They may not be able to prove their claims about Iraq possessing "weapons of mass destruction." But the war party in Washington is getting ready anyway for a new campaign of terror against the people of Iraq.

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are beating the war drums to drown out any critics. They’ll cynically use the anniversary of the September 11 attacks to justify plans to kill countless more innocent Iraqis. "If the United States could have preempted 9/11, we would have, no question," Cheney said at a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars this week. "Should we be able to prevent another, much more devastating attack, we will, no question."

There are questions about the Bush gang’s invasion plans within the Washington establishment itself--and top congressional leaders are angry at the White House’s arrogant claim that it doesn’t need a vote in Congress to go to war, though the U.S. Constitution says just the opposite.

But that isn’t stopping the Bush gang. "Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region," Cheney declared. "When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace."

Translation: the U.S. aims to terrorize the Middle East into submission.

But on what grounds does the U.S. claim the right to carry out a "regime change"? If lack of democracy is a good enough reason, then other countries could claim the right to wage war on the U.S. to remove its unelected president.

Weapons of mass destruction? Refusal to submit to weapons inspections? Washington has by far the world’s biggest arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. And the Bush gang only recently finished wrecking another international treaty in order to prevent inspectors from gaining access to U.S. facilities.

This is a country where one of the president’s closest advisers is willing--even eager--to think the unthinkable. "No strategist would reject, in principle, using nuclear weapons against Iraq," said Richard Perle.

This is madness. But in Bush’s world, the sole superpower calls the shots--at any cost. If any country truly deserves the title of "mortal threat," it’s the United States. We have to organize an opposition that can stand up and say, "No war on Iraq!"

The only thing you would ever accept as evidence of Iraq's weapons would be a big nuke coming down on your head with the message "From Saddam with love" written on the bottom.

LOL, he would then say its the presidents plan to turn people against Iraq. But really, I will be happy if coutries like Iraq are dealt with!

The discussion should begin with the recognition that an attack on Iraq would constitute an attack on the Charter of the United Nations, since the United States would then be in violation of several provisions, beginning with Article 1, Section 4, which states: ''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... ''

Other nations have such weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and have come close to using them. And what country has by far the largest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world? And has used them with deadly consequences to millions of people: in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Southeast Asia?


There is the issue of weapons inspection. Iraq insists on certain conditions before it will allow inspections to resume. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year that ''inspectors have to go back in under our terms, under no one else's terms.'' One might ask if the United States would ever allow its biological, chemical, and nuclear facilities to be inspected, under any terms. Is there one moral standard for Iraq and another for the United States?

Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike on Iraq. Why would that event change the situation? There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act of terrorism. Is it possible that the Bush administration is using the fear created by Sept. 11 to build support for a war on Iraq that otherwise has no legitimate justification?

[quote:d98347ec9d="ConfusedYouth"]The discussion should begin with the recognition that an attack on Iraq would constitute an attack on the Charter of the United Nations, since the United States would then be in violation of several provisions, beginning with Article 1, Section 4, which states: ''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... ''

Other nations have such weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and have come close to using them. And what country has by far the largest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world? And has used them with deadly consequences to millions of people: in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Southeast Asia?


There is the issue of weapons inspection. Iraq insists on certain conditions before it will allow inspections to resume. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year that ''inspectors have to go back in under our terms, under no one else's terms.'' One might ask if the United States would ever allow its biological, chemical, and nuclear facilities to be inspected, under any terms. Is there one moral standard for Iraq and another for the United States?

Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike on Iraq. Why would that event change the situation? There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act of terrorism. Is it possible that the Bush administration is using the fear created by Sept. 11 to build support for a war on Iraq that otherwise has no legitimate justification?[/quote:d98347ec9d]

You leave out the fact that Iraq is a very real threat, whereas these other countrys are not.

Iraq has not attacked anyone in twelve years as we have attacked them several times in the past ten! Up until September 11th there was no talk of attacking Iraq but now it seem there a threat when they are yet to be linked to any terrorist attacks towards the United States.

Also Israel has "weapons of mass destruction" and they are used on innocent Palestinian civilians daily and when the weapons are used it is looked at as a great success.

Also the United States has weapons of mass destruction that have been used on countries such as Panama, Cuba, and South East Asia in which posed no threat at all!

This war again would also be a violation of several provisions, beginning with Article 1, Section 4.

You seem to think that using weapons against evil regimes is just as bad as using weapons against innocent people (like saddam has done against his own people, and would like to do to us)

It's still murder and there are peaceful ways to go about this situation. It's a violation of human rights and also a violation of several provisions. Iraq has had no links to any terrorist attacks on the United States and until September 11th so not considered a threat at all!

The United States is a tyrant as we have forced indigenous Cubans off there land so we could use it to test bombs. Several Cubans have been killed because of stray bombs and or suffer from diseases due to radiation from the constant bomb testing. We invaded Panama killing hundreds on innocent civilians and then called it a success after forcing these people out of there homes many whom were children.

Our buddies over in Israel are killing Palestinian children daily raiding school and shooting these kids to a pulp. One Palestinian child was simply walking down the street and then was attacked by Israeli troops and then shot and Israel called all this a great success yet we remain allies with them.

The United States killed nearly 3,000 Afghan people most whom were hard working decent people who were for a peaceful American intervention. Only few Taliban members have been killed yet George Bush is calling this a great success.

"Our buddies over in Israel are killing Palestinian children daily raiding school and shooting these kids to a pulp. One Palestinian child was simply walking down the street and then was attacked by Israeli troops and then shot and Israel called all this a great success yet we remain allies with them."

If you could even prove that they raid schools daily, well then I'd be more the happy to check your sources. And G-d forbid Israel actually defend itself from suicide bombers. Just because those bombers target malls, marketplaces, school buses, and other locations with innocent civilians. But then Israel is just a fucking tyrant. Just because Palestine made the first assault in 1952, under Yassar Arafat's command. Just because they gained the Gaza Strip and West Bank terroritories, because Egypt and Lebanon attacked and invaded Israel during the Six-Day War. Just because Innocent Olympic Althetes, who even tried to make peace with the Arab nations at the 1972 Olympics, were taken hostaged and killed.

When you hide your military force among civilians you can not blame the opposing army for killing them while trying to get to you. Now little boy go learn something about the Palestinian/Israel situation before you start talking shit and calling Israel tyrants.

And the soldiers that shot the boy are under investigation.

"This war again would also be a violation of several provisions, beginning with Article 1, Section 4."

Saddam has already disallowed inspectors to examine his country for weapons of mass destruction. And only an idiot actually allows someone who is being punished to make the terms.

Peaceful methods, my foot! Terrorists (including saddam) no NOTHING about peace!

[quote:661bd14b41]The United States killed nearly 3,000 Afghan people most whom were hard working decent people who were for a peaceful American intervention. Only few Taliban members have been killed yet George Bush is calling this a great success.[/quote:661bd14b41]

That is BS and you know it. We CRIPPLED the taliban. You think we did that by killing a few soldiers? You pinkos just live in another world.

The few thousand we killed will blow themselves up for the most ubsurd religion in the world. I would not worship a god that considers me expendable and that is our real theat, not terrorism. I guess you are too young to remeber those cute little children that would come up to our soldiers in vietnam and blow themselves up for who knows what. Instead of playing with war , I beleive we should declare war on each person theat presents theats to America,defeat them and then take it for our own until we have taught these people how to live in a civalized manner or we are a lost race of people. Muslims in general present the biggest threat to our christain way of live and values. Allow this this progress and you can kiss America goodbye. Wake up , man. Mohamaad for a simple camel theif and everything ,the religion is based on, was a lie invented by a fool. Here in America ,you liberal fools think, in the end, you will benifit by the world global, socialism. Do think that ,we, as a world can form a better socialism than Russia? Go do your homework, son. The accounts of the bright success of the USSR are readily available. Have fun on your way to hell, Iraq.
Dazonind

[b:b0e81ced21]www.usanvil.com[/b:b0e81ced21]

The constitution of America provides that we make no deals with any councils of any other country or council other than the congress of the United States and when I last checked that had not changed.The hell with the UN! They would have control of your country and your miserable little mind if you will let . Man I cannot stomach reading any more of your horse s..t comments. Before you shoot your mouth off anymore I suggest you get a little more information than what you get on the evening news you commie socialist fool. This is and will be a soveirgn nation as long as I am left standing. Try the Liberty Committeewww.thelibertycommittee.organd World Net Dailywww.wnd.com and try reading a history book or two that was published before the democratic ways changed the text to meet their needs. The bile also will give you many facts of why this world has been corupted into a fag loving, kill a person to save a tree mentality.
Your foe,
Dazonind

Bush's plans for war against Iraq have no justification. Under international law a country can attack another country only if it is in immediate danger from that country. A country cannot attack another country if its leader is despicable or "evil", if it has weapons of mass destruction, or even if terrorists live there. That's international law, period.

There is strong evidence that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have pretty much been destroyed. Earlier this year, Iraq fully cooperated with international nuclear weapons inspectors. Scott Ritter, a UN weapons inspector in Iraq for six years, asserts that 95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons have been destroyed. On March 13, 2002, he wrote: "America claims that Iraq lied to inspectors and still has deadly stockpiles. But the Bush administration has shown little interest in sending the inspectors back. It has used their absence to hype the threat of a re-armed Iraq." Furthermore, the United States has presented no evidence that Iraq is harboring terrorists.

So what reasons does that leave our president to justify a war on Iraq? Bush's response: Iraq's leader is evil. Evil is very subjective and cannot be the basis for war. There are people in the world who see the actions of the U.S. as evil. Would this justify war against us? How can we condemn Iraq for its weapons (if indeed there are any left at all) when the United States possesses the most massive arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on the planet? This is a blatant double standard.

[quote:107ab923a1="ConfusedYouth"]Bush's plans for war against Iraq have no justification. Under international law a country can attack another country only if it is in immediate danger from that country. A country cannot attack another country if its leader is despicable or "evil", if it has weapons of mass destruction, or even if terrorists live there. That's international law, period.

There is strong evidence that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have pretty much been destroyed. Earlier this year, Iraq fully cooperated with international nuclear weapons inspectors. Scott Ritter, a UN weapons inspector in Iraq for six years, asserts that 95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons have been destroyed. On March 13, 2002, he wrote: "America claims that Iraq lied to inspectors and still has deadly stockpiles. But the Bush administration has shown little interest in sending the inspectors back. It has used their absence to hype the threat of a re-armed Iraq." Furthermore, the United States has presented no evidence that Iraq is harboring terrorists.

So what reasons does that leave our president to justify a war on Iraq? Bush's response: Iraq's leader is evil. Evil is very subjective and cannot be the basis for war. There are people in the world who see the actions of the U.S. as evil. Would this justify war against us? How can we condemn Iraq for its weapons (if indeed there are any left at all) when the United States possesses the most massive arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on the planet? This is a blatant double standard.[/quote:107ab923a1]

Pssshhh! You will believe anything if it goes against popular opinion/government policy. Pathetic.

It would be in violation of international laws in which are laws that are need to be followed. This is a fact not an opinion so of course I'm going to believe it.

Scott Ritter a UN weapons inspector said that 95% of all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons have been destroyed. This is an example of another fact.

Another fact is Iraq cant be linked to any attacks of terror!

President Bush acts as though he has the right to go attack Iraq anytime he wants to. That's false, and very dangerous for a democracy. Our founders gave the right to Congress and only to Congress to make the momentous decision of whether to take the United States to war or not. It's all there in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution. Another fact.

I don’t think its just me opposing this war or anything I see polls show that 56% of all other Americans oppose it. So there must be some truth to my argument if more than half the population is willing to speak out against a war on Iraq. This does not include the millions of people around the globe who also oppose.

[quote:9b264e32ff="ConfusedYouth"]It would be in violation of international laws in which are laws that are need to be followed. This is a fact not an opinion so of course I'm going to believe it.[/quote:9b264e32ff]

I would love to see this in writing somewhere (other than guerrillanews.com). It is funny to me that if this would be SUCH a violation that we don't hear the democrats using this argument. Really odd, don't you think?

[quote:9b264e32ff]Scott Ritter a UN weapons inspector said that 95% of all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons have been destroyed. This is an example of another fact.[/quote:9b264e32ff]

I would love to see this too. How do they know this? Weapons inspectors haven't been in. Even if they did it is mighty suspicious that he denied them access for allllll these years and now all of a sudden allows them in. Could it be that he's been using all these years to properly hide all his mess? Regardless, there are still the 5%, right?

[quote:9b264e32ff]Another fact is Iraq cant be linked to any attacks of terror![/quote:9b264e32ff]

That is not true, but even if it was, so what?

[quote:9b264e32ff]President Bush acts as though he has the right to go attack Iraq anytime he wants to. [/quote:9b264e32ff]

Yeah, I guess that's why he is working on gathering evidence to convince CONGRESS that Saddam should be removed. :roll:

[quote:9b264e32ff]I don’t think its just me opposing this war or anything I see polls show that 56% of all other Americans oppose it. So there must be some truth to my argument if more than half the population is willing to speak out against a war on Iraq. This does not include the millions of people around the globe who also oppose.[/quote:9b264e32ff]

First of all, I've never seen a poll with that many opposing it. However, the people that do oppose it do so simply because they want more evidence. They admit that Saddam is a threat and needs to be gone eventually, they just seem to want more evidence. You seem to think there is no reason in the world why we would even consider attacking Saddam.

I must admit one thing confused youth is a good nick name. As Tooner said the weapons inpectors were thrown out of Iraq a few years ago and they worked for your beloved UN. As I stated before you need to get your facts from a source that would have you beleive thast the United States should or would ever answer to anyone under no circumstances. I agree also with Tooner that the American people just do not want another vietnam. WE should not under any circumstances play another war with declaring it to the world and have terms of surrender when we are done. The only way we will ever change this world to our way of life is to force them to in a way that brings the money home to America not away from it. We will solve nothing by killing sadaam or osama. They are just pivotal pawns of a corrupt religoin not a government. In the islam way of life there is no difference between polotics and religion, they are one in the same so we must treat iot accordingly. I am by no means a religious zelot. I only know that this country prospered and the reason is becuase of where our values came from. The place that they came from is from the teaching the one and only man of truth...Jesus Christ. Do your homework .There will be a test on this later and if you fail ,,,we all fail.

In 1998 Bill Clinton forced all UN inspectors out of Iraq before he was ready to rage war with them.

You have claimed that Iraq is a threat and also said they can be linked to terrorism but the last known report of Iraq committing a terrorist attack took place 12 years ago and they have not been linked to anything sense then. Please give me some proper reasons backed up with facts on why I should support something like this.

[quote:a3b603f6a9]I would love to see this in writing somewhere (other than guerrillanews.com). It is funny to me that if this would be SUCH a violation that we don't hear the democrats using this argument. Really odd, don't you think?[/quote:a3b603f6a9]

I've seen this used several times on television and also on the internet. Also if you so firmly believe that my argument is false than why don’t you look at UN laws and regulations your self they are posted on the internet. I've even broke it down for you and told you the exact article and section it can be found.

Also who said democrats don’t support this war when Bill Clinton is support George W. Bush. I've heard of several Republicans opposing of a war on Iraq so you cant put this on anyone political party.

[quote:a3b603f6a9]I would love to see this too. How do they know this? Weapons inspectors haven't been in. Even if they did it is mighty suspicious that he denied them access for allllll these years and now all of a sudden allows them in. Could it be that he's been using all these years to properly hide all his mess? Regardless, there are still the 5%, right?[/quote:a3b603f6a9]

This also can be found on the internet in which you can find your self if you don’t believe me. Scott Ritter reported him self that nearly all weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed.

We still hold the biggest arsenal of weapons in the world and also have killed more innocent civilians in the past year than any other country. So Iraqis wimpy 5% is nothing compared to what we have done.


[quote:a3b603f6a9]are just pivotal pawns of a corrupt religion not a government.[/quote:a3b603f6a9]

What you have read about Islam or any other faith was incorrect. I have worked with many progressive Islamic pacifist in the past and would never hurt or oppress another being under them.

So let me get this straight... you think Saddam is no threat at all?

Many countries look at the United States as a threat so it's now justified for them to rage war on America?

George Bush is more of a threat to some countries than Saddam is to me.

Be careful how you answer this.
1. Do you beleive that the islamic who planned for years to blow up the wolrd trade centers were justified in their actions because America posed some kind of threat to them?
2. Is it fair to say that a country that spends billions (thats alot of zeros) in aide from your pokets to these counrties, who, you say, feel threatened by us,justified?

Dazonind

How come have avoided the question I posed?

1. Do you believe that the Islamic who planned for years to blow up the world trade centers were justified in their actions because America posed some kind of threat to them?[/quote:13e69fb9bb]

Violence can never be justified at all. Many of these Islamic countries feel that the United States poses several threats and this makes Osama Bin Laden angry. We have troops in holy lands and this also angers Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist. We can do several things that would help this situation. We will not end terrorism by committing terrorist acts of our own. You tell me I need to look at history but have you? We have done that before. It is the old way of thinking, the old way of acting. It has never worked. Reagan bombed Libya, and Bush made war on Iraq, and Clinton bombed Afghanistan and also a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, to "send a message" to terrorists. And then comes this horror in New York and Washington. Isn't it clear by now that sending a message to terrorists through violence doesn't work, only leads to more terrorism?


[quote:13e69fb9bb]2. Is it fair to say that a country that spends billions (thats alot of zeros) in aide from your pokets to these counrties, who, you say, feel threatened by us, justified? [/quote:13e69fb9bb]

We don't spend as much as we could aiding these countries. In fact Canada and the UK both spend more annual dollars aiding these countries than the United States. Just because we aid a few refuges does not mean a country will not feel threatened by the United States. We could spend trillions of dollars feeding refuges but it will not bring peace. We must do more than send food or blankets to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yes, CY, you are right -- the United States is a huge threat to many countries. A huge threat to countries with evil regimes such as Iraq, and that is fine by me. You have to make the distinction.

When did the common people of Iraq now become evil? If we rage war common kids like you once were could die. Fathers mothers and children could die who want nothing more than peace.

Iraq has shown no threat to the United States and cant be linked to any attacks of terrorism in quite some time. 95% of all weapons have been destroyed. Looks like a huge threat to me.

Israel recently killed 12 Palestinians 8 being children and 2 were killed by mistake yet Israel called it a success and we still support shit like this!

Our beef is not with the people of Iraq -- it's their leader. He is a threat. He is working on weapons of mass destruction as we speak whether you like to admit it or not.

In all the solemn statements by self-important politicians and newspaper columnists about a coming war against Iraq, and even in the troubled comments by some who are opposed to the war, there is something missing. The talk is about strategy and tactics, geopolitics and personalities. It is about air war and ground war, weapons of mass destruction, arms inspections, alliances, oil, and "regime change."

What is missing is what an American war on Iraq will do to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of ordinary human beings who are not concerned with geopolitics and military strategy, and who just want their children to live, to grow up. They are not concerned with "national security" but with personal security, with food and shelter and medical care and peace.

I am speaking of those Iraqis and those Americans who will, with absolute certainty, die in such a war, or lose arms or legs, or be blinded. Or they will be stricken with some strange and agonizing sickness that could lead to their bringing deformed children into the world (as happened to families in Vietnam, Iraq, and also the United States).

This will all happen so that we can take out one leader that cant be linked to any attacks of terrorism and is yet to pose any threat to the Untied States or any other nation. I’m yet to see any information that Iraq is guilty of committing these crimes.

George Bush is working with the largest arsenal of weapons and they will be used to kill Iraqi people. He poses a threat to these civilians who will watch there family and friends die at the hands of cluster bombs. We have managed to kill more Afghan civilians than were killed in the attacks of September 11th yet the Taliban still holds strong and only few leaders were killed. We cant fight terrorism with terrorism we must find new ways to fight our battles.

It is pointless to argue about this with you.

Look, Saddam is working hard on nuclear weapons, believe it or not. We can't wait until we see a mushroom cloud to take him out.

You liberals just don't want to face the fact that this is the kind of world you live in. I know you don't like it - neither do I. But eventually you have to face that fact and deal with the problems.

Would you rather a few (not tens of thousands) Iraqi and American soldiers die or have saddam drop a nuke on some innocent country?

Attacking Iraq will result in more civilian deaths and casualties in a population who have already suffered a lot as the result of an 8 years of bloody war with Iran (in which about half a million Iraqis died), the 1990 Gulf war (with over 100.000 casualties) and 11 years of economic sanctions (that has so far left near one million civilian deaths).

A military operation to topple the Iraqi regime will surely plunge Iraq into a civil war. In the absence of any meaningful political alternative for Saddam Hussein (as well as the lack of any powerful or popular opposition group), the most likely scenario will be an endless cycle of violence and bloodshed among different religious and ethnic groups (Shiites in the South, Sunnis in the middle and Kurds in the northern part of the country).

The war against Iraq will have an immediately destructive impact on the whole region and can potentially lead to a military standoff between Iraq’s neighbors. While the fundamentalist Iran will do anything to bring the Iraqi Shiites into power, the nightmare of having another Islamic Republic in the region will cause Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan to counter Tehran’s attempt. Also Turkey might want to take advantage of the vacuum of power and annex the oil-rich Iraqi Kurdistan, a move which will put the NATO member at verge of war with neighboring Iran (which has a sizable Kurdish population) as well as Arab countries (who can not tolerate the partition of an Arab nation).

Targeting another Muslim country will portray the US as an interventionist and expansionist country and cause a new wave of anti-American and anti-Western sentiments among Arabs and Muslims. This will in turn help the Muslim extremists receive more sympathy and support from the average person in the Middle East and eventually make future attacks against United States interests and its regional allies quite likely.

US intervention in Iraq will even jeopardize the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. Such a unilateral military move can alienate moderate Arab governments in the region (who are already critical of unconditional US support for Israel) and make them more skeptical of US policies in the Middle East. The resultant mistrust will not only undermine the US credibility as a peace-broker, but also will put the existing global coalition against terrorism at risk and significantly reduce the likelihood of further cooperation between Arab countries and US to combat terrorism.

http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?x46914205

we cannot stand by while that happens....

I apologize for the long post but the following paragraphs show why I don’t support Bushes war machine. I try to keep my posts short these days but it happens this one got out of control sorry!

A US invasion of Iraq would involve the killing of large numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians. This alone is sufficient reason not to invade. Such killing will intensify existing animosities towards US influence in the Middle East, thus increasing the number of enemies of the US and also the probability of future acts of terrorism against the US and its allies. An invasion would force the countries of the region to take sides, producing regional destabilization and threatening world energy supplies. In order to control Iraq’s cities during and after an invasion, the US would need to employ a massive ground force. Fighting in urban combat zones would mean that many US soldiers would be killed. A long-term US military occupation of Iraq could face serious resistance, leading to more deaths on both sides.

Invading Iraq would require producing armaments and a build-up of military supplies and personnel in the Middle East. This would divert funds away from urgently needed programs for health and education in the United States during this time of economic downturn. An invasion of Iraq would likely produce a spike in world oil prices, hampering economic recovery and compounding the hardship for US citizens.

The US is bound by federal law to abide by the UN Charter as US membership in the UN constitutes a treaty. The US is therefore subject to abide by UN Security Council resolutions. Just as it condemned the US invasion of Panama in 1989, the UN Security Council would condemn any US invasion of Iraq. Article 2 of the UN Charter forbids ‘the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ and requires UN members to ‘settle their international disputes by peaceful means.’ The Pact of Paris (Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928) renounces aggressive acts of war by nations. The Nuremburg trials used this pact to convict Nazis of World War II war crimes. Further, the Hague Convention prohibits ‘attack or bombardment… of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended.’ US Federal Law also expressly prohibits the assassination of foreign leaders. Given these laws and precedents, any invasion of Iraq could result in US leaders and soldiers facing trial.

The US government has found no evidence of Iraqi government support for al-Qaeda, the organization believed to have committed the terrorist attacks against the US on September 11, 2001. The ‘Use of Force’ Act passed by Congress on September 14, 2001 to fight terrorism has been applied only to Afghanistan, the country where al-Qaeda was headquartered, but it does not grant to the Bush administration the congressional authorization to carry out a war on Iraq.

The weekly bombing as a result of the enforcement of these zones inflicts death and injuries on the Iraqi population. Established over 60% of Iraqi airspace, on the grounds of needing to ‘protect’ the Kurds in the North and the Shia Muslims in the south from the Iraq regime, the bombings have maimed and killed Kurds and Shi’ites as well as Sunni Muslims. The US deliberately chose not to support a 1991 uprising by Kurds and Shi’ites. Bombings outside the ‘no fly zones’ such as the December 1998 ‘Desert Fox’ Bombing of Baghdad, have also killed and wounded innocent Iraqis.

The US maintains that Iraq has or will develop ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ threatening the US and Iraq’s neighbors. Former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter has stated that by 1998 that Iraq had been ‘qualitatively disarmed.’ Since the UN withdrew the weapons inspectors to protect them from the US led illegal ‘Desert Fox’ bombing campaign of December 1998, there have been no further weapons inspections in Iraq, and thus there is no proof that Iraq has chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. In its ongoing negotiations with the UN, Iraq has tried to get removal of the sanctions as a condition for agreeing to further weapons inspections. The US refuses to meet with Iraq on this issue and the negotiations have again stalled. Specifically targeting Iraq alone to eliminate ‘weapons of mass destruction’ violates Section 14 of the Security Council Resolution 687, which calls for region-wide disarmament. Pakistan and India recently approached the brink of nuclear war. Israel is known to possess nuclear weapons. Disaster can only be averted when all countries agree to collaborate and begin the process of eliminating their stockpiles of ‘weapons of mass destruction.’

Nearly the entire world community is opposed to a US invasion of Iraq. This opposition is in accordance with international law, particularly the UN charter, which prohibits such violations of Iraqi sovereignty. Only the Iraqi people have the sovereign authority to determine what type of government they live under, and how to deal with those who have violated their human rights.

A military operation to topple the Iraqi regime will surely plunge Iraq into a civil war. In the absence of any meaningful political alternative for Saddam Hussein (as well as the lack of any powerful or popular opposition group), the most likely scenario will be an endless cycle of violence and bloodshed among different religious and ethnic groups (Shiites in the South, Sunnis in the middle and Kurds in the northern part of the country).

The war against Iraq will have an immediately destructive impact on the whole region and can potentially lead to a military standoff between Iraq’s neighbors. While the fundamentalist Iran will do anything to bring the Iraqi Shiites into power, the nightmare of having another Islamic Republic in the region will cause Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan to counter Tehran’s attempt. Also Turkey might want to take advantage of the vacuum of power and annex the oil-rich Iraqi Kurdistan, a move which will put the NATO member at verge of war with neighboring Iran (which has a sizable Kurdish population) as well as Arab countries (who can not tolerate the partition of an Arab nation).

Targeting another Muslim country will portray the US as an interventionist and expansionist country and cause a new wave of anti-American and anti-Western sentiments among Arabs and Muslims. This will in turn help the Muslim extremists receive more sympathy and support from the average person in the Middle East and eventually make future attacks against United States interests and its regional allies quite likely.

US intervention in Iraq will even jeopardize the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. Such a unilateral military move can alienate moderate Arab governments in the region (who are already critical of unconditional US support for Israel) and make them more skeptical of US policies in the Middle East. The resultant mistrust will not only undermine the US credibility as a peace-broker, but also will put the existing global coalition against terrorism at risk and significantly reduce the likelihood of further cooperation between Arab countries and US to combat terrorism.

