It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US won't show pictures of Iraq

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I think if anyone has any doubts about the war being illegal, you can reread everything that I have posted. Although anyone who knows even a little background behind this war can decide for themselves whether or not they think it is justified.




posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...


There are some that claim the US intervention took place without any international legal framework. Others would counter by pointing out that the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing the 1991 invasion gave legal authority to use "...all necessary means...", which is diplomatic code for going to war. This war ended with a cease fire instead of a permanent peace treaty. Their view was that Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire by breaching two key conditions and thus made the invasion of Iraq a legal continuation of the earlier war. To support this stance, one has to "reactivate" the war resolution from 1991; if a war resolution can be reactivated ten years after the fact, it would imply that almost any nation that has ever been at war that ended in a ceasefire (such as Korea) could have the war restarted if any other nation felt at any time that they were no longer meeting the conditions of the cease fire that ended that war. Since the majority of the United Nations security council members (both permanent and rotating) did not support the attack, it appears that they viewed the attack as not being valid under the 1991 resolution.

However, a resolution drafted and accepted the year before the invasion fully endorsed the use of military action to force Iraq to comply with the United Nations desires, and every country that sat upon the Security Council voted to draft that resolution.


UN Resolution 687, the cease-fire of 1991. It called on Saddam to dismantle and remove his WMDs. He provided no proof he had done so, and inhibited UN Inspectors. They therefore broke the terms of the cease-fire.

The war in Iraq never ended. This isn't a new war, it's just the ending of one that had started 12 years previous.

Hence, legal.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
The war in Iraq never ended. This isn't a new war, it's just the ending of one that had started 12 years previous.

Hence, legal.



That is absolutely ridiculous...that resolution took place 13 years ago under completely different circumstances that are present today, and in no way justifies the use of force in present day Iraq, it is an entirely different situation. Hence, it wouldn't hold up in any international court.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

Originally posted by Esoterica
The war in Iraq never ended. This isn't a new war, it's just the ending of one that had started 12 years previous.

Hence, legal.



That is absolutely ridiculous...that resolution took place 13 years ago under completely different circumstances that are present today, and in no way justifies the use of force in present day Iraq, it is an entirely different situation. Hence, it wouldn't hold up in any international court.


There was a cease-fire. The war did not end. Violating the terms of a cease-fire DIRECTLY is a very legit reason to resume the war. 12 years ( considering the war occured in 2003) is not all that long of a time, especially considering we still had troops in Iraq the entire time. What did the UN want, more US troops perpetually in a nation shooting down any poor soul with the bad luck to be ordered up in a jet?

And even if you don't buy that, read the bold section. Up until it seemed the US would actually do it, the UN was very happy to pass resolutions of force.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Intelligence information on those "exact" locations was:

1) flawed

2) old and not up-to-date information.


regards
seekerof


Everyone in the White House and No.10 KNEW it was flawed and not up-to-date, yet they used it as fact so they could have their war. Once we knew it was bullsh*t it was too late, and they could make up any story they liked. The worst thing about this is that no heads have roled, why has Bush not been impeached? Nixon was about to be impeached before he resigned, and we all know about the Clinton fiasco.
In my opinion Bush's lie was FAR FAR worse than either of those, yet you still let this clown sit in the White House un-punished.

It's just disgusting seeing that stupid grin of his, knowing that he is a liar and a murderer and no one is going to touch him for it.

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by John Nada]



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   
No terms were violated, all of the weapons from the 90's were dismantled and destroyed.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Shotek:
"all of the weapons from the 90's were dismantled and destroyed"

Prove it.....cause last I read, UNSCOM is still showing in documented form that Saddam/Iraq still has "unaccounted for and undisclosed WMD".....
Please provide the links.


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
No terms were violated, all of the weapons from the 90's were dismantled and destroyed.

www.fas.org...


8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;


9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval:

(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;

(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (i) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission, of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 (b) above;

(iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below;

10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Special Commission, to develop a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of this resolution;

My point stands. They had to get rid of their 1991 weapons, yes, and also not create or buy any more.

The UN said Iraq had WMDs after this.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Shotek:
"all of the weapons from the 90's were dismantled and destroyed"

Prove it.....cause last I read, UNSCOM is still showing in documented form that Saddam/Iraq still has "unaccounted for and undisclosed WMD".....
Please provide the links.


regards
seekerof


Well, this is an entire different topic of debate that I will be glad to argue at some time...there are many sources that say different things on this matter.

BUT, the UN resolution still holds no justification for aggression towards Iraq, and the war still violates international laws as I have already outlined.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Does anybody else find it strange that Israel is in violation of over 30 UN Resolutions, and yet they are fine to carry on their ways? Gee, that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact they're all working under our control to commit these crimes...



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

Originally posted by Seekerof
Shotek:
"all of the weapons from the 90's were dismantled and destroyed"

Prove it.....cause last I read, UNSCOM is still showing in documented form that Saddam/Iraq still has "unaccounted for and undisclosed WMD".....
Please provide the links.


regards
seekerof


Well, this is an entire different topic of debate that I will be glad to argue at some time...there are many sources that say different things on this matter.

