Is this an Illegal War?

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
And even when SADDAM wanted to sit with George, directly and talk about this , George declined.
...........

Care to provide evidence for this?...

That first, second...according to the Russians, and right after 9/11 and up to the war, Saddam was working on making terrorist attacks on U.S. soil...and all their intelligence claimed he was trying to do this...

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

Another reason why this war was not illegal.

President Bush, and even ex-president Clinton, and many other public officials too, said that Saddam was a threat to the U.S., and the intelligence from some other countries pointed to the fact that this was true.


[edit on 30-5-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
Why is it so hard to see this?

Maybe your trying to sell it too hard.

Saddam did jack around the world for 10+ years. Somebody in this thread said Saddam was finally going agree to some terms? Yeah, when troops surrounded Bagdad he did. He was given notice after notice that he flat out ignored.

They were requirements of a surrender in the first Gulf War.

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Saddam did jack around the world for 10+ years. Somebody in this thread said Saddam was finally going agree to some terms? Yeah, when troops surrounded Bagdad he did.

He was given notice after notice that he flat out ignored.

They were requirements of a surrender in the first Gulf War.

Yes, that's what i said. That Saddam appeared on public Arabic tv saying he would accept unrestricted inspections after president Bush had declared that the operations of the war had started.

[edit on 30-5-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Err...Saddam said he would accept the weapons inspectors once again after the president said the operations of the war had started....

Wrong. The weapons inspectors were in Iraq three months before the start of atrocities.

I remember watching everything on tv, and that Saddam decided to come out and claim to the public after president Bush said operations had started, that Iraq would admit unrestricted inspections now....

What is your justification for being dishonest ?

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Saddam did jack around the world for 10+ years. Somebody in this thread said Saddam was finally going agree to some terms? Yeah, when troops surrounded Bagdad he did.

He was given notice after notice that he flat out ignored.

They were requirements of a surrender in the first Gulf War.

Care to be more precise ? Didnt Saddam fulfill the requirements of the UNSC resolution seized by Bush II ? How did Iraq unilaterally violate resolutions and intl law before that ?


[edit on 30-5-2005 by Moretti]

Originally posted by Moretti
Your exposition could serve to justify the attack on Iraq according to federal law alone, if the administration had not only claimed it possessed intelligence indicating such a violation, but indeed possessed it. However, as a signatory to the UN Charter, the federal governement is also bound by its terms and provisions, who subordinate the material act of warfare to a prior or imminent aggression or to a UNSC decision detailing the legality of an aggression.

So neither is Bush II clear by domestic nor international law.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The first Gulf War was endorsed by the U.N. nine ways to Sunday, so if that's important to you to make a war LEGAL, then you should realize all the resolutions governing it and the cease-fire agreement was still in effect and Iraq broke them! Resumption of hostilities were completely legal.

Under U.S. law, the Commander-in-Chief and the Congress, under the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act, acted entirely appropriately and the entire operation was completely legal under U.S. law.

I fail to see a problem from either perspective.

[edit on 5/30/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by Moretti
Wrong. The weapons inspectors were in Iraq three months before the start of atrocities.

And what did Hans Blix's report say?

What is your justification for being dishonest ?

[edit on 30-5-2005 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Originally posted by Moretti
Didnt Saddam fulfill the requirements of the UNSC resolution seized by Bush II ? How did Iraq unilaterally violate resolutions and intl law before that ?

No he didn't fulfill the requirements. Read the full UN transcripts. Read the weapons inspector reports. Even the inspectors thought he could possibly have weapons. Our "flawed" intel said the same. Plus...Saddam NEVR complied. Period.

Yes, the intel was bad...no question. Doesn't make the action illegal.

Originally posted by Moretti


Wrong. The weapons inspectors were in Iraq three months before the start of atrocities.

Wrong, the inspectors were only allowed in some areas and only after Saddam and his regime was told one week or more before the inspections began. He was playing hide and seek...he did not allow weapons inspectors as it was agreed in the first Gulf war.

Originally posted by Moretti
What is your justification for being dishonest ?

For Saddam being dishonest?

Yep, you are right he was being dishonest...several times he had claimed they had rid of everything and had no wmd and it was later found that it was a lie.

I seemed to have stumbled onto Al Jazeera again. We had the legal right to go to war well before W even got to office. The UN sanctions themselves gave us the legal right. How many times does a despot terrorist leader have to violate sanctions? This is why Bush was planning to go the first day he was in office. Also to teach the UN a lesson. I wouldve started somewhere else against the Axis. But remember, the whole reason we are there is to get on Irans doorstep. Iran is going to fall hard. Iraq is a training and proving ground for the coming Iranian offensive. If Gore was in office wed be there.

Deal with it. This is war. He shouldve done a better job selling the war but weve had the legal right for a long time. This is not an illegal war. It wont be an illegal war when we take Tehran either. They will violate UN security coucil resolutions well invade, Tehran will fall and you will bitch about it. The UN will give us the legal right AGAIN and youll still complain. The war with North Korea technically never ended. No UN approval needed. Theyll test a nuke we bomb them beyond recognition. There wont be any NK troops left to cross the DMZ.

For the last time I am NOT a Bush supporter. I cant stand him. I do believe that he scares the crap out of our enemies though. Yes and our friends. I cannot believe how sorry some people feel for those who want to shove a grenade in our mouth. And its Clintons damn fault anyways! Clinton is why it is as bad as it is now. Period. He let the North Koreans build nuke plants. He let Al Qaeda thrive like choking weeds. He let Saddam rebuild and rearm and pursue WMD again. He let crooked tech companies inflate their value so when he left the bubble popped.

How short are your memories anyways? Its like 9/11 never happened. The only way to deal with these maniacs is with hot lead. No matter where they are. From the Aryan Nations to Al Qaeda. I cannot believe how out of control the liberal media is. Newsweek should go out of business. I never thought they would get so bad that they make the loony right seem tame. If W pushes for gay marriage in Iraq will that make you happy? I thought the anti liberal stuff the right was throwing out in the 90s was bad! This is astonishing! I now realize there is just no getting through to the Bush bashers at all. Oh Ive read the Koran too. I think I may have turned a page wrong thus sparking holy war. Hot lead and lots of it. We BETTER go to 6.8mm Rem! I dont care if its HK or Barrett! Hopefully Barrett. We are really going to need bigger bullets and lots of them to make sure you people still have the legal right to hate my guts.

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by Moretti
Wrong. The weapons inspectors were in Iraq three months before the start of atrocities.

And what did Hans Blix's report say?

Blix's report was assessed at an UNSC meeting where the US had no majority in favor of military action. (remember the "moral minority" ? )



[edit on 30-5-2005 by Moretti]

The USA Accused Saddam of having weapons of mass destruction.
This was his reason to invade.

After he invaded, it came to truth taht the evidence was fabricated and SERIOUSLY flawed, and that the Government KNEW of this!

the USA invaded another country WITHOUT Just cause.
The USA invaded another country on lies.

weeks PRIOR to the invasion Saddam openly declared he had NO WMD, he wanted formal discussions with president bush.

the usa found NO EVIDENCE of any terror attacks being thuoght of against the USA

im stil ltrying to find a reasonable point here with JUSTIFIES this war?

Give me some.

all your doing is attacking what im saying, the post is called
IS THIS AN ILLEGIAL WAR

You start telling me why it is just and legal, AGAINST his reasons for going to war!

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led
invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Deal with it & accept it.

The reason why America won't listen to the UN is because the US can't become a global dominant super-power with the UN in exsistance. So of course they will try to discredit this body and claim they are wrong.

The whole problem with 'pre-emptive policy' is that it's deliberatly going against the United Nations laws in order to discredit it but when other countries start using this policy for themselves, all WE end up with is World Wars. Why support that? Because your country is greedy and has been running on over-consumption since the 70's??

If Iraq was an utter success and WMD were found and destoyed, Saddam was overthrown with very few causalties and the Iraqi people DID actually praise the US, then that would of been a blow to the UN.