You have 2 options:

1 Let country build big bomb and blow it up here

2 stop them

Everyone understands your choice... Instead of always say no bring up an alternative- I would honestly like a viable alternative to having another operation.. But I wouldn't not agree to doing nothing!

Stop threatening to violently overthrow Saddam Hussein. This U.S. policy undermined the rule of international law. Further, it will likely provoke Saddam Hussein and others to respond in kind with violence, undermine efforts to reduce terrorism and stop the proliferation of WMD, under-cut domestic political opposition in Iraq, and elevate Saddam Hussein's political standing among his many sympathizers at home and abroad.


Resume direct negotiations with Iraq. U.S. and Iraqi diplomats must begin talking to one another. Diplomatic engagement helped prevent a devastating nuclear war between the U.S., Soviet Union, and China during the Cold War. Diplomatic engagement now, under the auspices of the UN Security Council or other third party mediation, can help lead the U.S. and Iraq away from the brink of war.


Demilitarize the conflict with Iraq. The U.S. should immediately stop enforcing the "no fly" zones and bombing Iraqi military installations. The Iraqi government has little incentive to cooperate with weapons inspections when its sovereignty is being violated daily and it is being fired upon regularly by U.S. aircraft. Over the years, many civilians have been killed by errant bombs or as a consequence of attacks on military sites located near civilian populations. The end result of this policy has been to strengthen Saddam Hussein's regime domestically in the face of what many in Iraq believe to be a hostile enemy and to diminish U.S. standing in the Muslim and Arab world generally.


End the inhumane economic sanctions immediately. The U.S.-led UN economic sanctions have violated both international humanitarian and U.S. law by harming civilians as a means to coerce action by a government. The sanctions have harshly punished the people of Iraq for the actions of an oppressive regime over which they have no control. Tens of thousands have died from curable and preventable diseases due to the lack of adequate nutrition, medical supplies, clean water, and sanitation. The end result of this eleven-year U.S.-led policy is a generation of civilians without hope.


Continue the current embargo on the sale and transfer of military equipment. The sale and transfer of weapons to Iraq and the region by the U.S., Russia, China, and others has helped to fuel both the escalating violence and the increasing lethality of that violence. The U.S. should work with others to extend an international moratorium on the sale and transfer of major weapons systems to all countries in the region. Long-term peace and security will require ending the current weapons build-up, reducing the level of threat, building confidence, and supporting civilian control of militaries.


Continue to press Iraq to accept UN weapons inspections and monitoring. Iraq has an international obligation to assure its neighbors that its WMD stockpiles and production facilities have been destroyed. This is an essential confidence-building measure to advance peace and security in the region. However, the same inspections should be extended to other countries, as well. The U.S. should work to expand this monitoring effort in the context of a regional arms control and disarmament agreement. The region has a long history of devastating wars. Countries will disarm only when leaders are assured of their security through other, more effective means

And how does that remotely answer the question?

[quote:b766ba0602="JWB"]And how does that remotely answer the question?[/quote:b766ba0602]

Jimmy, basically I think that CY believes that getting rid of all the military and saying "pretty please" will solve all problems. Arguing with him is like arguing with a brick wall. He is a Saddam sympathizer and that is all there is to it. He would probably rather have good ol' Saddam has his leader than mean ol' George W.

Dave were did you learn to discuss politics because instead of bring facts to the table all you seem to do is bash my self or someone else! Let me tell you every time you bash one of my views I want to be come a flag waving country loving bitch more and more. (This is due to the fact your like talking to a brick wall because every time I seem to show you facts or bring up alternative methods all you can do is bash my views rather than supporting your views with facts!)

I don’t know why my alternative ideas are so hard to understand may be its an All Forums thing (or not) because people on other boards seemed to firmly understand these ideas. I will post it again because I know some people need to read things several times before interpreting the post correctly.

Stop threatening to violently overthrow Saddam Hussein. This U.S. policy undermined the rule of international law. Further, it will likely provoke Saddam Hussein and others to respond in kind with violence, undermine efforts to reduce terrorism and stop the proliferation of WMD, under-cut domestic political opposition in Iraq, and elevate Saddam Hussein's political standing among his many sympathizers at home and abroad.


Resume direct negotiations with Iraq. U.S. and Iraqi diplomats must begin talking to one another. Diplomatic engagement helped prevent a devastating nuclear war between the U.S., Soviet Union, and China during the Cold War. Diplomatic engagement now, under the auspices of the UN Security Council or other third party mediation, can help lead the U.S. and Iraq away from the brink of war.


Demilitarize the conflict with Iraq. The U.S. should immediately stop enforcing the "no fly" zones and bombing Iraqi military installations. The Iraqi government has little incentive to cooperate with weapons inspections when its sovereignty is being violated daily and it is being fired upon regularly by U.S. aircraft. Over the years, many civilians have been killed by errant bombs or as a consequence of attacks on military sites located near civilian populations. The end result of this policy has been to strengthen Saddam Hussein's regime domestically in the face of what many in Iraq believe to be a hostile enemy and to diminish U.S. standing in the Muslim and Arab world generally.


End the inhumane economic sanctions immediately. The U.S.-led UN economic sanctions have violated both international humanitarian and U.S. law by harming civilians as a means to coerce action by a government. The sanctions have harshly punished the people of Iraq for the actions of an oppressive regime over which they have no control. Tens of thousands have died from curable and preventable diseases due to the lack of adequate nutrition, medical supplies, clean water, and sanitation. The end result of this eleven-year U.S.-led policy is a generation of civilians without hope.


Continue the current embargo on the sale and transfer of military equipment. The sale and transfer of weapons to Iraq and the region by the U.S., Russia, China, and others has helped to fuel both the escalating violence and the increasing lethality of that violence. The U.S. should work with others to extend an international moratorium on the sale and transfer of major weapons systems to all countries in the region. Long-term peace and security will require ending the current weapons build-up, reducing the level of threat, building confidence, and supporting civilian control of militaries.


Continue to press Iraq to accept UN weapons inspections and monitoring. Iraq has an international obligation to assure its neighbors that its WMD stockpiles and production facilities have been destroyed. This is an essential confidence-building measure to advance peace and security in the region. However, the same inspections should be extended to other countries, as well. The U.S. should work to expand this monitoring effort in the context of a regional arms control and disarmament agreement. The region has a long history of devastating wars. Countries will disarm only when leaders are assured of their security through other, more effective means

Do you not realize that Saddam is not willing to "talk?"

These liberal idea about disarming all the militaries sounds good in theory but it would NEVER work.

Satan comes to lie to you steal your faith and put it in the form of a man or man's ideas. Chistianity is the enemey of the Islamics and the sooner you all recognize the fact that there is no seperation of church and state in the islamic mind, they are one in the same. Their main purpose is satan's purpose to crush our christian way of life. What I say has nothing to do with church or any denomination. There was God way before there was any churches and Jesus denounced church when he came to earth. Resist the globalist but they will prevail. The enevitible is written in stone. With global socialism you are giving up any freedom you ever had and what our fathers fought so hard to secure. I am tired of debating this with a closeminded individual like CY. You are my enemy as much as the islamic terrorist who would see your loved ones raped and killed in the street and had a great party over. Just like your innocent islamics did the day they blew up the WTC. We will not win your vote no matter how long we talk because you are his deciple and I kick the dirt off my shoes and walk on to another topic now. Good bye, CY I hope you have a good life. You are wrong and the truth shall set you free. I hope it dosen't come with the death of asomeone who is close to you. If we do not resist this tendancy tword the UN council of the world Our days of freedom are numbered and all we have fought for was in vain.

Dazonind

www.usanvil.com/actions.htm

I think that religion is a way to conform people to society... and Satan is like Santa there not real!

When we gave rights to blacks we also gave up rights to a store owner not to serve the black community but it also was the right thing to do. In a socialist society the rich will give up some amount of money and give it to the poor which also is the right thing to do.

Just because a few terrorist kill 3,000 civilians we can go and kill 3,000 of there civilians. An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind
You have shown no intelligence about the Islamic religion. These terrorist are not Islamic. Islam is a peaceful religion just like Christianity. The kkk claims to but Christians but are nothing but terrorist to our society.


These things will never become achieved if we don’t fight for them Dave Tooner we would rather drop bombs and find a quick answer! During the human rights movement many people thought blacks would never get rights in fact that was thought strongly of but people continued to fight for what was right and a change was made!

[quote:9e029e016a]I think that religion is a way to conform people to society... and Satan is like Santa there not real[/quote:9e029e016a]

According to you.

[quote:9e029e016a]When we gave rights to blacks we also gave up rights to a store owner not to serve the black community but it also was the right thing to do. In a socialist society the rich will give up some amount of money and give it to the poor which also is the right thing to do.
[/quote:9e029e016a]

You liberals complain and whine about the government teaching kids morality all the time. For instance, you guys hate it when schools teach abstinence sex ed. You say "it isn't the government's job to teach morality, they should decide that for themselves" yet you think the government should FORCE the rich to give money to whoever they say because it's the right thing to do. Priceless.

I don’t ever hear of people making points against abstinence in sex ed. The argument is that kids will have sex no matter what a teacher says so teach them about contraceptives so that when they do have sex it will at least be protected. I know many people who began doing drugs and smoking because in school they were said not to and they became curious.

You are getting off topic so next post support your war with some facts before you begin to bash another view of mine!

I think just about everything I have to say about it has been said. You obviously don't agree and that is fine by me.

CY: Please respond to my post:

You have 2 options:

1 Let country build big bomb and blow it up here

2 stop them

Everyone understands your choice... Instead of always say no bring up an alternative- I would honestly like a viable alternative to having another operation.. But I wouldn't not agree to doing nothing!

I gave you several alternatives to war that we can do rather than drop bombs. I'm sorry you don’t like them or don’t understand them but that are quite likely very humane and efficient ways we can solve these problems. If you dont like my idea than you can go die for no cause at all and murder children but I want support you.

You are right when you say you can never change my mind and you will never change it. I will never support something that is so barbaric and inhumane such as war. War has never solved any problems in the world that we live in. Take a look at Palestine Israel conflict and our conflict with middle eastern countries that have been going on now for several years. Anyone who can support war must no have ever seen the catastrophic effects it has on mankind. Only someone so barbaric could support the killing of innocent civilians that want nothing but peace.

CY, do you think that we could sit down and talk this out with Saddam and live happily ever after?

Dave you can give it up on this CY. He's a coward and a Global socialist and lives in a bubble. We need to reach others, we can change. I am against a senseless un-declared war. Bush ruined his chance of doing it right when he didn't declare war on afganastan who (fact) had harbored the akida for many years plotting to do what they did. Another (fact) the islamis fudamentalist is a different type of islamic. Their whole world centers on crushing christianity(which is synonomouswith USA, in all other societies) for their very different God:allah( not the same God as the Christian God). My God doesn't deny any man the benifits of his mercy. All other religions have burdens and requirements for entering their faith my God has none. You would not be allowed to say any of the things you say if it weren't for his teaching because there wiould be no America. But Cy you wouldn't know any thing about that since you are a pagan or an atheist. In which case when the fighting started my cross hairs no just where to point. You are a simple minded little man or manette but you are not an American, that's for sure You would sell your mother up the river in a boat with holes in it just like your theory on life and politics. You don't know what I know but by what you spout off I don't think you came up with it all by yourself. I'll see your global socialism ruined I assure you of that. I'm finished with your little pissing contest, fool. This is a sovereign nation and I will fight to keep it that way to my death just like my forefathers did.Cy coundn't fight his way out of a paper bag and would curl up in a ball and cry the second it gets tough. What a putz.

[quote:84ec4e02ad] All other religions have burdens and requirements for entering their faith my God has none. You would not be allowed to say any of the things you say if it weren't for his teaching because there wiould be no America. But Cy you wouldn't know any thing about that since you are a pagan or an atheist.[/quote:84ec4e02ad]

Religion is an impulse to explain. A natural impulse that everyone has and everyone grapples with. It's an impulse that, sadly and ironically, has been exploited to convince people to take actions that defy and demean that impulse. The exploiters are the ruling elite of nearly every society, in every era, and ours is no exception. It's not hard to understand the false sense of comfort and security of faith that religion provides. A lot of us have been through it and can understand how hard it can be to shake the grip of dogma. Religious dogma, which is a set of rules, is a tool used by people in power to keep other people powerless, and to coerce them into serving the interests of the powerful. History is flooded with examples of religion used to defend and promote most of humanity's dumbest moves. Like genocide: the holocaust and the annihilation of the worlds' indigenous populations. Like war: from the beginnings of "civilization" to the Gulf War and beyond. Like prejudice: the continued subjugation of women in all the major religions. Like poverty: as a tool of capitalism, religion has taught the poor to accept injustice. Probably the worst effect religion has on us is its' ability to create divisions so remarkably deep that people will kill for them. Scratch at any major conflict in the world today and just beneath the skin of diplomacy and territorial demands you will find a fundamentalist, bloodthirsty form of one or more organized religion. Many "progressive" people involved in religions believe they can work within their religious institutions to change them for the better. It's an understandable desire- we all work within institutions to some extent, but it's kind of dumb in the same way that the Catholic Church's motivation for wanting to feed the hungry is kind of dumb: their writings and dogma tell them to. Shouldn't they be motivated by simply knowing that feeding the hungry is the right thing to do?? People indoctrinated in religions (including the religions of ideology... not mentioning any names), seem to believe that a moral code cannot exist outside of their institution. It can and it does. We have the ability (and the duty!) to do the right thing without the rhetoric of dogmas, the threat of hierarchies or the fear of some old coot in a beard firing a lightning bolt at our sinful, hairy, zitty little asses. The saddest thing about religion is what is lost. Religion, or more accurately, I suppose, the appropriators and exploiters of religion, have taken our purest impulses of solidarity, compassion, celebration of the wonder and mystery of our lives, and turned them against us. This, most of all, is why I reject religion: so that I can reclaim these impulses for the causes they deserve... love and justice.

[quote:84ec4e02ad]You are a simple minded little man or manette but you are not an American[/quote:84ec4e02ad]

We have discussed this many times and I'm not anti-American or anything by that means. Were the Germans who resisted Hitler during his time in power not Germans? I love America because I can relate to the people and the culture but when it comes to the government I become angry and upset. To blindly say "I love everything about the United States" would be defeating the principles America was founded on. It's your duty to protect your country from our government.

I'm not proud to say I'm an American when millions have lost jobs because of corporations like Enron or World Com. I'm also upset that children go to bed hungry and live below poverty levels. We live in a nation fueled by hate and war and that is something I can't support. If that’s anti-American than yes I'm a victim but I hardly think it's anti-American.

[quote:84ec4e02ad]that's for sure You would sell your mother up the river in a boat with holes in it just like your theory on life and politics. You don't know what I know but by what you spout off I don't think you came up with it all by yourself. I'll see your global socialism ruined I assure you of that.[/quote:84ec4e02ad]

I have a great relationship with my mother and would never sale her up stream in a crappy boat. I just got off the phone with her and we had a great conversation.

There is no need for mindless name calling when having an adult discussion. You will not change my opinions by calling me names like “putz” or "fool" so don't waste your time criticizing them.

I think that a war against a country that owns mass destruction weapons, that already used them in the past and said that it could use them again, such a war would be absolutely right. Furtermore, if it's a country that does not give a damn about international laws, that supports religious fondamentalism and intolerance, that trained terrorists (including Ben Laden), this war should be started as soon as possible. This war should have a clear objective : to relplace the leader, an illiterate guy who has been cheating to be elected and is completely corrupt, and who supports death penalty even for kids, by a democratic and law abiding goverment.
The only problem I can see that could prevent such a war is : which country would be able to make war to the united states ?

Little have you known we have used weapons of mass destruction in such countries as Vietnam or Panama and killed for no apparent reason. The United States shows no regard towards international laws in fact we break the all the time and if we rage war on Iraq we will be breaking several!

It's against international laws to change political leaders it's up to the people of that country. So by bringing in new political leaders is a violation in which you stand against.

[quote:f694fcbbfa="ConfusedYouth"]Little have you known we have used weapons of mass destruction in such countries as Vietnam or Panama and killed for no apparent reason. The United States shows no regard towards international laws in fact we break the all the time and if we rage war on Iraq we will be breaking several!

It's against international laws to change political leaders it's up to the people of that country. So by bringing in new political leaders is a violation in which you stand against.[/quote:f694fcbbfa]

Wrong. Saddam did not keep up his end of the agreement after the Gulf War, therefore we have the legal right to remove him from power.

Than Iraq has the right to remove George Bush from office because he is in violation of many international laws.

[quote:f92601fbc3="ConfusedYouth"]Than Iraq has the right to remove George Bush from office because he is in violation of many international laws.[/quote:f92601fbc3]

RIIIIIGHT let the world police do it. There is no international laws. There is international treaties and if a country surenders and stuff.. But no laws.

I hope Sudaam doesn't call CY to perform his duties, because he lives near me. If I stop posting...........

[quote:7a864fc892="ConfusedYouth"]Little have you known we have used weapons of mass destruction in such countries as Vietnam or Panama and killed for no apparent reason. The United States shows no regard towards international laws in fact we break the all the time and if we rage war on Iraq we will be breaking several!

It's against international laws to change political leaders it's up to the people of that country. So by bringing in new political leaders is a violation in which you stand against.[/quote:7a864fc892]

Sorry, confused Youth. I've not been clear enough. I was not talking about the USA, not about Irak. I entirely agree with you !

Of course I am absolutely not in favour of a war against the USA. I just wanted to show that the arguments many american use against Irak could be used against their own country (or against mine, France, which also owns nuclear weapons and supports many dicatorial regimes in Africa)

[quote:d1b9927111="ConfusedYouth"]Than Iraq has the right to remove George Bush from office because he is in violation of many international laws.[/quote:d1b9927111]

No. the reason the United States has a right to remove Saddam is because he broke the treaty with the United States. Now, I do not believe the United States is breaking any laws, but if they were it would give Saddam no right to do anything to us because it wasn't an agreement he made with us. His violations were of an agreement he made with us. You don't seem to think there is anything wrong with that.

Dave, war is not the only solution to solve international arguments. Quite happily because otherwise the USA would already be engaged in armed conflict with most countries including mine.
I think there are a still a lot of diplomatic solutions to make Iraq accept international controllers. But in no way should the USA engage in war without the approval of UN.

[quote:ad63c2440d="astrapol"][quote:ad63c2440d="ConfusedYouth"]Little have you known we have used weapons of mass destruction in such countries as Vietnam or Panama and killed for no apparent reason. The United States shows no regard towards international laws in fact we break the all the time and if we rage war on Iraq we will be breaking several!

It's against international laws to change political leaders it's up to the people of that country. So by bringing in new political leaders is a violation in which you stand against.[/quote:ad63c2440d]

Sorry, confused Youth. I've not been clear enough. I was not talking about the USA, not about Irak. I entirely agree with you !

Of course I am absolutely not in favour of a war against the USA. I just wanted to show that the arguments many american use against Irak could be used against their own country (or against mine, France, which also owns nuclear weapons and supports many dicatorial regimes in Africa)[/quote:ad63c2440d]

Since when is Iraq spelled Irak?

JWB if you would pay careful attention you would see he spells it Iraq that was just simply a mistake. I just remembered we are humans!

Also Dave he is right if we engage in war with Iraq over international laws that have been broken perhaps we should engage in war with our own country also several others that also violate these laws.

It's an international law that states its illegal for another country to pull a political leader out of office it must be done by the Iraqi people.

Also I'd like to see what treaties or law gives us the right to attack a nation over broken international laws.

Sorry about my spelling mistake. But in french Iraq is spelled Irak !

In fact one of the major principles in international relations as always been that no action, violent or not, should be intented by a country or even by the UN to change another country's governement, even if it is, like Irak, a non-democratic one.
This often may seem unfair (I personnally can easily think of a dozen countries which leaders deserve being overthrown and judged !) but when you think of it, if such action was allowed, it would be the end of the principle of national independence.

So what can be done against non-democratic countries ?
I believe that citizen of democratic and powerful countries, the USA but also Europe and Japan, etc… should not tolerate any violation of human rights or international laws by their own countries - or we would have no moral right to ask other to do so !
And by no way we should allow our governements and secret services to influence other countries and manipulate their governments.


Maybe you'll say I am unrealistic, but anyway it is even more unrealistic to think that we can solve this planets problems by making more wars.

CY, if this "law" is so important why do I not hear anyone else who opposes removing Saddam using that as a reason to support their view?

