When is too far, too far?

[Tom]

Try telling the people of Iraq that we had to leave Saddam alone, because of 'serious unforeseen consequences', and that they had to live in fear until his regime died. Given hindsight, would that sound fair?

So what if the war was illegal (untested in a court, so a premature conclusion anyway) - I have yet to see anybody come up with a serious alternative to whats happened over the past few weeks.

BTW 'automatic trigger for war' is meaningless, just because something is not automatic doesn't mean it can't happen anyway.

I'm beginning to sense a lot of war protesters and the like struggling to find justification for their arguments.

 

[bodhi]

Resolution 1441 blah blah blah not our mandate blah blah blah illegal war blah blah blah unforseen consequences blah de fucking blah blah. Nath, you have been beating that dead horse since the start of the war, and as the war has gone on you've been proved more and more wrong. Maybe now's the time to shut the fuck up eh?

 

[xane]

Originally posted by nath
This war, it's legality and consequences is not only about Iraq.

You might think that later on we could see a challenge or perhaps a kind of court drama about what the US has done and what "laws" it broke. Your claims of illegality are speculation at best, this can only really be decided by the judgement of those deemed worthy to do so, and it wont be you or I or any of the non-governmental organisations who seem so keen to take the moral high ground these days.

Laws, and the international arena is extremely vague on this, relate only to the situation. There are no international or UN laws that cover a regime that wishes to be a UN member yet continues to defy resolutions and ultimatums to those resolutions, which represent the wishes of the international community.

Do we need laws that specify when and where military action can be justified and by whom ? There are none at present, so there are basically no laws to be broken.

Plenty of countries routinely defy UN resolutions and internationally recognised agreements in a manner that warrants "serious consequences", i.e. military action to remove the regime by force, not just Iraq (and I mention no names here). At present the UN has _no_ mandate to deal with them, in other words they are basically toothless and lack authority, something badly missing from what purports to be the world's "government".

I say you should put your hand on your heart and see what is happening, in your eyes, using your brain, watch the drama unfold, judge for yourself the "legality" or the "morality" or the "justifcation" of it all, not through the mouthpice of some slimey lawyer or apologist, unless it goes completely pear shaped (and I hope not) I doubt many people will actually admit to kepping Saddam in power, regardless of the legal position, just as they did about the "no fly" zones.

The whole crap about the "second resolution" negates the fact of what would have happened if there had been one and Saddam continued to defy it, we would be in exactly this position two months later, and it would have still been just as illegal, unless of course you seriously think he would have capitulated.

 

[mr.Blacky]

Originally posted by Durzel
Incidentally, this whole concept of "illegal war". I didn't realise the UN was the governing body over the entire human race? Realistically (whether you accept it or not) there is nothing stopping a country waging war on another country, a people or a race. It's certainly not "illegal" in the sense of the word you're implying.

Indeed.

I believe in democracy and tbh I feel that the whole UN is a toothles chicken because they accept dictatorships and one party ruled nations as equals to democratic nations. I personally hope that the time that all people are free and living in democratic nations is soon.

 

[nath]

Originally posted by xane
I say you should put your hand on your heart and see what is happening, in your eyes, using your brain, watch the drama unfold, judge for yourself the "legality" or the "morality" or the "justifcation" of it all

Do you honestly believe that's what the US did?

There's no way this war was about regime change, or freeing the Iraqi people, everyone's just so smitten with the happy free Iraqi people that the US can go off and do whatever the fuck they like.

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

I read a press report about the USA stating that they would be looking at Syria, Iran and North Korea in terms of WMD devolution, etc.

Bush wouldn't be mad enough to go after North Korea would he???

 

[maxi--]

Originally quoted by DurzelIncidentally, this whole concept of "illegal war". I didn't realise the UN was the governing body over the entire human race? Realistically (whether you accept it or not) there is nothing stopping a country waging war on another country, a people or a race. It's certainly not "illegal" in the sense of the word you're implying.

this type of post goes a FUCK of a long way to show how litte people read, whether it interests you or not, isnt the point, you are wrong, and had you have read more than a few lines of text on the BBC news site on it, you'd know this.

this was is Illegal in the same way Saddam having WomD is illegal (hence the hycocrisy of it all)

It is also illegal in the US (in the very best sense of the word)
Bush and his administration are not permitted to attack another country UNLESS they are in fear of an immenent attack (not proven and god knows not likely) or in retaliation to a direct attack upon their country.

A lot of people have gone on at me for saying the same things over and over, and im tiring of it myself, but if people refuse to listen on account 'they just dont want to'...

Also, this (almost)instant 25 day 'liberation', have any of you even wondered how many people are actually in iraq? (around 21 million) and how many people did you see cheering?

Its great these people are happy, but you MUST see that the media in the UK are only showing you what they are given permission to show, this looks REALLY good for the "coalition"....

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by old.D0LLySh33p
I read a press report about the USA stating that they would be looking at Syria, Iran and North Korea in terms of WMD devolution, etc.

Bush wouldn't be mad enough to go after North Korea would he???

Given that hes proven a couple of things with this Iraqi war, yes i think he would, hes proven...

1) generally People will swallow what ever they are told to

2) and the people that dont swallow it, well he can ignore them, and plant seeds of mistrust into his followers, to degrade the non believers.

sounds awful religious doesnt it?

clash of civilisation here we come!

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by old.D0LLySh33p
I read a press report about the USA stating that they would be looking at Syria, Iran and North Korea in terms of WMD devolution, etc.

Bush wouldn't be mad enough to go after North Korea would he???

Out of all its NK that is the biggest threat, yes he would

In many ways Iraq could now become a forward base of operations

 

[Embattle]

I do find it funny when people, esp the hippies , talk about a war being illegal.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by maxi--
have any of you even wondered how many people are actually in iraq? (around 21 million) and how many people did you see cheering?

Rather like the claims of "one million" anti-war marchers in a country of nearly 60 million.

You were saying ... about the hypocrisy of it all ...

 

[maxi--]

yeah, it is ironic isnt it, this war being Illegal.

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by xane
Rather like the claims of "one million" anti-war marchers in a country of nearly 60 million.

You were saying ... about the hypocrisy of it all ...

Dont recall ever really mentioning the protests in detail, I havent been on any,

I havent been on any, due to the fact that when protesting, seemingly intelligent and sensible people turn into riotous angry mobs. Fair doos to those that have done so, and peacefully. But i cant let it disrupt my life that much, living in peterborough, there was 1 march, and they even made ME think "fucking hippy idiots" and they sway passers by to pro war, without them even knowing who Tariq Azziz(sp) is, ....


well you get the picture anyway,

p.s that wasnt really my point anyway the idea was to get people thinking about the media propaganda machine,

 

[xane]

Originally posted by old.D0LLySh33p
I read a press report about the USA stating that they would be looking at Syria, Iran and North Korea in terms of WMD devolution, etc.

Bush wouldn't be mad enough to go after North Korea would he???

Well, in general, unlike Iraq, these countries tend to abide by international agreements.

North Korea has "considered" pulling out of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, it has already been advised by China this may not be a good move, and it would certainly validate a lot of action against it if it did. I'd personally worry about China's reaction to NK if it started waving nukes about, not America.

Iraq had a tendancy to undermine any agreement, the treaties on Biological and Chemical Weaponry, the Non-Proliferation Treaties, even the agreements of the Arab League and other muslim organisations, he shat on them all with equal impunity.

This why, after the invasion of Kuwait, after he threatened to use WMD and terrorist threats, when he claimed to actually _not_ possess such weaponry, no-one actually believed him.

By the time the USA raises enough capital and support to go after these "rogue states", it may well be that Bush will no longer be in power, such is the nature of democracy, so don't start worrying about it yet, I think he has enough to see him through the next election.

 

[Embattle]

Maxi special...I didn't say that....blah blah.

 

[maxi--]

No embattle, you CLEARLY said it.

sorry old bud

old m8or


anti war camp now eh???
guddon you fucking liberalist hippy piece of shit!

 

[mr.Blacky]

Originally posted by maxi--
this type of post goes a FUCK of a long way to show how litte people read, whether it interests you or not, isnt the point, you are wrong, and had you have read more than a few lines of text on the BBC news site on it, you'd know this.

please show me then

 

[Maljonic]

when you have to fly all the way to Klendathu to film some bug killing...

 

[Gumbo]

Originally posted by maxi--


Its great these people are happy, but you MUST see that the media in the UK are only showing you what they are given permission to show, this looks REALLY good for the "coalition"....

Fraid not, this morning the minders had left the Journos in Baghdad, and they could film precisely what they wanted, live and unedited in most cases.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by maxi--
No embattle, you CLEARLY said it.

sorry old bud

old m8or


anti war camp now eh???
guddon you fucking liberalist hippy piece of shit!

As I said before in reference to your crap, laughable, drivel based comments which can often be summed up under the blah blah blah category

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Gumbo
Fraid not, this morning the minders had left the Journos in Baghdad, and they could film precisely what they wanted, live and unedited in most cases.

I think he was rather referring to the pro-coalition pictures, like the statue toppling, which coincidently was not shown in certain countries

 

[Tom]

So the US attacks NK? Big deal. It's not like they'll have any ICBMs, and its not like the US couldn't destroy any missile sites in the space of about 10 minutes (it takes a lot longer than that to warm a long range missile up).

It won't happen anyway.

 

[Deebs]

Having watched David Chater report live on Sky for the best part of 30 mins when the tanks first rolled into that Square, I feel that he was NOT censored by anyone.

He was walking where he wanted, filming what he wanted, speaking to who he wanted.

Having seen the Iraqi people giving flowers to the troops, smiling, dancing, clapping, ripping down regime icons I feel this war was a worthwhile justification. Oh, don't forget the Iraqi's shouting "Thankyou Mr Bush".

As for the numbers of Iraqi's showing their relief, remember it has been like 25 years of oppression and many are bewildered and frightened of showing their true feelings. For all we know they may think troops will kill them if they speak out (we don't know what lies SH has sown before he ran off). Of course it could be due to them not liking the troops, but personally, I don't think that is the case. Give them time, they will show they are happy and grateful.

What really needs to happen is a token police force in place to calm down the looting, I also can understand why they are doing this. The government rebuild should have been started before the war began by speaking to many of the senior Iraqi figures that were forced into exile. Maybe it did, I do not know.

Anyway, thank fuck we went in. I stand firmly in line with Bush and Blair on this war and I am proud of the British troops.

On a last note, I really hope that Saddam is alive and well and sat in front of a TV somewhere watching his regime crumble and the people of Iraq showing joy and happiness (Not HIS people).

Then we capture the git and give him to the people of Iraq and let them stick his head on a pole under the Cross Swords at the entrance to Bagdhad.

/Flame suit protection activated.

 

[nath]

I honestly don't think that shot of the statue gives an adequate view of the general Iraqi view of the war. I don't know what this view is, but it's obvious UK/US media are trying to suggest that this makes it alright, without looking at the entire situation. The initial shock and wonder at the pulling down of Saddams statue is taking priority over the reports of Iraqi people saying "We don't want you here". To be totally honest, given that the media is pretty much our only source of information there's no way we can get a decent idea of what's going on over there.




p.s. Although this sounds like a backpedal, I'm still very much anti this war, but I'm not entirely sure what the majority of the Iraqi people think. There were hundreds of people happy at the pulling down of the statue, but unfortunately the people who had their legs blown off etc. (of which there are hundreds also) couldn't make it due to prior arrangements of lying in bed in agony.

 

[*Exor*]

Shutup Nath.

 

[Wij]

The Iraqi exile family I met a few years back will be pretty pleased I should imagine.

 

[nath]

I'm sure, but that's not very significant though is it.

And Paul, lick my balls plz

 

[maxi--]

before i begin,

embattle, deary me.

I think whats worrying now, is whats going to happen after Iraq is done and dusted so to speak, there are people (and quite a few of them) complacently saying 'oh well <xxcountry> next then!'
as though its a trivial matter, anti-war and pro-war camps alike, riddled with apathy.

This is what i mean when i say its scary, one of the many things this war means is that Bush unilateral way of thinking can carry on, and will carry on, until they(or we) get another few 9/11's.
Its all an elaborate game to push/force us into a way of thinking, XXX is bad, and WE Are good, and that XXX must be stopped.

again, scary how many people think by right we're the good guys, i thought yesterday about Blair, and was thinking of his motives about the war, and without really questioning myself the first thing that came into my head really was "oh well he seems like a good guy over all" (not the exact words, but to that effect)
you can bet your bottom dollar(!) thats not how people in other countries see it. We're obviously treated differently here.

Whether you like it or not, the US is heading for its beloved clash of civilisations, sounds exxagerated and overblown I know.

Seeing all those (hundreds, maybe thousands) of Iraqis cheering for the fall of Saddams regime, made me wonder how many people would be cheering if George Bush choked and died on a pretzel today.

(notice the death by pretzel, not indicating a possible assasination attempt)

 

[nath]

I dunno, someone could bake a pebble in to said pretzel and hand it to Georgey.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by maxi--
Whether you like it or not, the US is heading for its beloved clash of civilisations, sounds exxagerated and overblown I know.

Sounds overblown because that's exactly what it is. As with the Iraqi masses, the Arab leaders will now start to _openly_ admit that Saddam was an all-round nasty bad guy and the world is better off without him, such was his intimidation and influence, many Arab countries, especially those bordering Iraq, were shit scared of him (apart from Kuwait with its massive American garrison).

Originally posted by maxi--
made me wonder how many people would be cheering if George Bush choked and died on a pretzel today.

Certainly not those wishing to continue to recieve American aid from his immediate successor