SH4President

US-soldiers gunned down civilian protesters , killing atleast 15 and wounding 50.
3 children where among the killed.
Rapports of US-soldiers shooting at rescueworkers and medicalstaff trying too aid the wounded.
When is the US gonna stop?
What does it take too get them too understand that they have no buisness being in Iraq!
This killing of Iraqi civilians will continue untill the US leaves Iraq.
The Iraqi people dont want US in their country.
Anyone beleives that they want US in Iraq believes everything that the US propagandaminister Rumsfeldt says.
This is a fight the US cant win.

JavaFox

Depends on who reported this incident.

If you watched CNN, the crawl literally said "Americans kill 12 Iraqis" followed up by stating that Americans opened fire on an unarmed group of Iraqis in front of a school. The US military, they allege, said it fired in self defense.

If you were watching Fox (or if you were switching between the two like I was), you would have heard that the US opened fire on a group of protestors. Deaths were probably below 10. Iraqis allege they were unarmed; US military alleges they were responding to being fired on.

So what is the truth? It lies probably somewhere in the middle. But what you've posted is pure propaganda. What you have just committed is a fallacy of argument called "misleading vividness." That is, you take an example that cannot be considered statistically sound, but present it as such. Take for example the news pieces detailing the anti-US protests by Shi'ites in Iraq. Looking at those reports, one might be tempted to say the Iraqis want us to leave. But this is an misleadingly vivid example. Iraq is a country with a population of over 24,000,000, 60% of which are Shi'ites. There are, therefore, over FORTEEN MILLION Shi'ites in Iraq. Can you simply show a protest --even if it has a million Shi'ites as some reports cliam-- and say that the Iraqis as a whole want us out? Can you even say that the Shi'ites as a whole want us out? No. That is a misleadingly vivid example.

Same for what you are doing. Simply doing these postings about US mistakes during the war is an exercise in misleading vividness. How can one allege, given copious empirical evidence to the contrary, that the US is running around Iraq, committing unprovoked attacks against the civilain population? Have you even looked at before and after sattelite pictures of the war? Show me where random bombing occured.

Disliking the US is fine. But it is an attitude, not a position or a policy. You can't say "I don't like the US, therefore I don't support anything the US does." The fact of the matter is: we are in Iraq, we toppled the government, and now we are trying to restore order. Will we make some mistakes? Of course. But the fact remains that we are already there, and we have a responsibility --as an occupying force-- to restore some order to the nation, under the provisions on the Geneva Convention. Even if we didn't, there is a moral obligation on our part to restore basic order in that nation. We are already there. Get used to it. Even if you didn't support our war, some good can come of this.

bluelight

They shot 15 people because they got scared.

People were manuifesting against that The soldiers were using a local school.


Bluelight

SH4President

Random bombings or not, YOU ARE KILLING CIVILIANS!!!!
What about this dont you understand???????
Who the hell gave you the right to invade Iraq and start killing the civilian population???????????


Ooops. You say you are an occupying force???
I thought your object was to liberate Iraq??
Looks to me that this starting to look more and more like Israel and Palestine.
And as succesfull as Israel been with Palestine as succesfull will the US be with Iraq!!
They dont want you there!! Dont you understand??
Its not your place to be and it never will be!!

JavaFox

Well, the UN gave us the right to invade. But we are not there to kill the civilain population. Seems to me that there are far better ways to wipe out civilians than to use strategic pinprick Tomahawk strikes, don't you?

It boils down to this: you can believe whatever you want to believe, SH4. You can believe that we are going to make Iraq into our own little Palestine, and you can believe that we are killing civilians because that's what we've always wanted to do. You can believe that the Iraqis don't want us there, and that we should leave immediately.

But at the end of the day, you have no solutions. Your rhetoric hard-headedly suggests that the US shouldn't have conducted its war in the first place. You are not prone to constructive debate, only mean-spirited condemnation. You ignore the fact that the US is already in Iraq, that we already won the war. Instead of being helpful or constructive, you are being vindictive and bitter. You can be cynical and critical if you like. But don't do it under the guise of being sympathetic towards the Iraqis, 'cause we don't buy it. If you truly care about the Iraqis, you'll want us to do what's right because we are already there and we have pledged to. Hold us to our word, but don't disparage for no reason.

bluelight

No no no no no......The UN has NOT given you anty right to invade Iraq.

That is the reaqson why you are so utterly pissed off with France.

You were about to make a resolution about invading Iraq...but both France and Germany said they would veto it.

