War in Iraq (1 Viewer)

[MaNiElla]

Where the humanity in being an idiot who supports a political system that always end in starvation and suffering?

so your saying that the war, and sending off troops to iraq, would end the starvation and suffering? .... i dont think so =\

 

[YankeeChica]

so your saying that the war, and sending off troops to iraq, would end the starvation and suffering? .... i dont think so =\

There is no case of iraqis starving since US invasion and the majority of sufferings are caused by muslim terrorists. As you know it, last week alone 250 iraqis killed by blood thirsty islamic terrorists who bath and drink the blood of their fellow muslims. Not a single civilians were killed by US/UK/Australian soldiers at the same time.

 

[banco55]

Ad hominem


The POV that an increase in the severity of the civil war after the withdrawal of Coalition troops is debatable. The presence of Coalition troops contributes to the civil war environment and is also the primary reason for many of the insurgent attacks (which result in civilian casualties). Obviously, the Coalition withdrawing won't stop Sunni-Shia attacks though.

If you read the papers you'd know that sunni-shia attacks now make up the great bulk of the civilian casualties. What you think after the American troops withdraw the Sunnis and shias are going to play nicely together and democracy will bloom? Those savages will start slaughtering each other and jockeying for position.

 

[jb_nc]

Ad hominem

You're a massive idiot. That's an ad hominem.

Me saying your source is rubbish because its run a newspaper run by SOCIALISTS is not an ad hominem.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

The problem is not that it's run by socialists (in addition to a variety of other groups), the problem is that the newspaper is not one of fact, it is of unchecked opinions, phoney evidence, flimsy support and shitty "expert analysis."

Pointing out the ludicrous nature of Green Left Weekly as a source is not ad hominem, it's simply not taking a shitty publication to be at all factual.

 

[onebytwo]

Where is the humanity in being an idiot who supports a political system that always ends in starvation and suffering?

where's the humanity in supporting a political system that promotes greediness, incompassion, selfishness, arrogance and war mongering?

PS: how's the iraq war going?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

If you read the papers you'd know that sunni-shia attacks now make up the great bulk of the civilian casualties. What you think after the American troops withdraw the Sunnis and shias are going to play nicely together and democracy will bloom? Those savages will start slaughtering each other and jockeying for position.

The US doesn't appear to be doing a bang up job of stopping such attacks at the moment though, does it?

 

[jb_nc]

PS: how's the iraq war going?

It's getting better but the media reporting on "Iraqi's build new hospital" isn't exactly riveting prime time news.

 

[onebytwo]

I can think of four

http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm

UNSC Resoultion 660

UNSC Resoultion 678

UNSC Resoultion 687

UNSC Resoultion 1441

funny how you can present resolutions to try and justify military intervention when in fact the US went to war without the consent of the UN in the first place.
how's "operation iraqi freedom" going?

 

[withoutaface]

What do you suggest then? Letting the starvation and poverty continue or trying to do something about it?

I refer you to my statement now:-

...our Government is not the Centrelink of Africa!

 

[onebytwo]

If you read the papers you'd know that sunni-shia attacks now make up the great bulk of the civilian casualties. What you think after the American troops withdraw the Sunnis and shias are going to play nicely together and democracy will bloom? Those savages will start slaughtering each other and jockeying for position.

too bad that one day the Us is going to have to withdraw - when hillary becomes president. then there's going to be several years of bloodshed and slaughter, followed by rise of another sadam hussein. silly how the west thought it can try and start a new political system when there exist such rivals (sunnis and shiites).
In The End:
- the winners: western contractors profit for a few years, US has unperturbed access to iraqi oil
- the losers: lots of iraqi civilians die, lots of soldiers die, and iraq after all that suffering starts back at square one.

why do all these right wingers call iraqis savages, and couldnt give a bums worth about iraqis and arabs, try so hard to give them freedom?

 

[onebytwo]

can some mod please change the title of this thread. its not "war in iraq", its supposed to be "liberation of iraq", or so they say.
george bush declared "mission accomplished" in 2003, so can someone please explain whats still going on over there?

 

[bshoc]

funny how you can present resolutions to try and justify military intervention when in fact the US went to war without the consent of the UN in the first place.
how's "operation iraqi freedom" going?

I'm a realist, I am not a liberal (i.e. UN lover or neocon). I don't support Operation Iraqi Freedom, or any other form of humanitarian aid or military intervention that violates any dealing of state within its own affairs, not in Rwanda, Sudan, Kosovo, Iraq etc. and I certainly don't care about what a failed organisation such as the UN dictates.

What I am however pointing out is that, much to the dismay of ignorant lefties such as yourself, the US intervantion in Iraq was legal in both UNSC and UNGA terms and was permitted under UN resolution 1441, which re-actived the earlier resolution 678 sighting the fact that Iraq had violated its ceasefire provisions under article 687. Thus this war was both legal and UN mandated as per UNSC resolution 1441.

Next time read the text before you say something stupid

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr660.htm
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr678.htm
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr687.htm
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr1441.htm

Just because some dumbass hippie screams out that this war is "illegal" doesen't mean it is, not according to the orthodox system of international law anyway. You're a commie/leftie so you've already failed both in economics and society, is it too much to ask that you understand your own stupid political provisions?

 

[bshoc]

can some mod please change the title of this thread. its not "war in iraq", its supposed to be "liberation of iraq", or so they say.
george bush declared "mission accomplished" in 2003, so can someone please explain whats still going on over there?

Civil strife, an inevitable outcome of a country composed of more than one religious/cultural/racial group etc. Another reason why something like socialism could never work.

It would've happened sooner or later anyway, once the strongman (Saddam) was removed, much like Tito and the former Yugoslavia. Just because the US did it does not make them complicit in the civil strife itself, that is being conducted by the Iraqis.

 

[onebytwo]

I'm a realist, I am not a liberal (i.e. UN lover or neocon). I don't support Operation Iraqi Freedom, or any other form of humanitarian aid or military intervention that violates any dealing of state within its own affairs, not in Rwanda, Sudan, Kosovo, Iraq etc. and I certainly don't care about what a failed organisation such as the UN dictates.

What I am however pointing out is that, much to the dismay of ignorant lefties such as yourself, the US intervantion in Iraq was legal in both UNSC and UNGA terms and was permitted under UN resolution 1441, which re-actived the earlier resolution 678 sighting the fact that Iraq had violated its ceasefire provisions under article 687. Thus this war was both legal and UN mandated as per UNSC resolution 1441.

Next time read the text before you say something stupid

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr660.htm
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr678.htm
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr687.htm
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr1441.htm

Just because some dumbass hippie screams out that this war is "illegal" doesen't mean it is, not according to the orthodox system of international law anyway. You're a commie/leftie so you've already failed both in economics and society, is it too much to ask that you understand your own stupid political provisions?

im not even going to waste my valuable interent downloads on your stupid and probably irrelevant articles

straight from the horses mouth

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.
The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time".
Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January.
The UN chief said in an interview with the BBC World Service that "painful lessons" had been learnt since the war in Iraq.
"Lessons for the US, the UN and other member states. I think in the end everybody's concluded it's best to work together with our allies and through the UN," he said.
'Valid'
"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.
He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.
And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.
When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Mr Annan's comments provoked angry suggestions from a former Bush administration aide that they were timed to influence the US November election.
"I think it is outrageous for the Secretary-General, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states," Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the BBC.
"To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference."
A UK foreign office spokeswoman said: "The Attorney-General made the government's position on the legal basis for the use of military force in Iraq clear at the time".
Australian Prime Minister John Howard also rejected Mr Annan's remarks, saying the legal advice he was given was "entirely valid".
The BBC's Susannah Price at UN headquarters in New York says Mr Annan has made similar comments before.
He has said from the beginning the invasion did not conform with the UN charter - phrasing that was seen as a diplomatic way of saying the war was illegal.
Our correspondent says Mr Annan's relationship with the US might be made a little uncomfortable for a while following his comments, but both sides are likely to want to play it down.
US President George W Bush is due to speak at the UN General Assembly next week.

Iraq elections
Mr Annan also said in the interview the UN would give advice and assistance in the run-up to the elections, but it was up to the Iraqi interim government to decide whether such a vote should go ahead.
He warned there could not be "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now".
The UK foreign office spokeswoman said there was a full commitment to hold elections in January.
Election and political party laws had already been passed and an independent electoral commission established.
"The task is huge and the deadline tight, but the Iraqi people clearly want elections," she said.
On Wednesday, the head of the British army General Sir Mike Jackson said national elections in Iraq were still on track.
On Monday, Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said elections must go ahead as planned although he conceded the violence might stop some Iraqis voting.

However, a day later a car bomb close to an Iraqi police station in central Baghdad killed 47 people and gunmen opened fire on a police minibus in Baquba, killing 12.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

 

[bshoc]

You do realize that Annan is the Secretary General right? The man responsible for running the UN as an organization, he is not, i repeat not, in any formal executive or decisional position in regards to the actual policy the UN produces.

The secretariat only runs the UN (ie. the building, meeting times etc.) .. it does not rule on points of international law or create policy, thats the domain of the UNSC and the ICJ.

 

[onebytwo]

You do realize that Annan is the Secretary General right? The man responsible for running the UN as an organization, he is not, i repeat not, in any formal executive or decisional position in regards to the actual policy the UN produces.

The secretariat only runs the UN (ie. the building, meeting times etc.) .. it does not rule on points of international law or create policy, thats the domain of the UNSC and the ICJ.

so youre saying he is wrong in suggesting that the iraq war is illegal?

 

[bshoc]

so youre saying he is wrong in suggesting that the iraq war is illegal?

International law is not like other forms of law ....

In international law countries first do something and then try and make a case for its legality or illegality, unlike say criminal law where certain things are set by central authority and are a know illegality ie. murder, theft, rape.

Annan may hold his own opinion, but it is not the opinion shared by the UNSC resolution 1441, while neither of them may be exactly right or wrong, the UNSC has the power to rule and decide on such matters, Annan does not.

 

[blahmeh]

I'm a realist, I am not a liberal (i.e. UN lover or neocon).

I don't support Operation Iraqi Freedom, or any other form of humanitarian aid or military intervention that violates any dealing of state within its own affairs, not in Rwanda, Sudan, Kosovo, Iraq etc. and I certainly don't care about what a failed organisation such as the UN dictates.

Exactly, we are undermining that country's abilty to rule, and there's a special term or special law that says we can't do that.

For example in Iraq, we are simply saying you cannot rule yourselves so let's do it for you *cough* America *cough*

 

[YankeeChica]

Iraq is an example of Arab and islamic countries greed and hatred against each other. If iraq is peaceful it could have surpassed all other countries in the middle east in economic growth, oil output and democracy. Iraq's neighbour simply dont want to see a prosperous iraq because it means their own people will demand more freedom and democracy from Iraq and will cause an end to the rule of tyrants in various arab countries and iran. To hold on to their power iraq's neighbour did everything they can to destabilize iraq, sending in suicide bombers and weapons , fomenting sectarian violence. It is well known that iranian and Syrian president celebrate every suicide bombing in iraq as if it were their birthdays