BUT, the UN resolution still holds no justification for aggression towards Iraq, and the war still violates international laws as I have already outlined.


Killing is usually illegal, except when it's legally justified. This invasion would have been illegal, except it is legally justified by the UN's own resolutions. The UN was happy to threaten Iraq, but when the US finally stepped up to bat, they shat their pants.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;


Iraq has never possessed such missiles, they have been developing two scud-b type missiles that have ranges of exactly 150km, but no such missiles have ever been tested or are operational.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
Does anybody else find it strange that Israel is in violation of over 30 UN Resolutions, and yet they are fine to carry on their ways? Gee, that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact they're all working under our control to commit these crimes...

What Israel is doing has nothing to do with what Iraq was doing.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
What Israel is doing has nothing to do with what Iraq was doing.


When did I say they did? Israel is just our puppet government so they can do whatever they want.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

Originally posted by Esoterica
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;


Iraq has never possessed such missiles, they have been developing two scud-b type missiles that have ranges of exactly 150km, but no such missiles have ever been tested or are operational.

I didn't write that Resolution. Your vaunted UN did. Blame them.

And do you really know WHY the UN didn't want an invasion of Iraq? Germany, France, and Russia all had oil deals with Saddam. They didn't give a # about WMDs or the plight of the Iraqi people (Not that the US government does, but that's beside the point). IF such deals didn't exist, I'm sure the UN would have agreed to invade Iraq, just like Kosovo. Nobody got on Clinton's back for that.

This isn't about legality. It's about politics.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
No terms were violated, all of the weapons from the 90's were dismantled and destroyed.




Heres UNSCOM's Final Compendium- Disarmament Report:
Link:
www.iraqwatch.org...

* Approxly. "600 metric tons of agents, including VX, mustard gas and sarin, remain unaccounted for."

* Other varied reports give approx. numbers at: "1000 metric tons and 30,000 munitions of VX and Sarin, in addition to 25,000 liters of anthrax and 19,000 of botulinum toxin, remain unaccounted for."

* Approxly. 8,500 liters of anthrax, 20,000 liters of botulinum, 2,200 liters of aflatoxin, and the biological agent ricin. Note on anthrax: An infectious dose of anthrax is about 8,000 spores, or less than one-millionth of a gram in a non immuno-compromised person. Inhalation anthrax historically has been 100 percent fatal within five to seven days, although in recent cases aggressive medical treatment has reduced the fatality rate.

* UNSCOM discovered a document at Iraqi Air Force headquarters in July 1998 showing that Iraq overstated by at least 6,000 the number of chemical bombs it told the UN it had used during the Iran-Iraq Warbombs that remain are unaccounted for.

* Other varied reports give approx. numbers at: "6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown and those chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons.

* Iraq has not accounted for 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells that in the past were its preferred means for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent, unaccounted for.

* Other varied sources give numbers at: "800 unaccounted 155mm artillery shells which may contain mustard gas."





regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Seekerof, not trying to doubt you, but please provide a more official source as I know for a fact that iraqwatch.org is extremely biased.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
I didn't write that Resolution. Your vaunted UN did. Blame them.


Ok...you were the one using the UN resolution argument, now you're telling me to "blame them"? The UN doesn't really mean much to me anyway, they are mainly run by the United States, but they still violate their own laws.

But it makes no difference, this war is illegal under international law, no matter what the UN decides to say about it.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
Seekerof, not trying to doubt you, but please provide a more official source as I know for a fact that iraqwatch.org is extremely biased.



I don't know how more of an "official site" you want or even what would be deemed "credible, but here are a few to choose from:

"Not one drum of chemicals."
Link:
www.fas.org...

"A man with a foot in multiple worlds"
Link:
stacks.msnbc.com...

"Chemical Weapons Programs"
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...

"UNSCOM and Iraqi Chemical Weapons"
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...

"Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraqs proscribed weapons programmes UNMOVIC 06 Mar 2003" [PDF 1.42 Mb]
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...
(NOTE: Will have to downlaod)

"Iraq Special Weapons Guide"
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...

"Why We Know Iraq Is Lying"
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...

"Dusty Agents and the Iraqi Chemical Weapons Arsenal"
Link:
www.nti.org...

"Iraq Special Collection: UNSCOM Photos "
Link:
cns.miis.edu...

"EUPHRATES 'POISONED"
Link:
www.sky.com...




regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek


Ok...you were the one using the UN resolution argument, now you're telling me to "blame them"? The UN doesn't really mean much to me anyway, they are mainly run by the United States, but they still violate their own laws.

You were wrong
news.bbc.co.uk...

And you used the UN too, it jsut seemed to me you were blaming me for that error.

But it makes no difference, this war is illegal under international law, no matter what the UN decides to say about it.

Uh...what? The only basis for enforcing international law IS the UN. So international law is whatever the UN pleases.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join