So you never even presented it.





Revisioniosm is what things like tjhat usually is called and it is ususally used to justfy shady deeds.


Bluelight

bluelight

SH4President

US gave you the right too invade?? Hell no!!
If they did why havent I seen Kofi Annan on TV saying that he supports what The US is doing???
Why dont you say the truth instaed of telling all these lies??
Maybe its because the truth hurts??
US wants cheap oil, thats it. Thats the reason for this war nothing else.

I have a solution for you.
Every time the US have interfered in the middleeast it has backfired.

Who did US back up in Afghanistan in the 80:s??
The talibans with Usama BinLaden!!!

Who did the US back up and sell arms to in the Iran - Iraq conflict??
Saddam Hussein!!!

Heres my solution:
Get out of the Middleeast.The US dont have any buisness there!
Get out of Iraq, stop backing up Israel.
You only make things worse doing this!!

Falstaff

[COLOR=limegreen]Bluelight,
having been attached to an occupying power the following rules generally apply to all disarmed combatents and civilians regardless of age..

1. Warnings about unauthorized activity will be posted and verbally delivered to members of indigenous population.

2. Unauthorized activity can be defined to include.
a. Hostile fire from any direction
b. Hostile actions, to include looting, vandalizing, and assembly for the purpose of demonstrating hostile action against the occupying force or the force commander.
c. Any hostile activity can be challenged or met with hostile force upon the decision of the scene commander or his designated subordinate.
d. Scene commanders are directed to carry out the intent and spirit of the law and may exercise pesonal latitude that may not exceed the law, but allow for flexibility, i.e. withdrawl, mass movement and direction and concentration of fire.
e. The on scene commander has the authority to use deadly force against any combatent directing hostile activity upon occupying forces to include local authority within the immediate area.
f. The on scene commander has the right and the authority to detain or imprison any member of a hostile force or persons inhibiting or delaying the movement of the occupying force within the bounds defined by the Area commander.
g. The on scene commander may use deadly force if necessary, if all other non violent options have been exhausted and may prosecute with deadly force any other hostile forces that he may encounter.
h. The on scene commader may advance without direct orders to a position of advantage and direct concentrated firepower against any enemy within the scope of the operational area, without comprimising the overall security of the missison..

There are rules of engagement, in every theater of operations to include the hostile actions of civilians, they are considered combatents and may not be warned first before serious steps are taken to stop a situation or incident from accelerating beyond the normal limits of a combat unit.
[/COLOR]

__________________

bluelight

Well no matter the rules....the war is over tjhese were civilains manifestating because american troops were using a school that tnhe Iraq`is probably thought was better used for its original purpose.


The military got scared and shot 15 people.

Simple.

Its gonna happen again.


The commanding officer said somethimg like.....We did exactly like we were supposed to do....



Hardly....but then fear is something you cant write away in regulations.


American soldiers also shit their pants.

They are humans.


Bluelight

JavaFox

Wrong. We backed up the mujahadeen, one of whom was UBL. But had we not, Afghanistan may have been conquered and absorbed into the Soviet Union. At any rate, this is a poor example of US foreign policy back-firing in the Middle East, considering Afghanistan isn't part of the Middle East.


We also sold arms to the Iranians. The Iraqis were flying Soviet planes during that conflict, the Iranians were flying US planes. Had we stayed out of this conflict, Iran may well have won that war, leading to the spread of Islamic fundamentalism.

At any rate, it's not like the US was the only supporter of Iraq in that war. You forget that even Kuwait saw it necessary to rally against Islamofacsism.

You again demonstrate that you are committed to making claims based on false assumptions of misleading vividness. Two examples of "conflict in the Middle East" --one of which wasn't even in the Middle East-- isn't proof of US failing.

If you click here you will find a list of logical/argumentative fallacies. It would behoove you, I think, to read up on them. I am not insulting your intelligence here, but your fallacious style of argumentation is a hindrance, I think, to the message you are trying to convey.

JavaFox

No one who has read Resolution 1441 and Chapter 7 of the UN Charter can make this claim, bluelight. Have you read those documents?

SH4President

Hahahahahahaha.
You were on Iraq side but sold arms too the Iranians.
Hehehehehehehe.
Your goverment fought Islamofacsism in Iran by giving them guns, plans and bombs. Good thinking America
Hahahahahaha.
Beleive me a guy like you that supports and beleives whatever a goverment like the US says ond does cant insult my intelligence.

