The War again

[Montez]

Part of me is even hurt that you would defile someone who has spent the last few of his life in service to the US Army (in a light infantry unit as a 91W combat medic, not a pogue) defending your rights to post on boards like this, while the other is sickened that you'd change it to such an offensive post.

I find this really amusing, considering the owner of the board is European and probably 50% of our posters live in Europe. Not to mention that its really reaching to say that the army is defending US citizens right to post on message boards.

 

[Odin]

Nice Montez! flatlinedeath666, do read some of the other threads about the war, which many in Europe think was only USA's attempt at gaining more "control" over oil..

It's quite funny that they're still looking for those weapons of mass destruction, don't get me wrong.It was good that you took control, but USA went against the UN and also now won't give up control over Iraq.

But kudos on the job you did..

 

[Bradylama]

but USA went against the UN

I've always found this statement a bit touchy. Especially considering the UN's unwillingness to enforce its own resolutions. Of which, Saddam violated almost every one concerning Iraq.

 

[Brother None]

I've always found this statement a bit touchy.

Not really. Steps:

1) UN makes resolution against Iraq, stating "if you do this, we'll do this"
2) US says Iraq broke the resolution
3) UN says they didn't
4) US attacks anyway.

Regardless of whether or not a resolution against a country exists, the UN has to stamp the resolution as broken before any country has the permission to intervene.

But that's all off topic

 

[PsychoSniper]

Uh, Kharn. Look at the resolutions.
Besides, Iraq was regulary shooting at out planes patrolingthe no-fly zone, that alone in justifacation.

 

[Brother None]

PsychoSniper]Uh, Kharn. Look at the resolutions.

...

What?

Besides, Iraq was regulary shooting at out planes patrolingthe no-fly zone, that alone in justifacation.

...Shooting at your planes in the no-fly zone, huh.

Eheheeh, sorry, that was just funny.

 

[Sander]

This is what the USA did:
The USA called for a vote. The UN said "do not attack", the USA thinks "Screw that, we ant [oil/power/no more Saddam] we don't need those silly UN people." and attacks anyway.

 

[Loxley]

PsychoSniper]Uh, Kharn. Look at the resolutions.
Besides, Iraq was regulary shooting at out planes patrolingthe no-fly zone, that alone in justifacation.

As far as i can remember the no fly ZZZzone was something that was created by the US and GB after the war, and that it has never been supported by the UN.

 

[Briosafreak]

PsychoSniper]Uh, Kharn. Look at the resolutions.
Besides, Iraq was regulary shooting at out planes patrolingthe no-fly zone, that alone in justifacation.

As far as i can remember the no fly ZZZzone was something that was created by the US and GB after the war, and that it has never been supported by the UN.

No actually the no-fly zone was the result of a Security Counsil resolution, quite revolutionary for the average UN resolution.

 

[Bradylama]

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

Resolutions the US believes Iraq has violated. Not listed, as far as I can tell, are the resolutions concerning the "oil for food" deal.

I find it immensely amusing that they had to pass resolutions condemning a nation for violating another resolution. Its like signing a law that says "Marco is a jerk."

 

[Brother None]

Resolutions the US believes Iraq has violated. Not listed, as far as I can tell, are the resolutions concerning the "oil for food" deal.

One...last...time: It's not up to the US to determine when resolutions are being broken up to such a level that it warrants war. That's up to the UN.

Imagine that a country has a law which makes killing someone punisheable by death. So one guy kills another guy, saying "he killed this guy". Whether or not the first guy is right or not is irrelevant; it's simply not up to him to decide whether or not the law is being broken and whether o not the other person should die.

That kind of personal justice doesn't work on a small scale, and it definitely doesn't work on an international scale.

Are you *really* arguing that just because resolutions against Iraq exist, the US has the right to attack the moment they think those resolutions are being broken? In that case, individual countries may have taken steps (like economic sanctions) against Israel too, because heck, they broke (smaller) resolutions...

 

[Bradylama]

Are you *really* arguing that just because resolutions against Iraq exist, the US has the right to attack the moment they think those resolutions are being broken? In that case, individual countries may have taken steps (like economic sanctions) against Israel too, because heck, they broke (smaller) resolutions...

No, I'm saying that claiming that the US defying the UN is a bad thing is bupkis, since the UN refuses to enforce its own resolutions when it doesn't benefit the majority of its members.

