, and a proportion being neither Kurd nor Arab. Ansar al-Islam is alleged to be connected to al-Qaeda, and provided an entry point for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other Afghan veterans to enter Iraq.

General Tommy Franks wrote:

American Soldier, by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

page 483:
"The air picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges an a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Isla terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile] bashing. Soon Special Forces and [Special Mission Unit] operators, leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted."

page 519:
"[The Marines] also encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Lybia who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad. Those foreign volunteers fought with suicidal ferocity, but they did not fight well. The Marines killed them all."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 02:33 pm
Funny, Biological weapons? Where is the evidence of that?

I also have a real problem with accusing someone of doing evil things by training them to use chemical weapons. After all; it was the US who trained Saddam to use chemical weapons in the 80's.

Your 'proof' is bullsh*t, Ican. Nothing more then opinion and rumor.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 02:44 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Funny, Biological weapons? Where is the evidence of that?

I also have a real problem with accusing someone of doing evil things by training them to use chemical weapons. After all; it was the US who trained Saddam to use chemical weapons in the 80's.

Your 'proof' is bullsh*t, Ican. Nothing more then opinion and rumor.

Cycloptichorn


But it was Saddam who wanted the world to think he had WMD after the gulf war, just so he could appear strong...

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/FBI_agent_Saddam_pretended_to_have_0124.html

Quote:
According to Piro, Hussein had no "weapons of mass destruction," but wanted his public image to be that of strength, so he let the Bush Administration continue saying he had them. "For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam," says Piro, partly to keep Iran from invading Iraq again. Piro also says that Hussein had the capability and the desire to restart his WMD program, including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.


Read the whole article, its a short one but informative.

The source is one that some on the left like to use, so its not a repub or conservative site.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 03:56 pm
Regardless of source or article the following is what Saddam said regarding weapons of mass destruction before the war.

Quote:
"Mr. President, may I ask you some questions? The first question, does Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction?" Benn asked him.

"I tell you, as I have said on many occasions before, that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq whatsoever. And we challenge those who say the opposite to give the simplest proof. These weapons are not aspirin pills that one can hide in his pocket," Hussein replied.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/05/60II/main539573.shtml

To me he was pretty straight foward in saying he had no weapons of mass destruction. But hey; maybe he didn't holler loud enough cause he really wanted Bush to think he sure enough had them when he didn't.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 04:42 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Your 'proof' is bullsh*t, Ican. Nothing more then opinion and rumor.

Cycloptichorn

Your assertion is malarky, Cyclop

My evidence--not proof--shows that al-Qaeda was in northeast Iraq more than a year and growing before we invaded Iraq.

By the way, I respect the allegation of General Franks who was there in Iraq in 2003 when the al-Qaeda in northeastern Iraq was engaged by the Kirds and our troops. I do not respect your opinion about anything since your Lancet debacle.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 08:40 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Your 'proof' is bullsh*t, Ican. Nothing more then opinion and rumor.

Cycloptichorn

Your assertion is malarky, Cyclop

My evidence--not proof--shows that al-Qaeda was in northeast Iraq more than a year and growing before we invaded Iraq.

By the way, I respect the allegation of General Franks who was there in Iraq in 2003 when the al-Qaeda in northeastern Iraq was engaged by the Kirds and our troops. I do not respect your opinion about anything since your Lancet debacle.


The respect of fools means little to me.

Tommy Franks presided over a gigantic f*ck-up in Iraq, yet you respect him? That's a debacle that far outweighs anything I could possibly do Laughing

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jan, 2008 09:59 am
Franks was hand picked by the folks of PNAC who believe in world domination (not hyperbole-their own words) and had planned the Iraq invasion well before 9/11. They lamented that they needed a pearl harbor to get the country to go along with them. Just 72 days after 9/11 Bush and Franks started planning the Iraq war. There was no plan for the event if things didn't work out like they thought it would and thus was caught un prepared to say the least. Not only that but since his retirement he has profited hugely and in one case by being part of a charity for wounded soldiers where most of the money didn't even to the soldiers. He showed almost no interest in catching Osma Bin Laden and thus Osma Bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/paths/bush2.html
http://www.crisispapers.org/essays7p/neocons.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16?language=printer
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/545558246.html


Franks is not a unbiased credible person by any means but I can understand why Ican would champion him.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jan, 2008 11:38 am
This is more important than anything ican or mm can post in support of their positions.


Iraq agrees to weapons inspections
September 17, 2002 Posted: 3:26 AM EDT (0726 GMT)



Annan confirmed Monday that Iraq had agreed to allow weapons inspectors to return without conditions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- In a letter handed over to the United Nations on Monday, Iraq said it would allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors "without conditions" to "remove any doubts Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction."

The White House was dismissive of Iraq's pledge: "We do not take what Saddam says at face value," said a Bush administration official, referring to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

In the letter, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri wrote: "The Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections."

Sabri hand-delivered the letter in a meeting Monday evening with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League.

"I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions," the letter said.

Bush chased out the weapon's inspectors to start his war, because he must've known that they would find nothing. Otherwise, there is NO evidence Saddam had WMDs, the justification for Bush's war.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 05:35:15