The fact is to the United States and many people in the United States International Laws are not a big deal. The United States has a long record sheet of violating these laws and getting away with the crime. The police can get away with anything just about.

If you could stop watching Fox News long enough and broaden your spectrum you would see many "progressive" people do use these Laws as a way of argument. Many nations whom don’t support the war also bring up the argument of these laws.

Perhaps the biggest violation is this war is murder on thousands of children mothers and fathers whom want to do nothing but live a peaceful life. War is muder and if your a supporter then your the murderer.

[quote:66e3b65220="ConfusedYouth"]All you watch is right-wing Fox news. I see it used in nearly every arguement that opposes this war. Nearly every nation that does not support bushes war machine has used it.

The fact is this will not be the first time the United States has violated international laws and it's sick to think they will get away with it like they have in the past.[/quote:66e3b65220]

What difference does the station make? They all have people on who oppose the removal of Saddam.

But just to give you the benefit of the doubt I will watch CNN tomorrow and see if I hear anything like that.

In fact Saddam his a high approval rate by the people in Iraq and even if there are some who dont support him there still is a large majority that does so it would still be in violation of international laws and not to mention humans rights.

CNN is just as bad.

CY - not saying you're wrong but where do you get your information from to asert that Saddam has 'a high approval rate by the people in Iraq' and that the majority support him?

[quote:1eef85012e="DaveTooner"]CY, if this "law" is so important why do I not hear anyone else who opposes removing Saddam using that as a reason to support their view?[/quote:1eef85012e]

Dave, if you really want to see different points of view, don't replace Fow news by CNN. You have internet, so use it ! Go and see other english-speaking information services, Indian, Chinese, Arabs…
BBC is one of the best in the world, maybe the best.
Here are a few comments i picked on their forum (of course there are also people supporting Bush in their forum, maybe 1/3. It's just to show you that the "international law" reason is very often used)

Bush seems to think that he can demand everything without giving something in return. There are many millions still waiting for the US to comply with both Kyoto and the Johannesburg agreements. When they do comply they will then be considered to be able to take a major part in other world affairs.
Brian Pope, Cinderford, UK


When Bush deals with the issue of Israel's flagrant breach of numerous UN resolutions, its possession of weapons of mass destruction, and its current brutal occupation of the west bank and Gaza then - and only then - should his views be treated with any sort of respect.
Ally, Glasgow, Scotland

If the US attacks Iraq because it is breaking UN resolutions, maybe other countries should also be attacked. What we are about to witness is double standards across the world. At the end of the day it is all about oil and self interests.
YIA, UK

s Mr Bush seriously proposing that countries are entitled to attack countries whose governments they oppose? Surely that argument would justify an attack by Saddam on Israel or indeed the USA?
AH, Edinburgh, UK

When in history has war been waged against a sovereign nation because of its potential, as opposed to actual, actions?
Don Leyton,

I don't admire Saddam, but I deplore equally America's and Britain's belief that it has the right to squash any regime it disapproves of. If this is a 'world issue', how come it is only these two countries clamouring for an attack on Iraq?
Jim, UK

If Bush doesn't get UN approval but goes ahead and attacks Iraq anyway, will he be liable to war crimes prosecution?
NM, UK

[quote:14509aea16]Dave, if you really want to see different points of view, don't replace Fow news by CNN. You have internet[/quote:14509aea16]

And why should I believe that this is more credible?


CY, I take back what I said. I did hear someone mention this international law. Your beloved Scott Ritter on (gasp!) FOX NEWS! Now let me ask you this:

The UN approved the Gulf War. At the end of the Gulf War we made an agreement with Saddam. We would leave him in power if he got rid of weapons of mass destruction. He agreed. He did not comply with his agreement, therefore we have the right to remove him and it IS protected under the UN.

[quote:1f611d7b2a="ConfusedYouth"]JWB if you would pay careful attention you would see he spells it Iraq that was just simply a mistake. I just remembered we are humans!

Also Dave he is right if we engage in war with Iraq over international laws that have been broken perhaps we should engage in war with our own country also several others that also violate these laws.

It's an international law that states its illegal for another country to pull a political leader out of office it must be done by the Iraqi people.

Also I'd like to see what treaties or law gives us the right to attack a nation over broken international laws.[/quote:1f611d7b2a]

He spelled it that way twice, someone is debating politics about a country they can't even spell.

[quote:d9feecce92="JWB"][

He spelled it that way twice, someone is debating politics about a country they can't even spell.[/quote:d9feecce92]

JWB didn't you read my answer ? I'm french and in French Iraq is spelt Irak. Sorry for the mistake but do we have to pass an english test to give our opinion on this forum ? I think the matter we are debating here is a little bit more important than this kind of consideration !

And can anyone explain me why my account has been made inactive ? I had to create a new one.

And for Dave : I never said that these sources are more credible, but that they swow different point of view.

Sorry I didn't know that it was spelled that way in french, but in general people who cant spell a country shouldn't debate it.. But can't blame someone for speaking a different language..

Well, there is no apparant doubt about the resolve to keep us the strongest kid on the block, but if so many are working to make sure "we rule" SHOULDN'T SOMEONE BE WORKING AT LEAST AS HARD TO MAKE SURE WE REMAIN "GOOD"??.

Contrary to a number of others, I do not believe that "might makes right." I also believe that lying, corrupt, evil, dishonest yet powerful people undermine national security as effectively and dangerously as any recognized military or terrorist agenda. When all emphasis is placed on magnifying our power to deliver death and destruction to any nation or people upon whom choose, simultaneously we insist on NO WILLINGNESS TO BE HELD LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE TO ANYONE, for our violent acts troubles me greatly.

Most, not all, but most people(even on this forum) have an ETHNO-CENTRIC view, and confuse what is good and bad right and wrong, trivial or important with either how it profits or harms them and theirs or this country. Such people would call a 7.8 earthquake in an American west coast city with rescue efforts to save 3000 people still alive under rubble worthy of round the clock coverage on all major channels for at least a week or two. The very same people would not want their ball game interruped for more than a minute or two if the same situation occured in a Latin American city.

Such an exclusively self-centered view is PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE AND NORMAL for children and ignorant, simple people whose work, influence and efforts make little impact beyond their little village, but become inexcusable in any people whose dealings internationally affect the daily lives of people in other nations they never see suffer. What right does anyone have to even propose the idea of GLOBAL GOVERNANCE when it is by human nature impossible to justly and adequately care about and address problems too remote from one's own immediate circumstances?? The British Empire was the last example of remote governance of far off nations, and that did not profit nor please those remotely so governed, albeit the systemic rapacity which enriched the crown pleased the British rulers greatly.

[quote:4abe0d6cf1="ainitfunny"]SHOULDN'T SOMEONE BE WORKING AT LEAST AS HARD TO MAKE SURE WE REMAIN "GOOD"??. [/quote:4abe0d6cf1]

I absolutely agree with you. I would even add : "to make sure we ARE good"

In fact Mr Bush's terms of "Good vs Evil" are so simplist that I don't understand how highly educated people like americans can take him serioulsy. This is so childish !