`A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi...

[Zzarchov]

Wait a minute, Minority Observer,

You know that democracy is not a stated goal of the UN right? Your acting like there is some international directive towards democracy where the UN would concern itself with democracy.

MOST UN states are not and do not wish to be democratic.

 

[Said1]

The Liberation of Kuwait was authorized by UN resolution 678 and that was what the cease fire was for . 668 in turn was a backup to resolution 660 which called for an Iraqi pullout of Kuwait . Hence if the pull out was complete which it was by 2003 the invasion of Iraqi soil can't legally be justified by a UN resolution to liberate Kuwait they are two different countries .

Yes, but the violations I mentioned were committed before 2003. Pulling out of Kuwait was not the only condition of the Ceasefire Agreement or UN Resolution 687 and terms of the No-Fly-Zone enforced by Britain, USA and France were violated as well - not that they were UN approved in the first place, LOL. And, resolution 668 has nothing to do with Iraq or the middle east for that matter. I'm sure it's just an over-sight, maybe you can give me the proper resolution you ment to reference.

Just as an aside, I should mention I'm not pro-war, I just enjoy discussing the legalities....the devil IS in the details.

 

[wallyj]

"Hello,my name is wallyj, and I am an islamaphobe. It first started about 6 years ago when my boss came up to me and said " Walter,the world is going crazy,someone just flew a jetliner into the world trade center". .....

Well what a conicidence. I too was at work(listening to 1150 AM) when the towers were struck. My immediate reaction was one of....well lets just say I felt a great sense of justice had been served to Amerca and pay a deaf ear to what their government was up to regarding their forgien policies through out the middle east.

WOW,I don't know what to say.3500 innocent people die and you think "right on".YOU ARE EITHER SO YOUNG OR SO NAIVE. i suggest you take a trip to NY and spew your enlightened thoughts.

 

[damngrumpy]

First of all, I'm not sticking up for the Americans in Iraq, but surely people don't believe anyone does or ever did follow the so called rules of war? All that stuff about rules etc is just stuff to feed the folks back home.
And when it comes to war in this case in Iraq a dead Iraqi is just that another dead Iraqi. The same as a dead American is just another dead American.
All nations have engaged in war crimes and will continue to do so.
What should happen is all sides should either stop fighting or just kill each other like flies armed or not until everyone is tired of fighting

 

[Minority Observer84]

Yes, but the violations I mentioned were committed before 2003. Pulling out of Kuwait was not the only condition of the Ceasefire Agreement or UN Resolution 687 and terms of the No-Fly-Zone enforced by Britain, USA and France were violated as well - not that they were UN approved in the first place, LOL. And, resolution 668 has nothing to do with Iraq or the middle east for that matter. I'm sure it's just an over-sight, maybe you can give me the proper resolution you ment to reference.

Just as an aside, I should mention I'm not pro-war, I just enjoy discussing the legalities....the devil IS in the details.

LOL 678 is the one i was talking about i feel sheepish .

 

[Minority Observer84]

Do you remember that 80% of the Iraqi's voted? They did this knowing that going to the polls could be deadly,not being derided by buddies,but actual death. Why do I bother? Zzarchov,you must be a racist,nazi,bush-loving,islamphobist.How dare you bring facts and common sense to a debate about opinions? Cheers to all,good night.On the bright side though,except for myself and a few others(you know who you are)testicular cancer will never be a concern.

Sure If you define balls as being the ability to watch your Government invade a country , abuse it's populace and steal it's resources and still be able to say " well they are doing it for us " Yeah if that's your definition of "having a set " Guess i was just born short . And my argument is not based on opinion but on international law and common decency .

 

[Minority Observer84]

First of all, I'm not sticking up for the Americans in Iraq, but surely people don't believe anyone does or ever did follow the so called rules of war? All that stuff about rules etc is just stuff to feed the folks back home.
And when it comes to war in this case in Iraq a dead Iraqi is just that another dead Iraqi. The same as a dead American is just another dead American.
All nations have engaged in war crimes and will continue to do so.
What should happen is all sides should either stop fighting or just kill each other like flies armed or not until everyone is tired of fighting

What should happen is a complete and unconditional American pullout both militarily and economically . And the American tax payer should foot the bill for the reconstruction of Iraq regardless of who they actually elect .
Yeah i know in my dreams because American foreign policy has never been about justice and so long as they continue to treat foreign populations like they are sub human they will always have to wonder "why do they hate us so much " .

 

[Minority Observer84]

Wait a minute, Minority Observer,

You know that democracy is not a stated goal of the UN right? Your acting like there is some international directive towards democracy where the UN would concern itself with democracy.

MOST UN states are not and do not wish to be democratic.

Straight from the UN charter :
"to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

From the declaration for human rights :

Article 2 :
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Next Time i hear Bush saying America is a law abiding and freedom loving country i'am gona hurl .

 

[Said1]

Straight from the UN charter :
"to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

From the declaration for human rights :
Article 2 :
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Next Time i hear Bush saying America is a law abiding and freedom loving country i'am gona hurl .

