Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:32
VIEWED: 15590
PAGE 14 of 15

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE

XKXXKX

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 3:06 AM

So then, how was the US acting under this resolution?

res 1441 gave Saddam 30 days. he met that deadline with an incomplete (according to iraqs own numbers) declaration. But 1441 is a final chance to comply with res 687 (especially paragraphs 8-13)which Saddam was of in breach of since it was introduced in 1991. One reason resistance was met in the UN was oil for food money was being used to bribe possible vetos. This is (in terms of dollars) the largest scandal in the history of mankind. If anybody would like to earn a baby seal award on this issue, step right up.

let's roll

JRC

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 5:14 AM

I just read this, also on the Fox Network:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135101,00.html
I'm one of those people sitting on the fence, but it appears those UN resolutions are clear, and Saddam WAS jerking the world body around when he kept the weapons inspectors, for at least a decade, from performing their duties by rejecting their attempts to inspect many of his facilities. Which brings up another question: WHY delay the weapons inspectors, assuming he had nothing to hide?

Everyone dies alone.

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xkxxkx:

One reason resistance was met in the UN was oil for food money was being used to bribe possible vetos. This is (in terms of dollars) the largest scandal in the history of mankind.

Heresay.

And I do find it interesting that you never commented on the non-specific consequences portion of my post.

And about your baby seal comment. Sensationalism will get you no-where. Try sticking to the facts and attempt to have a reasonable discussion. That is unless you wish to be labeled as a conspirecy nut. Which, by the way, by your above comment, you are well on your way to becoming.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

RUE

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 8:32 PM

http://www.milnet.com/united-nations/
xkxxkx
I've read most (not quite all) of the UN Iraq resolutions so I had a pretty good idea you were BS-ing.
The above is a comprehesive link to all UN resolutions on Iraq.
PS splicing selected words and phrases from different documents on different subjects does not get you points for accuracy.

XKXXKX

Friday, October 15, 2004 4:03 AM

What a compelling argument you make for your points. Allow me to counter: "I know you are, but what am I?"

the war was clearly legal. if you have a point, please make it. in fact, given the violations of the 1991 ceasefire were unanimously accepted by the UN, the iraq war was "more legal" than afghanistan. tough sell...but true.

If you read all the resolutions, you'll conclude that we went to war over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. We completed that war with Operation: Iraqi Freedom, in response to 12 years of Saddam violating the terms of the cease-fire agreement, terms which demanded Saddam disarm of WMD, declare and dismantle his WMD and long-range missile production capabilities, end his support for terrorism, uphold human rights for the Iraqi people, and make reparations to Kuwait. None of these Saddam complied with.

However, i Know where you're comming from, you hold our great nation to a higher standard than the UN, as you should. You may be of the variety that says "America claimed there were stockpiles, that Saddam was activley producing WMD's. they claimed he had ties to terror! lies!!"

I followed your link, you follow mine?

*Stockpiles?*

Such as the BM-21 rockets with sarin gas warheads captured by US Marines on April 7th, 2003?

http://www.acsa.net/bioterror/895392_asp.htm

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/04/08/stories/2003040804650100
.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F0
7%2Fweap08.xml

Or perhaps the mustard gas and cyanide found dumped in the Euphrates River the day before that?

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/0
6/wpois06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixnewstop.html

*Capability?*

He certainly did, with all the buried caches of sarin and tabun gas precursors:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83449,00.html

Of course, all these buried chemical weapons precursors "could be" pesticides to keep bugs from eating the binary chemical artillery shells they were stored with:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/07/sprj.irq.chemical.find/

It could very well be that the guy in charge of Iraq's nuclear weapons program was lying about working on a nuclear bomb:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFu
ll&cid=1071541095799

But then, you'd have to explain all the nuclear material that the US removed from Iraq in July:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32195-2004Jul6?language=prin
ter

Or at least, the Iraqi nuclear material that turned up in Germany:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108654,00.html

Or if you're really feeling lucky, get the IAEA to explain why none of their al-Tawaitha Nuclear Facility inspection reports mention underground tunnels which contained stored weapons-grade plutonium:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31966

*Terror ties?*

Which CNN still hasn't sanitized from their 1999 archives (paging Winston Smith...)

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

But really, who can deny Saddam - al-Qaeda ties with any certainty? Certainly not Qusay Hussein's own Babil newspaper:

http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Eleme
nt_ID=34908297

But just because Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, is the nephew of the third-ranking Al Qaeda commander, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, AND an Iraqi Mukabharat agent trained in bomb-making and chemical weapons doesn't necessarily mean Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

But let's not be too hasty. It could be that Al Qaeda planted all these questionable chemical finds in Iraq in order to discredit the benevolent Saddam Hussein when they planned to blow up a huge chemical WMD in Amman, Jordan:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/80623/1/.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005016

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13282

http://cshink.com/wmd_article_archive.htm

RUE

Friday, October 15, 2004 6:29 AM

I'd like to respond in detail at a later time, but just not at the moment because I am still in the middle of an all-consuming project.
In general, the resolutions apply to very specific situations. So to apply a part of one indiscriminately to another is not kosher.

I'd like to start out that there were many widely broadcast reports of CW. Every single one that I read turned out to be a false alarm, with claims later being very quietly withdrawn. So I don't put much credit in unconfirmed reports.

I went to the first 3 urls on BM-21 rockets. All of them said that conclusive tests had NOT been run on the chemicals. Chemical weapons detection is actually part of my job. I know how truly inaccurate field detection is. I tried to look up any news item that said CW had been conclusively confirmed OR disproved in that instance, but didn't run across anything in the first few minutes. Obviously a definitive response on just that one item will take some time.

So I went on to the second item, re cyanide and mustard gas in the river. You may not know it but cyanide is a common industrial chemical. And I doubt they found 'mustard gas' in water since (in water) it breaks down quickly http://www.bristol.ac.uk/Depts/Chemistry/MOTM/mustard/mustard.htm. That may be why when I tried to find different reports on the same item, many reports said 'mustard gas' but some said (probably more accurately) 'mustard agents'. That makes me wonder exactly what they tested for. It appears only one announcement was made, there was no follow up. I couldn't find in a short time information on that instance that I thought was credible.

Then you had a CNN url where you said "buried chemical weapons precursors 'could be' pesticides to keep bugs from eating the binary chemical artillery shells they were stored with" while the article said "The materials, (found at an agricultural complex and separate from the military complex that housed the artillery shells) stored in barrels and buried, had not been weaponized and might simply be pesticides. If it were weaponized, Freakly said, 'We would see it in probably an artillery projectile or in an artillery missile, or perhaps in an aircraft bomb or something that the enemy would spray troops with.'" and concluded "U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declined comment on the find, saying more tests must be conducted." But tracking down any potential follow-up will take more time than I have right now.

So, to repeat, while I would like to reply in detail, I'm too busy to spend the time looking for definitive conclusions to these allegations.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 3:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xkxxkx:

Nonetheless, whatever the truth, the "absence of WMD in Iraq" meme ...

let's roll

meme... you so give yourself away.

Wow, a whole list that shows just how much of a propoganda machine the "liberal media" is for the Nazi party... er, the Bushites.

The point is... Saddam was not a threat to the USA SINCE 1991 !!! This is the defacto fact we have learned recently. No doubt! Proof! Denieing this is simply a lie.

Now... RIGHT NOW, the only people on the entire planet who believe Saddam had any capability to do real (REAL!) damage are in the White House.

BTW, those mass graves were created by Saddam during the 80s Iraq/Iran war... you know, when the CIA gave Saddam help, money, satellite photos, Sarin gas, Anthrax, Mustard Gas. You know... all those illegal weapons of mass destruction the USA sold to Saddam for money.

Blood money. If you want to talk about who is to blame for those mass graves, you must include the USA in that crime. Truth.

Impeach the Bush Junta or America will continue to be a whore for Saudi princes.

XKXXKX

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 5:03 AM

I'll go into right or wrong, point-by-point if anyone here, a site with only a tiny fraction dedicated to "real world" discussion has sense and can engage in reasonable debate.
First we must settle the legal or illegal issue. If you can't see it's legality, how will you make it through the clearly grey areas with a clear mind?
You insinuate that i have been infected by a cultural evolution of sorts just for using the word meme. How about coupling that with some info showing where these people were not exposed to weaponized nerve gas in Iraq.What of the dozen or so syrians who were busted planning to blow up the US embassy in Jordan with tons....tons of IRAQI chemical weapons. I forgot that story, I'll post a link if I think you'll give a rats ass.
How incredibly hypocritical of you to jump on the word (a fitting description for those who say there were no wmd's) and include your insidious bush/hitler MEME, your USA is resposible for 400,000 iraqi/iranian/kuwaiti murders MEME and your CIA sold NBC weapons to ANYBODY MEME. I look foward to smashing your infection with the facts about this, oil for food, french weapon sales to iraq (especially since 9/11) and whatever else. I don't want to waste my time learning how much you hate america, or bush. You say illegal. Back it up. Don't simply throw up a resolution or an article and ask me to show you where it says Bush can kill babies. it's a bogus argument. If you have an argument with legality, please, make a case. That, or concede Saddam violated sanctions, and let's move on to where the grease gets gritty.
Don't you think if we were in bed with the Sauds, with a hair-splitting election 2 weeks out and gas prices soaring, that we'd be leaning pretty heavily on them right now? Or upping output of all that "free" Iraqi oil?---Wait--- don't answer that. Let's clear up this illegal issue and then...

let's roll

RUE

Friday, October 22, 2004 2:17 AM

I looked at some more of the links you posted, and I have to say they were weak.

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, October 22, 2004 2:32 AM

Hell, Listening to this guy... I want to attack the US

He makes the arguements against American foreign policy quite real in an Archie Bunker sort of way

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE