French and Russian Collaborations with Saddam Hussein Begin to Surface

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Serb

WE WERE AGAINST THIS WAR, BECAUSE THIS WAR IS AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW.

This war may very well be 'unjust', but I defy you to explain how it is 'illegal'. Iraq openly violated the 1991 ceasefire years ago, and hence the U.S. was always 'legally' allowed to go to war. It was just a matter of whether it was willing. The Bush Administration was stupid for not stressing this point to the world.

'Just' and 'legal' are two VERY different things.

If I'm wrong I'd love to be corrected: please explain to me in explicit legal terms (NOT moral or logical arguments) how this war is illegal, without mentioning the United Nations in any way, shape, or form, since the UN has no true legal authority.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Serb

When the hell you will understand that USA acted alike Nazi Germany (Poland)

Your kidding right? I suppose you think the Nazi's moved in Humanitarian relief trucks right behind the troops. The Nazis immediately began a systematic plan to empty Poland of the Poles Jews Gypsy's and everyone else not German so they could populate the country side with Germans.

I hardly see the validity in this comparison.

A lot of people in Iraq are happy to be liberated, not all but a bunch of them are.

I think your just pissed off because you were wrong and your taking it out on the people who were right, like Darius and I.

If anyone needs to grow up here I believe its you.

And Im glad your not smoking USA cigarettes anymore. We dont want to do business with you. There are plenty of people in the world who still do however so there!

[TCO]

Originally posted by Darius871


This war may very well be 'unjust', but I defy you to explain how it is 'illegal'. Iraq openly violated the 1991 ceasefire years ago, and hence the U.S. was always 'legally' allowed to go to war. It was just a matter of whether it was willing. The Bush Administration was stupid for not stressing this point.

'Just' and 'legal' are two VERY different things.

If I'm wrong I'd love to be corrected: please explain to me in explicit legal terms (NOT moral or logical arguments) how this war is illegal.

Someone like Roland would make the argument that only the SC can choose to go to war. And would say that the cease-fire was with the SC. It is a bit clouded though since independant cease-fires were signed. One with the US and one with the UN.

[Az]

Serb is watching too much Russian TV, me thing.

[Darius871]

Disclaimer added to my post.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sava
The Jingos are out in force today. One question. Who gave Saddam the ingredients to create his chemical stockpile? Okay thank you.

You trolls get worse and worse! Can't you come up with a troll that is atleast semi-believable?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
**** Chirac

Though I am glad that Spiffor totally condemns this duplicitous action. As said before the US backing Iraq against Iran is obviously totally different than France backing Iraq against the US. In the later, France was supposed to be our ally.

Don't get me wrong. Had Saddam been a decent ruler, I would have seen nothing wrong with France's support to him. It is normal that France, as an independant country, looks for its interests and defends them even when they are opposed to the US. At least, when France and US aren't able to smoothen the disagreement.
France and USA share a defensive alliance. It would be a disgrace for any of those countries not to honor it should one of them be attacked. But I don't see any problem in having one country hindering the initatives of the other if the interests are opposite.

I just cannot condone the support of this despot, by anyone. To me, the support to Saddam should shame our country the same way the US support to Pinochet should ashame yours.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Darius871
If I'm wrong I'd love to be corrected: please explain to me in explicit legal terms (NOT moral or logical arguments) how this war is illegal, without mentioning the United Nations in any way, shape, or form, since the UN has no true legal authority.

Excuse me, are you nuts?
How the hell I can explain to you that this war is illegal, if you think that "UN has no true legal authority"? UN charter is a backbone of international laws. You really should read the introduction to UN charter to understand why humanity created such organisation as United Nations in 1945.

United States of America is member of United Nations, futhermore, USA is permanent member of Security Concil. It means that United States of American should respect international laws and first of all UN charter. As permanent member of SC, USA should be an example for other members of UN. An example of respect to UN charter and UN resolutions, instead of this USA making an examples how international laws could be violated.

This war may very well be 'unjust', but I defy you to explain how it is 'illegal'. Iraq openly violated the 1991 ceasefire years ago, and hence the U.S. was always 'legally' allowed to go to war. It was just a matter of whether it was willing. The Bush Administration was stupid for not stressing this point to the world.

Blah...blah...blah...
Your atempt to portray this as showdowns between USA and Iraq only is worthless. First you have to prove that Iraq violated SC resolution 1441, as far as I know no evidences that Iraq had NBC weapons were found. Next, it was the agreement between UN and Iraq, a Security Concil resolution, not agreement between USA and Iraq. If you didn't notice all members of United Nations put embargo against Iraq, not only USA and memebers of 1991 anti-Iraq coalition. Next, United States of America openly violated UN charter. The UN charter which it should respect and obey as member of United Nations.
Article 25 of UN charter says that:The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
The SC resolution 1441 don't gave the right for USA to use military force against Iraq. NO ONE gave you the right to be a world policeman. You are self-proclaimed world cop. Only one organisation on this planet could be considered as world policeman, this organisation is UN Security Concil. You acted without UN SC resolution, without permision of UN, you broke UN charter, you thrown humanity to pre-WW2 era when strong country could invade/pillage/destroy weak countries, you thrown humanity to era when strong is always right, when there is no other law except the law of the strongest. That's why this war illegal.


You know, I am the citizen of country which can easily eradicte your entire continent within 20 minutes, so I should be a last man who have to warry about those new rules. So I guess we should follow your example and start to re-conquer former Soviet republics. Who cares about UN and international laws when you can conquer so many valuable resourses and free so many people in those republics from tyranny of their local evil rulers.

[Serb]

Originally posted by GP


Someone like Roland would make the argument that only the SC can choose to go to war. And would say that the cease-fire was with the SC. It is a bit clouded though since independant cease-fires were signed. One with the US and one with the UN.

Could you post a text of this independant cease-fire?
Anyhow, USA should decide want it be a memeber of United Nations or it wan't. Because if you are a member of UN, it means that you should obey UN charter.

Article 103 of UN charter says:

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

If USA is a member of UN, then its obligations under the present Charter (resolution 1441) shall prevail over any other independent cease-fire agreements with Iraq.
Any questions?

[Drake Tungsten]

Russia sucks.

[Serb]

Originally posted by conmcb25


Your kidding right? I suppose you think the Nazi's moved in Humanitarian relief trucks right behind the troops. The Nazis immediately began a systematic plan to empty Poland of the Poles Jews Gypsy's and everyone else not German so they could populate the country side with Germans.

I hardly see the validity in this comparison.

A lot of people in Iraq are happy to be liberated, not all but a bunch of them are.

In accordance with your logic it will be OK for Russia to invade the Baltic States if Russians will move "in Humanitarian relief trucks right behind the troops", because I can assure you that "a lot of people in Baltic States will be happy to be liberated, not all but a bunch of them will."

Your previous avatar was much better.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Russia sucks.

FY too.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Serb


In accordance with your logic it will be OK for Russia to invade the Baltic States if Russians will move "in Humanitarian relief trucks right behind the troops", because I can assure you that "a lot of people in Baltic States will be happy to be liberated, not all but a bunch of them will."

Your previous avatar was much better.

First of all no it wouldn't because the Russians have a tendency to STAY! And who is the current dictator in the Baltic States that is gasing his own people and trying like heck to acquire weapons of mass destruction, violating numerous UN Resolutions,etc?

I really think you need to find a different comparison or perhaps actually STUDY some History and Political Science. Maybe then you would know what you are talking about.

Im glad you dont like my current avatar. In that case Ill keep it for a while!

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Serb

FY too.

Serb you forgot to add the "I", as in FYI=For your Information.

[chequita guevara]

So does no one notice the real issue here? Here is evidence that the US government lied to its own people and was planning to attack Iraq from the very begining, instead of it's story that it only made the decision to attack in March.


Oh, right, the US government lying to the American people is no big deal.