The Charter is a proclaimation of the General Assembly, not the Security Council. That is, proclaimations, resolutions and recommendations stemming from the GA are not binding or enforcable through that organ of the UN. The SC has the power to (collectively) act and enforce or ignore.....if they can get around to voting on anything before it's too late.

 

[Said1]

LOL 678 is the one i was talking about i feel sheepish .

Sorting through all those resolutions will do that. 8O

This is from 678:

The Security Council,
Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.

Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm

This one?

 

[JBeee]

The whole story.... http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges

 

[Zzarchov]

Straight from the UN charter :
"to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

From the declaration for human rights :
Article 2 :
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Next Time i hear Bush saying America is a law abiding and freedom loving country i'am gona hurl .

Again, read what your posting before you are posting that. None of that states democracy is a mandate. If it had, it never would have passed through the general assembly nor the security council.

An autocratic regime fits all those criteria as well. The freedom to choose your own leader is never mentioned in that charter.


You also keep saying because Iraq is worse this moment than it was under Saddam than he should stay in power.

Worse for whom? The kurds? No..rather than Genocide they have higher stability and a say in government.

The Shia? No..while they still face bombs and bullets, they are also now allowed to elect leaders and while it may not be much better if at all, it is certainly not worse. Whats more there is the chance for improvement rather than stagnation.

The Sunni? Oh yes, its far worse. Rather than ruling the majority of the populace with an Iron fist they are now a minority, who faces retribution.




Your logic means you think the End to Aparathied was wrong, because conditions actually worsened (crime rate for instance). I mean, for 75% of the population it got better, but that other 25% of ruling elite turned out way worse.

Lets not forget the civil rights movement in the USA, with the amount of extra damage that went on during that period, compared to levels before... it STILL hasn't evened out. Are you saying that was wrong?

I'd really like you to answer why these two situations are ok, or if you think they are also bad. And no magic hand waving "They just are different/ apples and oranges/ thats not the issue" etc.

 

[unclepercy]

"Hello,my name is wallyj, and I am an islamaphobe. It first started about 6 years ago when my boss came up to me and said " Walter,the world is going crazy,someone just flew a jetliner into the world trade center". .....

Well what a conicidence. I too was at work(listening to 1150 AM) when the towers were struck. My immediate reaction was one of....well lets just say I felt a great sense of justice had been served to Amerca and pay back for it`s injustices to the middle east over the last 50 years.
Finally someone had spoken aloud for the American people to listen.....so loud they could not just put a deaf ear to what their government was up to regarding their forgien policies through out the middle east.

9/11 , after the initial shock and awe of the event, finally brought home the realities of what was going on in the world. Day time soaps and talk shows came to a halt for almost a WEek! fer christ`s sake!

And to this day, I hear the phrase ` since 9/11 bla bla bla`.

Perhaps there was some good to come out of this wake-up call for the United States of America.

You sicken me:angryfire: Why hasn't someone called your hand on this outrageous, cruel comment? I'm calling you out, and I won't have any trouble finding a billion people to back me on this one. Good God.

Uncle

 

[Zzarchov]

Because one should not feed the trolls.

All he wants is attention. He probably don't believe a word he says, he's just lonely and wants people to respond to him, to treat him like he matters.

You should just ignore him, there is a feature in your control panel that does just that.

 

[JBeee]

You sicken me:angryfire: Why hasn't someone called your hand on this outrageous, cruel comment? I'm calling you out, and I won't have any trouble finding a billion people to back me on this one. Good God.

Uncle

Not a popular view, but I`m sure one shared by tens of millions worldwide. Just because over 3000 innocents(?) died that day does not make it any more tragic than the innocent lives lost by the west`s indiscrimate bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan before after the event. Oh but those lives lost are labeled `collateral damage` by our leaders and press.:roll:

The US had it coming to them and did nothing to stop it.

 

[Zzarchov]

1.) There is no "The US" its not some amorphous blob of protoplasm or some evil hive mind.

Just people like you. If someone shot you for what "The west" did , did you have it coming? Is it a just act that I shouldn't go to jail for if I convert to Islam and murder you?

There is just people. That they think killing innocents is ok means they can't see us killing innocents over there as wrong. Its either that or they are just hypocrites. Im betting they know 9/11 was wrong.

 

[JBeee]

1.) There is no "The US" its not some amorphous blob of protoplasm or some evil hive mind.

Just people like you. If someone shot you for what "The west" did , did you have it coming? Is it a just act that I shouldn't go to jail for if I convert to Islam and murder you?

There is just people. That they think killing innocents is ok means they can't see us killing innocents over there as wrong. Its either that or they are just hypocrites. Im betting they know 9/11 was wrong.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

 

[BitWhys]

I wouldn't call it justice but I could understand someone seeing it that way. Not that I'd agree with them. Let's just say I don't think what happened to the WTC was as random as many people would like to believe. Only about as random as striking Iraq in retaliation.

 

[Said1]

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

Do you think any of those children could have been saved with money stolen through oil for food? I honestly am not defending Albright's words, but Saddam has some culpability as well, to deny that would be dishonest.

 

[Said1]

An excert from her book....too little too late, maybe?

I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations.... As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy and wrong. Nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people. I had fallen into the trap and said something I simply did not mean. That was no one’s fault but my own. (p. 275)

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp