Saddam captured?

[icemaiden]

I admit the SAS prolly had more to do with it than that, my info comes from spending a 14hr shift working at Sky being surrounded by monitors with Sky news on. They have this thing about making us watch Sky programming constantly

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by SilverHood
Who's gonna stop them? Until we get a European army, (hopefully run by the Germans), the EU have little real power except for trade embargoes... and that's not gonna work against a country like the US.

Quite Simply No.
This European "Army" as it were is infact a tertiary to NATO and various other military alliances. At the moment it looks like an Intel HQ prob in Brussels run by joint British, German and French Command. With a permanent NATO Liaison to make sure the
Americans arn't skanked out of anything

But when it comes to actuall operations it will in fact do very little bar improving communication and co-operation between EU forces. The Rapid Reaction Force will still do what it always has and wont be changing.

Originally posted by SilverHood
Oh, and then there's the matter of rebuilding Irak. No doubt US companies will get a big share of those, and their economy will get better.

And British Companies. Recently Old Bush announced that only countires that contributed to the actual military side of Iraq will be receiving rebuilding contracts.

 

[Wile_E_Coyote]

Originally posted by SilverHood

Oh, and then there's the matter of rebuilding Irak. No doubt US companies will get a big share of those, and their economy will get better.

Yeah, the vice president's old company and Bush campaign funder Haliburton has already got most of the oil contracts. *big suprise*

And their exclusion of states that didn't contribute to the war also suggests there was monitary motivation. This seems like an all too good excuse for them not to share their "prize".

 

[mr.Blacky]

USA and "allies" broke several important UN charters

Ermm which ones? After reading the whole bloody thing I couldnt find anything.
Ain't it easy just to say it is so

Ah other countries.....
Russia? yeah right that is a peaceloving democratic nation.....Anyone remember a little province near the Kaukauses? bombed to the stoneage..
China ahhh another lovely country yes indeed ah lovely country, I have offcourse never heard of the student uprise, Tibet, Xinjian-Uygur, the Cultural Revolution (killing 22 million people), illegal copying of patents by government owned companies oh and offcourse never heard of the Falun Gong
Germany leading an european army? I hope not considering the fact that they like all normal countries care more about their own interest, just look at the stability pact for the euro.

/edit

Oh, and then there's the matter of rebuilding Irak. No doubt US companies will get a big share of those, and their economy will get better.

Have you even seen the numbers on the USA economy????? by this sentence I doubt it very much, please go and look them up.

 

[]SK[]

 

[Cloowwwnnn]

Yeh, I saw that somewhere else. I don't usually like 'spoof' pictures but this made me giggle

 

[xane]

Re: The attack on Iraq

Originally posted by Wile_E_Coyote
Whether or not Iraq complied well enough to article 1441 never justified an attack, in fact the UN secretary general warned the US not to do this.

That warning was in December 2001, and Resolution 1441 was in November 2002, obviously the warning didn't apply to that.

Originally posted by Wile_E_Coyote
It’s interesting to note that the US backed Iraq in its attack on Iran where WMD was used. They also swept under the carpet the WMD genocide at Halabja in 1988, and never threatened Iraq with sanctions or invasion back then.

Total bullshit. Reagan was calling for a complete worldwide ban back in 1984 after Iraq started using chemical weapons against Iran, this followed export controls issued by the US. The US reaffirmed its position in the Paris 1989 conference to ban them after the attacks on the Kurds. Whilst it is accepted that the US could have done more to take action against Iraq, and the fact that the Kurdish genocide didn't even figure at the conference, it is inaccurate to state they supported their use of banned weapons.

It should be noted that right up until the mid 1980s, the US, USSR, and most western nations had maintained and were actively producing and researching biological and chemical stockpiles which formed an integral part of their defence strategy, on part due to the failure of US-USSR negotions during the 1970s to restrict such weapons, the Iraq/Iran action prompted a complete turnaround by all countries when it was quickly realised just how terrible these weapons were when used in conflict.

 

[xane]

Re: The attack on Iraq

Originally posted by Wile_E_Coyote
Interesting fact: Iraq has the second larges oil reserves in the world, only beaten by Saudi Arabia.

Interesting fact; Kuwait has the 3rd largest oil reserves, almost equal to Iraq.

Remind me again, which country did Iraq invade in 1990 and start all these problems ?

 

[Wile_E_Coyote]

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;


Article 2

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The US becoming an aggressor against Iraq without a UN resolution breaks UN Article 1 and 2 at least. In that they did not adhere to the principles of organisational decision-making needed to take such action: A vote in the general assembly over a resolution concerning the use of force. And proof that the country in question is a direct threat to world peace.

Their attempts at proving Iraq was violating resolution 1441 were an effort to achieve legality. But in the end the US did not wait for such a resolution because they knew it wouldn't be passed. Also, if you remember, France got a lot of grief from them because they said they would veto such a resolution. Although in fact it probably wouldn't have passed even if France didn't veto.

 

[Wile_E_Coyote]

Reagans "ban"

I'll admit though:
What I wrote from Rouge States is based on my recollection of the book, so it might not be 100% accurate. Although I thought it was... But I don't have the book at the moment, so I can't double check. Anyway, I'm writing posts not a doctorate.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by icemaiden
America helped Saddam gain power in Iraq in the first place, well ok not him personally but his political party.

Wrong.

The US broke off relations with Iraq during the 1967 attack on Israel, when they obviously supported different sides. AT the time Iraq was under the rule of King Faisel

In 1968 the Ba'ath party took power, but the diplomatic situation remained unchanged, especially as the US accused Iraq of supporting terrorism, indeed, Iraq was providing training facilities to Abu Nidal.

In 1983 Iraq expelled Abu Nidal, who moved to Syria, in order to win US support for the war against Iran, who were now the self-proclaimed number one enemy of the US, and diplomatic relations were restored, there is a famous picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein of about this time.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Wile_E_Coyote
Reagans "ban"

From your link

The American intelligence officers never encouraged or condoned Iraq's use of chemical weapons, but neither did they oppose it because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival, people involved at the time said in interviews.

 

[Tom]

My opinion:

Saddam is a murderous twat
I'm glad hes not in power
Maybe Iraq will become a better place
The US spreads its agenda around the world - freedom of choice.

 

[Wile_E_Coyote]

I agree with you Tom. Though, I'm not so sure about your last sentence.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Wile_E_Coyote
Article 2

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

This is precisely the Article Iraq broke in its invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the response by the US was therefore legitimate in 1991, and was fully backed by the UN.

As the subsequent resolutions were for the purposes of a ceasefire and Iraq broke those resolutions, the effects of the UN endorsed 1991 coalition attack were still in force and were further reiterated by Resolution 1441 in November 2002.

The reluctance of France, China and Russia to support what they stated in Resolution 1441 may have been due to lucrative oil negotiations with Iraq they all conducted in the late 1990s (France, Russia, China).

 

[Wile_E_Coyote]

Yes, the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait was backed by a UN resolution (And rightly so I think).

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Wile_E_Coyote
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not.

Show me the UN Resolution dictating this.

 

[Wile_E_Coyote]

What? They don't make resolution saying "you were a bad boy for not getting a resolution before attacking!"

The Secretary General can "rebuke the US invasion" though. And say that the claim to "...the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively" represents " ...a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years,"

 

[Wile_E_Coyote]

Anyway, fun word-sparring with you Xane. I like a good discussion. Anyway, I have to hit the sack now… So no more replies for me tonight.

 

[mr.Blacky]

World peace and stability? Will you please take me to your world Stability okay but that was done by the fact that the USA and USSR could destroy each other, I for one hope that we never face another cold war.

For your comment about the UN articles good point but it could be easily overturned caus lets face it a dictator getting his country in 3 wars is not a man I would have faith in keeping the peace for a long time. Also look at art. 33 the USA and Iraq had a dispute and the USA tried to go through the UN, but Iraq hindered the UN.

Another thought it is the purpose of the UN to try to prevent a war, not a law saying that a war is illegal.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Wile_E_Coyote
What? They don't make resolution saying "you were a bad boy for not getting a resolution before attacking!"

And why not ? Russia tried to get one.

 

[Wile_E_Coyote]

They tried to get a ruling, not create a resolution. And I don't think they got anywhere because if the UN persued the matter nothing would be gained. In fact it would only worsen the situation. So instead they offically rebuked the invasion.


About 1441 making the war legal:
The UN resolution passed in November 2002 sent arms inspectors back into Iraq to verify Iraq's disarmament, the final requirement before lifting sanctions. The resolution says there will be "serious consequences" if there is a "material breach" of the resolution, but it specifically does not identify what those consequences should or might be. The resolution states that a finding of "material breach" requires both omissions or lies in Iraq's arms declaration and non-compliance with inspectors. It reserves for the Council as a whole, not any individual country, authority to make those determinations.

For more info on the Iraq-US conflict this is a good website.

 

[xane]

I agree with the argument that the "serious consequence" was vague, but that was a result of the watered down version of 1441 going through the hands of the pro-Iraq countries on the UNSC.

I am not trying to prove the legality of the war, I am merely pointing out that there is no basis to determine that the US action was illegal, and any statements as such are pure conjecture and opinion.

The "legal" argument goes like this:

• The Resolutions from 1990/1 authorized the use of force to remove Iraq from Kuwait and to prevent any repeat of the action.
• Further resolutions were drawn up as part of a cease-fire that were agreed to by Iraq and outlined the inspections to conclude the agreements were being adhered to.
• Resolution 1441 was the final demand to show the Iraq was adhering to the previous resolutions.
• Iraq broke the agreement, as it had done the previous resolutions, by not compying, and specifically within the 30 day notice given in 1441.
• The cease-fire was therefore void and the authorization to use force was back.
• There was no definition on what limits the "use of force" was to take, if the US decided that "regieme change" was the answer then that would have to be decided later if it was incorrect or not.

In respect of the fact there is _no_ document that specifically outlaws the use of force in the Iraq situation (just general laws by the UN), you simply cannot state that the "war was illegal".

A "rebuke" is not UN policy, admittedly it carries weight when said by the Secretary General, but again, it does not infer illegality. In any case it did not state that the war per se was illegal, just the concept of unilateral action, regardless of legality.

If the war was illegal then the UN would be seeking to place Saddam Hussein back in charge, not cooperating with the efforts to rebuild Iraq.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Originally posted by Tom
My opinion:

Saddam is a murderous twat
I'm glad hes not in power
Maybe Iraq will become a better place
The US spreads its agenda around the world - freedom of choice.

^ wot he sed!!!111


At the end of the day I'm glad the USA has got the balls to do what they are doing, and I'm glad that Britain is helping. The UN has consistently been shown as a spineless bunch of bickering in-fighters who almost always rely on the USA to bail them out.

Take Kosovo et al. The UN says this and that and the other and NOT ONE BLOODY THING CHANGES. The USA steps in and hey presto, stuff happens, ok so not all of it was brilliant but it was better than when the UN handled it. And lets not forget that this was in EUROPE, supposed hotbed of togetherness and one vision bollocks.
Europe and the UN failed miserably.

Gulf War 1, UN mandate after bloody mandate and 4/5ths of fuck all gets achieved. USA arrives and the Iraqi army decides to use their AK's as white flags. Go figure.

And Europe was dead against GW2 because largely of France, Germany and Russia. Who all were looking to spend billions of dollars on oil in Iraq before GW2. I believe China had a hand in there too.


Anyway, just watch the do-gooders stick their oar in at Saddam's trial and protect HIS human rights. Its a fucking crying shame that these same do-gooders and peace lovers always, always fail to stick their oar in when he's killing thousands of his own people.
Just like Pol Pot (who got away with it) and Idi Amin (who also got away with it).

I don't at all subscribe to this idea that we in the west have now somehow created a new band of terrorists who will now fight us. Anyone that understands the tiniest bit about theocracies and religious fanatics will know that us simply being "the west" is reason enough for suicide bombs and fucking great planes flying into buildings.

If you want peace, prepare for war, and I'm on America's side.

 

[Rekin]

Originally posted by Deadmanwalking
1991 after the first gulf war.

No, it was 1988 during the Iran/Iraq war.