Member nations didn't care that Iraq repeatedly defied UNSCOM and consistantly failed to provide tangible proof that their weapons programs were being destroyed. So long as they got their oil, France and Germany were honky-dory.

 

[Brother None]

No, I'm saying that claiming that the US defying the UN is a bad thing is bupkis, since the UN refuses to enforce its own resolutions when it doesn't benefit the majority of its members.

Member nations didn't care that Iraq repeatedly defied UNSCOM and consistantly failed to provide tangible proof that their weapons programs were being destroyed. So long as they got their oil, France and Germany were honky-dory.

THAT'S IT!

LAST TIME: whether or not the US was *right* in defying the UN is not the point. The fact that the US went against a decision of the security council = defying the UN. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?! When someone says "the US defied the UN" they're right, just when they're saying "the English defied the nazis" or "the nazis defied the English", it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of facts

 

[flatlinedeath666]

Whos to say just because I was in the Army means I agreed with Bush?

In fact, most people in the US didn't agree with the war, especially those in the military. His speech to the US before the attack was pretty creepy...

"Don't destroy the oil wells. Don't destroy the oil wells. Oil. Wells. Oil. Oil."

Of course though, while the rest of the world didn't want the US to attack, the Iraqis were more then pleased to see the US come in. My best friend (I didn't go to Iraqi Freedom, I was working at BAMC in San Antonio) said everywhere he went people were chanting USA and George Bush (the latter is kinda creepy). There was very little people not happy to see the Americans "liberate" them and their oil.

Of course, the news only shows the people that don't want the Americans there.

 

[Bradylama]

THAT'S IT!

LAST TIME: whether or not the US was *right* in defying the UN is not the point. The fact that the US went against a decision of the security council = defying the UN. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?! When someone says "the US defied the UN" they're right, just when they're saying "the English defied the nazis" or "the nazis defied the English", it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of facts

Well, you know I never said they didn't defy the UN. I was just commenting on Odin's statement because he made it look like defying the UN was a bad thing.

 

[Brother None]

Well, you know I never said they didn't defy the UN. I was just commenting on Odin's statement because he made it look like defying the UN was a bad thing.

Oh...right...

Sorry...

 

[welsh]

Well let me just say that regardless of the way Bush ran the beginning of this war and the current occupation of Iraq, I personally and shedding now tears for Saddam Hussein.

He was a right son-of-a-bitch, and while it's true that the world is full of like son-of-a-bitches, I don't think we should regret that he is currently out of power.

Now looking at the State Dept doc offered above what strikes me first as interesting is Resolution 660-

UNSCR 660, while passed in response to the "illegal invasion of Kuwait" also applied to "and all subsequent relevant resolutions." and such authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

If you go and look at resolution 1441 it's an interesting document for a coupel fo reasons. For example, it recalls Resolution 660 above. It also says that members are to assist in the implementation of the resolution (although this doesn't explicitly say use of force). Furthermore it says that Iraq will face severe consequences if it fails to live up to standards and lists the many times that Iraq and violated UN Security Council resolutions.

But then it also says that the Security Council will remain seized of the matter and will review the report of the UNMOVIC and the IAEA.

So it's a real puzzle. Resolution 1441 is taken under the Security Council's Chapter VII (war making) powers but there is no explicit grant of power in any member to take forceful action. At the same time, it does relate back to Resolution 660 which does provide that grant.

Now remember that GB got basically a rubber stamp from Congress before launching the entire invasion and there is a question of whether he overstepped his authority. However, it seems that Congress granted the President the power to act as commander in chief.

Although it seems to be a stretch to say that Res 660 grants that same authority from 12 years previously, the language does seem to permit member states from acting.

 

[Bradylama]

I don't think we should regret that he is currently out of power.

Especially since it gives us the opportunity to withdraw occupational forces from Holy Saudi soil. Which will severely reduce terrorist funding from Saudi citizens, and terrorist actions by Saudi nationals...

And the oil. That's nice too. >_>

 

[welsh]

That said, if you are looking to a resolution of 12 years ago, you got to wander if someone ain't stretching the law a bit.

Like I said, personally, I am happy to see Saddam out of power, but I am not sure if the way it was done was right.

 

[Gus]

The situation is much worse now than when Saddam controlled Iraq, and the american soldiers deosn't make things better.