I thought this argument was covered and proved bollocks back in pages 15-17?lowing wrote:
Really, I can show papers that the WORLD deemed Iraq a threat. How 'bout you?? It was also forcing compliance that brought the cease fire.
The world would include France and Russia. Well, there goes that little theory.lowing wrote:
Really, I can show papers that the WORLD deemed Iraq a threat. How 'bout you?? It was also forcing compliance that brought the cease fire.m3thod wrote:
Racoons were a greater national security than Iraq circa 2003.lowing wrote:
The US is not a private citizen or subject to the whims of the UN. It was a national security issue and they acted on it.
What about me? I fink Bush is a Oil Nazi and he's unfortunately got your country a tad buggered.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I'd love to see the day they try this protesting in U.S, if you ask me i dont think they have the balls .
Golly! Has freedom of speech been taken away from the land of the free?s()mtingWong wrote:
I'd love to see the day they try this protesting in U.S, if you ask me i dont think they have the balls .
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
The UN bud. France and Russia were in bed with Iraqm3thod wrote:
The world would include France and Russia. Well, there goes that little theory.lowing wrote:
Really, I can show papers that the WORLD deemed Iraq a threat. How 'bout you?? It was also forcing compliance that brought the cease fire.m3thod wrote:
Racoons were a greater national security than Iraq circa 2003.
What about me? I fink Bush is a Oil Nazi and he's unfortunately got your country a tad buggered.
Nope, no one is "buggered" here except the liberals that will do anything and say anything, even at the cost of national security and soldiers lives to get the white house back.
Last edited by lowing (2007-01-22 17:02:50)
Go on then. Show us these papers. I've already stated the relevant documents the US and UK used in their legal case for war. Their case is full of shit.lowing wrote:
Really, I can show papers that the WORLD deemed Iraq a threat. How 'bout you?? It was also forcing compliance that brought the cease fire.m3thod wrote:
Racoons were a greater national security than Iraq circa 2003.lowing wrote:
The US is not a private citizen or subject to the whims of the UN. It was a national security issue and they acted on it.
Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 are what they used, conveniently leaving out 660. 1441 was the main case for war but had nothing in it authorising the use of force. If it had done France would have vetoed it.
Nope alive and well, but if you are stupid enough to exercise your freedom of speech and preach white power in the hood, be my guess..............................please!!!m3thod wrote:
Golly! Has freedom of speech been taken away from the land of the free?s()mtingWong wrote:
I'd love to see the day they try this protesting in U.S, if you ask me i dont think they have the balls .
Why do you use the UN when it only fits your own little arguments?!lowing wrote:
The UN bud.m3thod wrote:
The world would include France and Russia. Well, there goes that little theory.lowing wrote:
Really, I can show papers that the WORLD deemed Iraq a threat. How 'bout you?? It was also forcing compliance that brought the cease fire.
What about me? I fink Bush is a Oil Nazi and he's unfortunately got your country a tad buggered.
Nope, no one is "buggered" here except the liberals that will do anything and say anything, even at the cost of national security and soldiers lives to get the white house back.
Fact: UN did not percieve Iraq a threat to US National Security. Dress it up all you want in you cute little neo con cowboy outfit. Doesn't make a difference.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I am not white and i have no desire to preach white power. You're losing your marbles dear.lowing wrote:
Nope alive and well, but if you are stupid enough to exercise your freedom of speech and preach white power in the hood, be my guess..............................please!!!m3thod wrote:
Golly! Has freedom of speech been taken away from the land of the free?s()mtingWong wrote:
I'd love to see the day they try this protesting in U.S, if you ask me i dont think they have the balls .
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I bet it would be staggering what "they could do" with a long range missle with a WMD as a warhead.Bertster7 wrote:
How, exactly was it a national security issue?lowing wrote:
The US is not a private citizen or subject to the whims of the UN. It was a national security issue and they acted on it.UON wrote:
Blehm98 wrote:
dude... that is completely stupid
the US acted on what we believed could be a threat to National security, and did so because the UN was not doing anything besides bicker and moanYou've restated the definition of vigilante, then said I was stupid to describe the coalition actions as vigilante. Great own goal.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante wrote:
In modern Western society, the term is frequently applied to those citizens who "take the law into their own hands," meting out "frontier justice" when they perceive that the actions of established authorities are insufficient.
It's a closely related subject. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 92,00.html
What were they going to do?
It was illegal under international law. The same international law that meant it was illegal when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
WMD's, long range missiles, no admittance for UN inspectors suggesting the prior, violations of the no fly zone. Iraq agreed to adhere to all of this shit and more so we would stop bombing the shit out of them. They stopped complying, 10 years of diplomacy failed, bombing started up again. What is there to not understand??
Please show me a document where enforcing the UN resolutions was against international law.
By the way, international law does not supersede US national security.
It was an example, your lack of a proper response to it says enough.m3thod wrote:
I am not white and i have no desire to preach white power. You're losing your marbles dear.lowing wrote:
Nope alive and well, but if you are stupid enough to exercise your freedom of speech and preach white power in the hood, be my guess..............................please!!!m3thod wrote:
Golly! Has freedom of speech been taken away from the land of the free?
Get over it.lowing wrote:
It was an example, your lack of a proper response to it says enough.m3thod wrote:
I am not white and i have no desire to preach white power. You're losing your marbles dear.lowing wrote:
Nope alive and well, but if you are stupid enough to exercise your freedom of speech and preach white power in the hood, be my guess..............................please!!!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
FACT.....Yer wrong............... http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18252.pdfm3thod wrote:
Why do you use the UN when it only fits your own little arguments?!lowing wrote:
The UN bud.m3thod wrote:
The world would include France and Russia. Well, there goes that little theory.
What about me? I fink Bush is a Oil Nazi and he's unfortunately got your country a tad buggered.
Nope, no one is "buggered" here except the liberals that will do anything and say anything, even at the cost of national security and soldiers lives to get the white house back.
Fact: UN did not percieve Iraq a threat to US National Security. Dress it up all you want in you cute little neo con cowboy outfit. Doesn't make a difference.
for more of your security council reading enjoyment, just read the headlines... http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
I could easily show you statements by senior UN personel showing it to be illegal. Then I could show you the case for war. Which is laughable.lowing wrote:
I bet it would be staggering what "they could do" with a long range missle with a WMD as a warhead.Bertster7 wrote:
How, exactly was it a national security issue?lowing wrote:
The US is not a private citizen or subject to the whims of the UN. It was a national security issue and they acted on it.
What were they going to do?
It was illegal under international law. The same international law that meant it was illegal when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
WMD's, long range missiles, no admittance for UN inspectors suggesting the prior, violations of the no fly zone. Iraq agreed to adhere to all of this shit and more so we would stop bombing the shit out of them. They stopped complying, 10 years of diplomacy failed, bombing started up again. What is there to not understand??
Please show me a document where enforcing the UN resolutions was against international law.
By the way, international law does not supersede US national security.
I'll get back to you with the documents showing the aggressive use of military force to be illegal, it is.
International law supercedes any countries national security from a legal standpoint. The US is not a special case.
They didn't have any long range missiles or WMDs. I'll ask again, how were they a threat?
Where are the papers you promised to produce showing that the world deemed Iraq a threat?
There is nothing in 1441 that even comes close to claiming that Iraq presented a threat to US national security.lowing wrote:
FACT.....Yer wrong............... http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18252.pdfm3thod wrote:
Why do you use the UN when it only fits your own little arguments?!lowing wrote:
The UN bud.
Nope, no one is "buggered" here except the liberals that will do anything and say anything, even at the cost of national security and soldiers lives to get the white house back.
Fact: UN did not percieve Iraq a threat to US National Security. Dress it up all you want in you cute little neo con cowboy outfit. Doesn't make a difference.
for more of your security council reading enjoyment, just read the headlines... http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
Here's some further reading for you.
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/149 … ........go to resolution 1441Bertster7 wrote:
I could easily show you statements by senior UN personel showing it to be illegal. Then I could show you the case for war. Which is laughable.lowing wrote:
I bet it would be staggering what "they could do" with a long range missle with a WMD as a warhead.Bertster7 wrote:
How, exactly was it a national security issue?
What were they going to do?
It was illegal under international law. The same international law that meant it was illegal when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
WMD's, long range missiles, no admittance for UN inspectors suggesting the prior, violations of the no fly zone. Iraq agreed to adhere to all of this shit and more so we would stop bombing the shit out of them. They stopped complying, 10 years of diplomacy failed, bombing started up again. What is there to not understand??
Please show me a document where enforcing the UN resolutions was against international law.
By the way, international law does not supersede US national security.
I'll get back to you with the documents showing the aggressive use of military force to be illegal, it is.
International law supercedes any countries national security from a legal standpoint. The US is not a special case.
They didn't have any long range missiles or WMDs. I'll ask again, how were they a threat?
Where are the papers you promised to produce showing that the world deemed Iraq a threat?
as far as longe range missles goes..........yer wrong.................. http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/missile.html
matter of fact read the whole damn thing. pretty interesting
HUH??????? stright from the resolutionBertster7 wrote:
There is nothing in 1441 that even comes close to claiming that Iraq presented a threat to US national security.lowing wrote:
FACT.....Yer wrong............... http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18252.pdfm3thod wrote:
Why do you use the UN when it only fits your own little arguments?!
Fact: UN did not percieve Iraq a threat to US National Security. Dress it up all you want in you cute little neo con cowboy outfit. Doesn't make a difference.
for more of your security council reading enjoyment, just read the headlines... http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
Here's some further reading for you.
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm
"Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,"
I'm wrong? Has the US suddenly moved within the 180Km that is the maximum range of any of their post-Gulf war missiles? I didn't realise tectonic shifts happened so fast.lowing wrote:
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/149 … ........go to resolution 1441Bertster7 wrote:
I could easily show you statements by senior UN personel showing it to be illegal. Then I could show you the case for war. Which is laughable.lowing wrote:
I bet it would be staggering what "they could do" with a long range missle with a WMD as a warhead.
WMD's, long range missiles, no admittance for UN inspectors suggesting the prior, violations of the no fly zone. Iraq agreed to adhere to all of this shit and more so we would stop bombing the shit out of them. They stopped complying, 10 years of diplomacy failed, bombing started up again. What is there to not understand??
Please show me a document where enforcing the UN resolutions was against international law.
By the way, international law does not supersede US national security.
I'll get back to you with the documents showing the aggressive use of military force to be illegal, it is.
International law supercedes any countries national security from a legal standpoint. The US is not a special case.
They didn't have any long range missiles or WMDs. I'll ask again, how were they a threat?
Where are the papers you promised to produce showing that the world deemed Iraq a threat?
as far as longe range missles goes..........yer wrong.................. http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/missile.html
matter of fact read the whole damn thing. pretty interesting
I'll ask again, how was Iraq a threat to US national security?
Some people...believe it or not, try not to wait until people spend all the UN's money and make better weapons. Just a thought.Bertster7 wrote:
I'll ask again, how was Iraq a threat to US national security?
Our allies and relations with nations in that region directly affects our national security. Lets not forget who broke the cease fire. The world isn't as big as you make it out to be anymore.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm wrong? Has the US suddenly moved within the 180Km that is the maximum range of any of their post-Gulf war missiles? I didn't realise tectonic shifts happened so fast.lowing wrote:
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/149 … ........go to resolution 1441Bertster7 wrote:
I could easily show you statements by senior UN personel showing it to be illegal. Then I could show you the case for war. Which is laughable.
I'll get back to you with the documents showing the aggressive use of military force to be illegal, it is.
International law supercedes any countries national security from a legal standpoint. The US is not a special case.
They didn't have any long range missiles or WMDs. I'll ask again, how were they a threat?
Where are the papers you promised to produce showing that the world deemed Iraq a threat?
as far as longe range missles goes..........yer wrong.................. http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/missile.html
matter of fact read the whole damn thing. pretty interesting
I'll ask again, how was Iraq a threat to US national security?
Since when is US national security the same as international peace and security? From what I've seen lately the 2 seem to be diametrically opposed.lowing wrote:
HUH??????? stright from the resolutionBertster7 wrote:
There is nothing in 1441 that even comes close to claiming that Iraq presented a threat to US national security.lowing wrote:
FACT.....Yer wrong............... http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18252.pdf
for more of your security council reading enjoyment, just read the headlines... http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
Here's some further reading for you.
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm
"Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,"
Which weapons were those then?usmarine2007 wrote:
Some people...believe it or not, try not to wait until people spend all the UN's money and make better weapons. Just a thought.Bertster7 wrote:
I'll ask again, how was Iraq a threat to US national security?
Ummm...remember the scuds? No need for him to improve on that.Bertster7 wrote:
Which weapons were those then?usmarine2007 wrote:
Some people...believe it or not, try not to wait until people spend all the UN's money and make better weapons. Just a thought.Bertster7 wrote:
I'll ask again, how was Iraq a threat to US national security?
You mean the weapons programs that the Iraq survey group concluded had ceased in 1991?usmarine2007 wrote:
Ummm...remember the scuds? No need for him to improve on that.Bertster7 wrote:
Which weapons were those then?usmarine2007 wrote:
Some people...believe it or not, try not to wait until people spend all the UN's money and make better weapons. Just a thought.
HE said the UN DIDN'T recognize Iraq as a threat......I proved him wrongBertster7 wrote:
Since when is US national security the same as international peace and security? From what I've seen lately the 2 seem to be diametrically opposed.lowing wrote:
HUH??????? stright from the resolutionBertster7 wrote:
There is nothing in 1441 that even comes close to claiming that Iraq presented a threat to US national security.
Here's some further reading for you.
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm
"Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,"
It isn't the same, but the US will do what it deems neciessary for our own security. Iraq and its non-compliance was deemed as threat to us and our allies. period.