JavaFox

Pick a side, SH -- did we support the Iraqis or the Iranians? Mostly we supported the Iraqis because secular governments --however oppressive-- are always easier to contain and deal with in that region that theocratic ones. Seems to me that you wouldn't have had a solution to that problem, either.

Again, hating the US is an attitude, not a policy. Explain what you would have done in the Iran-Iraq Conflict, and how it would have prevented Islamic fundamentalism and maybe I will regard your opinion as sound. But if all you can do is commit unsubstantited fallacies of argument, it is difficult to take your anti-US position very seriously.

GOG

Uhm, Mr warmonger... The war is over, you can't follow those directions in a peace keeping mission. How old is the typical US-soldier, 19? You are sending children that are not allowed to buy booze in some states to guard civilians with loaded guns. Please go away and let the UN handle this, how many human lives are those contracts and barrels of oil worth to your government?

GOG

Where are the WMD? Or is it ok to invade a country just because of some missiles goes further than the allowed distance?

bluelight

There is nothing in those resolutions that says Usa has the right to declare war against Iraq on their own.

Whats more...if you use these declarations to claim YOUR RIGHTS in this matter....Then expalin to me why the UN isnt in charge of the rebuilding of Iraq or the weapon inspections????


No the truth is...you are out on this journey on your own togheter with a few other countries.

One may of course interpret any document as one wishes...just as the devil would read the bible.


Had it not been because you had no clear mandate to go to war.....then there would have been no need whatsoever to be so utterley pissed off with France and Russia when they declared they might put a veto against a new resolution by you.

GOG

One U.S. Army sergeant said he shot at what he saw, "and what I saw was targets. Targets with weapons, and they were going to harm me."

"It's either them or me, and I took the shot, sir, and I'm still here talking to you," he said.


He "took the shot", one minute later 15 civilians were dead... Get those damn war criminals out of there now for Christ's sake. I have never seen soldiers with such brain washed, twisted ideas since the original" Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler".

SH4President

I told you earlier!!!!
Get the hell out of the MiddleEast.
Thats the solution!!!
What is it you dont understand?????
Who the hell gave US the right to say what is right and wrong in the Middleeast??? Its not the US call too make!!
What part of the above dont you understand????
GET THE HELL OUT OF THE MIDDLEEAST!!!!!!
Maybe you understand me better if I shout at you??

Falstaff

[COLOR=deeppink]SH4President quote:
I told you earlier!!!!
Get the hell out of the MiddleEast.
Thats the solution!!!
What is it you dont understand?????
Who the hell gave US the right to say what is right and wrong in the Middleeast??? Its not the US call too make!!
What part of the above dont you understand????
GET THE HELL OUT OF THE MIDDLEEAST!!!!!!
Maybe you understand me better if I shout at you?? [/COLOR]

[COLOR=limegreen]Hmmmmm, nah, point taken, besides you might as well be carrying a weapon and challenging a coalition force member....results are about the same.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=skyblue]GOG - One U.S. Army sergeant said he shot at what he saw, "and what I saw was targets. Targets with weapons, and they were going to harm me."
"It's either them or me, and I took the shot, sir, and I'm still here talking to you," he said.
He "took the shot", one minute later 15 civilians were dead... Get those damn war criminals out of there now for Christ's sake. I have never seen soldiers with such brain washed, twisted ideas since the original" Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler". [/COLOR]

[COLOR=limegreen]I can clearly see that this remark as some of the previous are emotionally driven and deeply felt, I respect that but.......I imagine, if you have ever been faced with the prospect of an extreme threat to your person, and to your unit, and to the stability of an otherwise manageble situation by malcontents and thugs from the defunct Ba-athist party, you could with all measure of force under your authority, eliminate the threat, if you were watching the news(no criticism) then you saw that we are at war with men in uniform, men in civilian clothes, men with children and women for human shields and men that belonged to a regime of terror and destruction that shocked the world. Now these men that have yet to atone for their diabolical achievements are raging havoc and attempting to usurp the control of the occupying forces. If I was chosen to defend a position, and I was armed with enough ammunition, I would under direct orders from the on scene commnader, eliminate coldly and accurately every single threat to my unit and to the coaltion forces in that area, and I wouldn't stop firing until I was ordered to do so. If that means that every single round from my sophisticated weapon hit its mark and the crowd dispersed or surrendered, I would consider that a success, and maybe those that insight these riots and confrontations would think twice, and perhaps those unfortunate civilians that decided to bear arms and participate would be more inclined to chose another avenue of dissent and protest...[/COLOR]

[COLOR=royalblue]There is nothing in those resolutions that says Usa has the right to declare war against Iraq on their own.
Whats more...if you use these declarations to claim YOUR RIGHTS in this matter....Then expalin to me why the UN isnt in charge of the rebuilding of Iraq or the weapon inspections????
No the truth is...you are out on this journey on your own togheter with a few other countries.
One may of course interpret any document as one wishes...just as the devil would read the bible.
Had it not been because you had no clear mandate to go to war.....then there would have been no need whatsoever to be so utterley pissed off with France and Russia when they declared they might put a veto against a new resolution by you.There is nothing in those resolutions that says Usa has the right to declare war against Iraq on their own.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=limegreen]If I recall Bush asked the U.N. for help, but we were not really counting on some countrys for support, i.e. France and Germany, that is why I marvel at some americans and this "French Bashing" I think it is pointless. I know the French are deeply involved in pre war IRAQ just as we were at one time, but the French were supplying Hussien with information, and that is a source of irritation. France sold IRAQ gas, weapons and built a nuclear reactor for Saddam, why wouldn't they be hesitant to participate in the war..As far as rights? if any country had to depend on the U.N. to make a big decision they would probably have cake and tea with Kofe Anan, but never get anything accomplished...better to act decisively, eliminate the threat, and recover the wounded and the dead, and leave the country rebuilding measures to the experts and you know what, it sure as hell isn't the United Nations..[/COLOR]

[COLOR=skyblue]Uhm, Mr warmonger... The war is over, you can't follow those directions in a peace keeping mission. How old is the typical US-soldier, 19? You are sending children that are not allowed to buy booze in some states to guard civilians with loaded guns. Please go away and let the UN handle this, how many human lives are those contracts and barrels of oil worth to your government?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=limegreen]Soldiers, sailors, airmen and support personnel are there to fulfill a mission, they have done so admirably against a third world power. These people that were liberated from Saddams tyranny haven't know freedom since they were born. I understand that freedom means something entirely NEW in IRAQ, the civilians have no idea what that means, they are politically post ictal, like someone recovering from a siezure. They need time, education, freedom and a chance to appreciate the difference between tyranny, theocracy and democracy..they need time to settle into a new life, settle their old difference or put them aside. If we left right now, every man and women, the IRAQ country would dissolve and most likely be invaded or absorbed by another country and the old cronies from the Ba-athist party would attempt to sieze control and probably perpetuate or reanimate the terrible regime before it. Let's just do away with the what ifs and the could have been and should have beens and face the reality of the situation. Vini Vidi Viche....we came...we saw....and we conquered. now the burden of rebuilding will fall on strong shoulders, and the United Nations isn't it, just a component...I see the big picture and anything without another Saddam isn't too bad, regardless if there is a Theocracy or a Democracy...the sooner we get out of IRAQ the better it will be. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=red]And by the way, I am not a warmonger, I am a combat veteren, I have first hand knowlege, have been shot at and shot back, so remarks of that nature don't offend me, they simply reflect the ignorance of those that have not served..[/COLOR]

__________________

JavaFox

Really?

---

Chapter VII:

The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

---

Resolution 678:

Authorizes Member States [...] to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area

---

Resolution 1441:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area

Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

JavaFox

It doesn't matter, that's not what 1441 is concerned with.

1441 says exactly this:

a) "Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security"

b) "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area"

c) Iraq's cease-fire is irrelevant unless they live up to their end of the bargain ("the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein")

d) "Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions"

e) "Decides [...] to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations"

f) "Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations"

--

In summation, 1441 says that Iraq threatens security in the region. It declares that the cease-fire agreement made with the United State is null and void unless Iraq meets its disarmament obligations. It says that all Member States of the Security Council can take "all necessary means" to ensure Iraq's compliance. It says that Iraq is in, and has been in material breach of its obligations. And it clearly states that this is Iraq's last chance to comply.

I'm sorry if this offense, but try to use some objective reasoning. I don't care if you think the US is the most repulsive country on the planet, we were absolutely justified as far as the UN was concerned. By not comply --by lying about the al Samoud II missiles, by engaging coalition aircraft in the No-Fly Zones, etc-- Saddam declared war on us. Remember, the cease-fire doesn't stand unless Iraq disarms. And since it did not, the cease-fire doesn't stand.

Falstaff

[COLOR=orange]Great Fox of the Java,
These folks that wish to debate the legitimacy of the U.N. always point out that the spirit of the resolutions is there to provide a safety net for countrys with complaints against other countrys, and those in need of support and assistance, but never will they confront the real issue....war in our time.
War is inevitable, war is destructive and war cause great changes to occur both good and bad, how can the United Nations possibly address these problems when they can barely address the problem of financing their own efforts. The United Nations is impotent, and indecisive.

The context of the documents that are meant to be an instrument(s) for the United nations and the security council to implement policy are useless unless their is some sort of real agreement between the members, and there has been little that can explain the faliure of the United Nations on many occasions when these instruments of power would have been effective.[/COLOR]

__________________

Falstaff

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GOG
Where are the WMD? Or is it ok to invade a country just because of some missiles goes further than the allowed distance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[COLOR=orange]It is pointless to describe and list the entire arsenal that was available for the Hussien to use.
Suffice to say, he had multiple delivery systems, capable of delivering a weapon of mass destruction.

He has used some of those weapons during his reign, and he enjoyed success with them against nieghbors and his own people....even I didn't miss that..

Do you know what "material breach" means? It can be defined by examples of such, photos, testimony, and of course the bodies that lay like a trail behind Hussien, even after his death....

Hussien couldn't be trusted, he was unpredictable, he was a poor politician, a poorer general and he was never know for being a humanitarian, does that matter, not unless you start counting the bodies and following the money and the criminals that served him...then you see the tentacles that still writh now and offer only poison until they are buried, crushed or destroyed...
[/COLOR]

__________________

bluelight

As the devil reads the bible....then...



And explain to me what the fuss about french fries was if you already had a Yes from the security council??


If a majority in the UN had given you the right to invade to why are you the su utterly pissed off with France and Russia etc??

Bluelight

Falstaff

[COLOR=skyblue]

Quote:

bluelight As the devil reads the bible....then... And explain to me what the fuss about french fries was if you already had a Yes from the security council?? If a majority in the UN had given you the right to invade to why are you the su utterly pissed off with France and Russia etc??

[/COLOR]

[COLOR=orange]I believe you are referring to the hype that developed during France's initial reluctance to go into the planning stages of a major conflict with IRAQ. Villipin and Powell made persuasive arguments for and against a more balance coalition, but the american public and some ignorant and embarrasing people we elected and appointed in Washington D.C. couldn't pull their collective heads out of their butts. The reacted to the popular press and allowed their constiuents to become equally as anal and narrow in focus upon the real issue at hand. And that issue was of course collaboration, partnership and assistance during the war with Hussien. I was embarrassed since I personally have nothing against French people at all, but the French government.....sigh.....curdles my milk and fogs my eyesight with lots of real criticism for their methods. The French government deserves lots of criticism and they can dish it out to the United States as equally as they take it I suppose.
But lets move on, this whole issue is tiresome, as I said 21 days ago, the French and the Americans will again mend fences as they have so many times before. I only see it in the popular press and from emails I recieve from friends abroad, America's reputation is tainted with accusations by europeans that are spurious and misdirected as much as American criticsim is for the French government.
As far as the Russians are concerned, watch the news, they just might help us find some more terrorists and bend an ear to the Syrians, who are under tremendous pressure to produce the expatriated Baath party members as well as the weapons that are still making it across the border even now....
The Russians will surprise us all very very soon, Putin is no fool and suffers no fools either....[/COLOR]

__________________

Falstaff

[COLOR=limegreen]To put things into perspective, perhaps in Sweden, you may not have caught this on the news or ignored it because of it's length, but here it is in entirety...

PRESIDENT BUSH:
This is George W Bush, the President of the United States. At this moment, the regime of Saddam Hussein is being removed from power, and a long era of fear and cruelty is ending. American and coalition forces are now operating inside Baghdad – and we will not stop until Saddam’s corrupt gang is gone. The government of Iraq, and the future of your country, will soon belong to you.

The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world. Coalition forces will help maintain law and order, so that Iraqis can live in security. We will respect your great religious traditions, whose principles of equality and compassion are essential to Iraq’s future. We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave. Iraq will go forward as a unified, independent and sovereign nation that has regained a respected place in the world.

The United States and its coalition partners respect the people of Iraq. We are taking unprecedented measures to spare the lives of innocent Iraqi citizens, and are beginning to deliver food, water and medicine to those in need. Our only enemy is Saddam’s brutal regime – and that regime is your enemy as well.

In the new era that is coming to Iraq, your country will no longer be held captive to the will of a cruel dictator. You will be free to build a better life, instead of building more palaces for Saddam and his sons, free to pursue economic prosperity without the hardship of economic sanctions, free to travel and speak your mind, free to join in the political affairs of Iraq. And all the people who make up your country – Kurds, Shi’a, Turkomans, Sunnis, and others – will be free of the terrible persecution that so many have endured.

The nightmare that Saddam Hussein has brought to your nation will soon be over. You are a good and gifted people – the heirs of a great civilisation that contributes to all humanity. You deserve better than tyranny and corruption and torture chambers. You deserve to live as free people. And I assure every citizen of Iraq: your nation will soon be free.

Thank you.

this what I heard, and I believe he is sincere....but I dont get the news you get.....did you ever hear it? to me it is inspiring but contrasts to the events that have just occured to coalition forces and the armed crowd that confronted a heavily armed unit.....This is what the palestinians are famous for, killing their own people by putting armed poeple in the crowds during demonstrations and firing upon soldiers...
[/COLOR]

__________________

bluelight

The FACTS are....there were resolutions taken agains Iraq.

They were carried out.

According to these resolutions weapon inspections were carried out.

SAnctions in trade were

The resolutions said that if Iraq did NOT live up to the resolutions then THE UN could decide for a new atack.


Ok....then came the aganda of the extreme rightwing Us government.

It said...."We need a war ...now"

So followingly Usa took it upon themselves to judge if Iraq had lived up to the sanctions that the U N had made.

Usa also took it upon themselves to do the punishing when....they realised that the majority in the security council would not accept a new American resolution.

Usa decided theat Usa on its own could take the decisions that the UN should take.


There is little point in denying this.Usa has by passed the UN.

Usa IS bypassing the UN.


These are very simple facts.


If...we do not agree to this then i see no point at all.....in discussing this issue because in that case we live on different planets...

Not loosing any cool here but these things are absolutly basic for discussing this.

You have a government who`s politics....DO NOT...allow for discussing your agenda in international forums.

This has been somewhat the case before with previous governments but today it has gone to the extreme...

Bluelight

Falstaff

[COLOR=skyblue]The FACTS are....there were resolutions taken agains Iraq.
They were carried out.
According to these resolutions weapon inspections were carried out.
SAnctions in trade were
The resolutions said that if Iraq did NOT live up to the resolutions then THE UN could decide for a new atack.
Ok....then came the aganda of the extreme rightwing Us government.
It said...."We need a war ...now"
So followingly Usa took it upon themselves to judge if Iraq had lived up to the sanctions that the U N had made.
Usa also took it upon themselves to do the punishing when....they realised that the majority in the security council would not accept a new American resolution.
Usa decided theat Usa on its own could take the decisions that the UN should take.
There is little point in denying this.Usa has by passed the UN.
Usa IS bypassing the UN.
These are very simple facts.
If...we do not agree to this then i see no point at all.....in discussing this issue because in that case we live on different planets...
Not loosing any cool here but these things are absolutly basic for discussing this.
You have a government who`s politics....DO NOT...allow for discussing your agenda in international forums.
This has been somewhat the case before with previous governments but today it has gone to the extreme...
Bluelight[/COLOR]

[COLOR=orange]I won't deny that we didn't get support from the U.N. but we didnt bypass it, we attempted many times to garner support and failed.
The security council was not against "punishing Saddam" just the timetable....they wanted to give IRAQ more ways to reveal and comply with resolutions that were in place for at least 12 years, it failed...
Pres. Bush was convinced by his advisors that Hussien needed to be removed...that was the first official act of war during the air campaign, and who knows, maybe we were successful...
As far as different planets....come on blue....sheesh [/COLOR]

__________________

bluelight

Which means that you do not have support in the Un for what you are doing right now.It is at a point noe where you could make thne choice of bringing the UN in and thus also Russia France etc etc...but


It will not be like that since the new upcoming vote will be made like a dictate like the last one that wasnt even passed before the UN..


There is little point in hiding that you have a government that believes very very little in multilateral action unless it is governed ans planned by you.

It is also pointless denying that this is a relativley new thing and that it changes the whole scene....for good or for bad....is somethinfg we will kno´w definatly in 15 20 years.

Personally i have big problems believing that the very same political and economical forces that has onesidedly supported Israel and not at all considered the Palestinians while at the same time they supported Saddam in meaningless wars and that through history has been carrying out a rightwing foreign politics with selfinterests as main motive for ages ...suddenly will become exactly what the world needs.


Bluelight

The planets thing was a question of understanding and im also talking to more people that you Jeff.