Fact is, the US have blown it, they've made a mess and they've shown that their motives are not what they are presenting on the table. This only strengthens the reasoning as to why the UN and it's laws are important for a civil world and why America in this instance have comitting an illegal war and should be made to pay for it.

I'm sure American's would love it if Russia and China teamed up to invade the US because it's afriad that there's a threat to them if the don't. Don't come crawling to the UN to help you out of that situation, your the ones who started this problem.

Of course, what better way to become a super power than to amass a HUGE army, create an enemy and tell the world how threatened they are unless 'your with me or against me' and start invading countries at will under unfounded 'possible' future threats? First thou, you have to disable the international LAW that YOU are a part of. The war on Iraq under the false 'war on terror' is step one of doing this.





[edit on 30-5-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

Kofi Annan doesn't know his ass from his elbow and I hope to God the U.S. never defers our sovereignty to the likes of him!!!!

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Kofi Annan doesn't know his ass from his elbow and I hope to God the U.S. never defers our sovereignty to the likes of him!!!!

And thank you for making my point.

You don't agree with him, so you discredit him, just like your 'leaders'.

If America isn't going to follow the UN, why be a part of? Why veto things that suit them and then ignore things that don't?

If you disable the UN, what is stopping a World War that WILL reach US shores? If you army is so busy taking down other countries, it's only a matter of time until those countries band together and fight back, this means the majorty of Europe, Russia, China and even the Middle East (unless the US can controll the Middle East).

You don't seem to see what your talking yourself into. America's 'military strength' or stockpiles of WMDs isn't going to save you but it IS going to ostracise you from the global community. Instead of being a part of it, your trying to dictate it and it will come back to bite you eventually - already it's hurting your countries economy, just wait until that snowball picks up speed.

Your racing to the top of the mountain so you can beat people with a stick as they try to get on top also! Just enjoy the hike and work as a team, we can all enjoy the view. There's no reason we can't unless you have BUSINESS controlling the way countries run. When business is working for the government, they both stop working for the people and we no longer get a say, we just pay the bill.

People need to start looking at the world as ONE group of people rather than borders with enemies on the outside.

This is why i hope there are such things as Alien invasions in the future!
We humans need to work it out the hard way.
Realise the world is our nest and the Universe is the jungle.
Our borders are just lines on a map.



[edit on 30-5-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

I gave all the necessary reasons earlier in this thread and elsewhere on this site why this war was legal by any standard, yet you want to defer to an idiot who was saying that to defer attention from his own problems and crimes! People will believe what they want to, but there was NOTHING illegal about this war! :shk:

This war was legal, and on level grounds. If you want to say you wish we HADN'T removed Saddam and his evil regime's clutches on the Iraqi people, or the slavery that the people of Afghanistan were under because of the Taliban, be my guest. I'd think you were missing a few braincells, but people are entitled to their opinions. However, the fact is that this war is legal.

[edit on 30-5-2005 by Herman]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I gave all the necessary reasons earlier in this thread and elsewhere on this site why this war was legal by any standard, yet you want to defer to an idiot who was saying that to defer attention from his own problems and crimes! People will believe what they want to, but there was NOTHING illegal about this war! :shk:

Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law?
informationclearinghouse.info...

Also, the fact both the UK and US lied about their reasoning for war, they never were able to produce the evidence needed to validate their reasoning.
Luckily they didn't lie about copping a polish like Clinton or else they'd be drawn and quarted!! Now that's a lie that really hurt the economy! - Regardless of what you think of Clinton, it's a direct example of two lies being treated very differently by the public because of how they were sold and packaged.

In the original opinion, which Blair released Thursday after key portions were leaked to Channel Four News here, Goldsmith told Blair that the language of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002 to bring new pressure on Iraq, was ambiguous on the question of war. "I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorize the use of force," he wrote.

Without such a new resolution, Goldsmith added, Blair would need "strong factual grounds" and "hard evidence" that Iraq had failed to comply with previous resolutions requiring it to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction and allow stringent monitoring by U.N. weapons inspectors.
www.washingtonpost.com...

At the end of the day, you can only support this war if your a hard-nosed patriot or someone scared of the 'threat of Terror!! .

If you really want peace and fairness world over, you don't support people that lie to you and kill in your name while robbing you blind.
Legal loop holes don't wash your moral responsability to a global population.

Breaking a cease-fire agreement by firing on your planes is a "legal loophole"?

That's been the best reason for war for all eternity!

What I wonder is that first of all you say that you know this has been covered many times before, but instead of you responding in one of those old posts, many which have the evidence you ask for, you decide to start a new thread about this same topic..

You expect to make the opposition to your views bored by continuosly and frequently keep asking for evidence?....

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
The USA Accused Saddam of having weapons of mass destruction.
This was his reason to invade.

There were many reasons given, one of which was that the evidence appeared to present that Saddam had wmd ready to use, as well as having banned equiptment and weapons which they were not supposed to have since the early 1990s, right after the Gulf War.

Perhaps Saddam did not have wmd, but i doubt it because there were many materials which were found in Iraq and were banned, including missiles which were intended for chemical weapons, 6 missiles which they fired on the coalition at the beginning of the war and which were banned from Iraq, and a whole bunch of other banned military technology, materials, documents on how to start again wmd. There were also chemicals found in Iraq after the war started. We also found evidence that there were terrorist camps in Iraq and which were working with the Iraqi government.

MSNBC.com finds signs of ricin, botulinum at Islamic militants’ camp

The following is one example of another of the deceptions of Saddam's.

Iraq Agrees to Destroy Al Samoud Missiles

Iraq agreed in principle Thursday to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles, two days before a UN deadline. Word of the agreement came as chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said Baghdad's disarmament efforts had been "very limited so far."
.......
China Daily February 28, 2003)

Excerpted from.
www.china.org.cn...

Then, after they were supposed to have destroyed them, again, we find the following.

NEW YORK — Twenty engines from banned Iraqi missiles were found in a Jordanian scrap yard with other equipment that could be used for weapons of mass destruction, a U.N. official said, raising new security questions about Iraq's scrap metal sales since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Acting chief United Nations inspector Demetrius Perricos revealed the discoveries to the U.N. Security Council in a closed-door briefing Wednesday.
........................
Mr. Perricos suggested that the interim Iraqi government, which will assume sovereignty of the country on June 30, may want to reconsider policies for exporting scrap metal that apparently began in mid-2003. The sales are regulated by the U.S.-led coalition.

Excerpted from.
www.washtimes.com...

Iraq had these missiles up to mid-2003, when they were supposed to have disposed of them before that time.

Here are some more of the lies that Saddam gave us.

At first, Iraq told UNSCOM that it had produced an estimated 250 tons of tabun and 812 tons of sarin. In 1995, Iraq changed its estimates and reported it had produced only 210 tons of tabun and 790 tons of sarin. Thus, it is still uncertain how much tabun and sarin Iraq actually manufactured.

Nerve Gas: VX

Iraq appears to have turned its research efforts toward VX nerve gas in 1985. VX is the most toxic of all known chemical warfare agents. Its effects on the body are similar to those of sarin and tabun, paralyzing the nervous system and causing convulsions and rapid death when contact occurs. A very small amount on the skin (10 milligrams) is enough to kill a man. VX is an oily liquid that may persist in the environment for weeks or longer, thereby posing a major skin absorption risk.

Iraq admitted that it had six or seven research teams working on VX, and production is known to have taken place in 1987-88 and possibly until 1990. A team of U.N. experts concluded that there was clear evidence that Iraq had the capability to produce the agent because the Muthanna State Establishment, as early as 1984, had done industrial scale organophosphorous synthesis, a process much more difficult than that required to produce VX. One plant, in Dhia'a, was reconfigured to produce necessary components for VX by 1988. Iraq also admitted producing and procuring vast amounts of precursor agents for VX, including 58 tons of the chemical choline, a key VX ingredient. Iraq claimed that nearly all of its precursors had been destroyed by aerial bombing during the first Gulf War, and that what remained was secretly destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNSCOM estimated that by 1991, Iraq could have produced between 50 and 100 tons of VX gas. By 1998, UNSCOM estimated that Iraq was capable of producing 200 tons. Iraq at first told UNSCOM that it had only produced 240 kilograms of VX, but in 1996 admitted that it had produced 3.9 tons. Iraq provided documents stating that 2.4 tons of VX were produced in 1988 and the remainder in 1990. Iraq explained this low volume by claiming that it had scaled-up all its chemical weapons processes at al-Muthanna except VX, a claim UNSCOM rejected as incompatible with Iraq's massive R&D efforts. Iraq also claimed that it later abandoned the VX project because the gas was of poor quality and was unstable. Iraq never backed up its claims with verifiable evidence, so the total quantity of VX that Iraq produced is not known.

Excerpted from.
www.iraqwatch.org...

BTW, there were also inconsistencies in the HMX explosives that Iraq was supposed to have.

The list is a bit too big to once again find all the articles having to do with all of the banned materials, missiles, chemicals etc that were found... my question still stands...why didn't you respond in one of those threads that was previously submitted?....

Here are some more articles.

Is it really true that Saddam Hussein had no "stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invaded in March 2003?
Not exactly - at least not if one counts the 500 tons of uranium that the Iraqi dictator kept stored at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant.

The press hasn't made much of Saddam's 500-ton uranium stockpile, downplaying the story to such an extent that most Americans aren't even aware of it.

But it's been reported - albeit in a by-the-way fashion - by the New York Times and a handful of other media outlets. And one of Saddam's nuclear scientists, Jaffar Dhia Jaffar, admitted to the BBC earlier this year, "We had 500 tons of yellow cake [uranium] in Baghdad."

Surely 500 tons of anything qualifies as a "stockpile." And press reports going back more than a decade give no indication that weapons inspectors had any idea the Iraqi dictator had amassed such a staggering amount of nuke fuel until the U.S. invaded.

That's when the International Atomic Energy Agency was finally able to take a full inventory, and suddenly the 500-ton figure emerged.

Still, experts say Saddam's massive uranium stockpile was largely benign.

Largely? Well, except for the 1.8 tons of uranium that Saddam had begun to enrich. The U.S. Energy Department considered that stockpile so dangerous that it mounted an unprecedented airlift operation four months ago to remove the enriched uranium stash from al Tuwaitha.

Excerpted from.
www.jihadwatch.org...

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
After he invaded, it came to truth taht the evidence was fabricated and SERIOUSLY flawed, and that the Government KNEW of this!

Again with all this fabrication nonsense...

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
the USA invaded another country WITHOUT Just cause.
The USA invaded another country on lies.

Keep telling yourself that, it seems quite a few people agree with you even thou evidence has been given time and again that proves the contrary to what you claim..

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
weeks PRIOR to the invasion Saddam openly declared he had NO WMD, he wanted formal discussions with president bush.

Many times did Saddam make such claims to later on be found to be a lie...

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
the usa found NO EVIDENCE of any terror attacks being thuoght of against the USA

Really? let's look at some of the evidence.


www.intelmessages.org... - THE IRAQI CONNECTION

Actually, Saddam Hussein knew plenty about terrorism. In essence, he owned and operated a full-service general store for global terrorists, complete with cash, diplomatic aid, safe haven, training, and even medical attention. Such assistance violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. The results not only broke international law, but also were deadly, as this chart demonstrates:7
...........
“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.
...........
Aziz simply echoed the policy his boss established one week earlier. As Saddam Hussein put it on Iraqi TV on March 4, 2002:

"We are glad of the Istishhadiyyah [suicide] and heroic spirit of the Palestinian people. By Allah, what the Palestinian people does is beyond my expectations…”

Excerpted from.
www.husseinandterror.com...

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
im stil ltrying to find a reasonable point here with JUSTIFIES this war?

Give me some.

all your doing is attacking what im saying, the post is called
IS THIS AN ILLEGIAL WAR

And we are presenting evidence that it is not an illegal war....

You seem to be a bit.....confused....

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
You start telling me why it is just and legal, AGAINST his reasons for going to war!

You ask for evidence, we give you some of what has already been given many times and now you claim this is not enough or not what you are looking for?.....

[edit on 30-5-2005 by Muaddib]