Potential US and Allies Failure in Iraq (Page 2)

chronology
chronology: The sanctions were imposed by the United Nations, go back and read the U.N. sanctions. In 2005 the U.N. ruled the United States occupation of Iraq was 'Lawful' as were the U.S. Actions prioa to 2005. Are you trying to claim the U.N. never ruled these issues? Any member here on Wire can check them for themselves.
4 years ago Report
0
SWlNE
SWlNE:
1. Sanctions (from US/UN) had nothing to do with your statement that the UN made it legal for the US to invade Iraq, remove Saddam and continue occupation there.
Recheck the meaning of sanctions. Sanctions have nothing to do with legalising an invasion and removal of a government.

2. Recheck the source linked I left for you.

3. Show your source for stating that the UN ruled on legalizing the US-led invasion of Iraq.

4 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: The 'source' for U.N. approval can be found in the articles on the Web that anyone here on Wire can find. The 'main' but not only reason the U.S. liberated Iraq was that Saddam had failed to comply with the U.N. instructions that Iraq should disarm itself to the satisfaction of U.N. Inspectors. However the U.N. had 'postponed' the use of force in enforcing this disarmament, American Legal experts argued 'postponed' does not mean 'terminated' the use of force, the U.S.A. is dutybound to lend all assistance in enforcing U.N. peacekeeping decisions.

Check the U.N. Articles on Iraq yourself and you will find the facts yourself.

If you are determined to argue the war was illegal you will find nothing to support your argument. Again, the U.N. decision to 'postpone' the use of force in enforcing it's disarmament of Iraq means just that 'postpone', not 'terminated'.
4 years ago Report
0
SWlNE
SWlNE:

Link those reputable sources.

I want you to go through this process on your own as nothing supports what you say exists.
(Edited by SWlNE)
4 years ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: ISIS Crucifies 8 Christians in Syria for Apostasy From Islam-------by, Dennis Lynch | International Business Times (IBT)

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) reportedly killed and crucified eight men in a town near Aleppo, Syria.

The independent monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the men were executed for being too moderate as members of a rival rebel group. They were crucified on Saturday and will be on display for three days in the town square in Deir Hafer.

It is not clear whether or not they were killed prior to the crucifixion. A ninth man in Al-Bab was nailed alive to a cross for eight hours for giving “false testimony.” He survived.

ISIS has used crucifixions as punishment for a number of crimes in the past. It executed one of its own members for “extorting money at checkpoints by accusing drivers of apostasy.” Apostasy is the term for leaving or renouncing one’s faith, particularly Islam. It has also used lashings and forced amputations to punish transgressions under Shariah.
4 years ago Report
1
chronology
chronology: Swine, read United Nations Press Release 7705 which stated the Security Councils position after the beginning of the U.S. led liberation.

Unfortunately what folks like yourself tend to do is glance over the Report and read the 'War against Iraq is in violation of the U.N. Charter'. That was a 'Statement'

Read the other statements further down the Report. Kuwait stated 'Iraq is in full responsibility for the position it is now in'

The Polish Ambassador stated; 'All peaceful efforts to resolve the disarmament issue had been exhausted'.

So which is it? the war is in violation of the U.N. Charter? or Iraq is the architect of it's own fate? or all peaceful efforts to resolve the disarmament crisis have been exhausted?

I suppose it depends on your position.

U.N. Resolution 1447 gave Iraq the 'Final Opportunity to comply with Disarmament Obligations or face serious consequences.

This U.N. warning of 'final opportunity' was given with 200.000 U.S. Troops on Iraqs boarders, what does 'final opportunity' mean? what does serious consequences mean?

Again our thoughts are with the U.S. Service folks and Iraqi people who lived through those events.

You pick and choose statements claiming the war was illegal, other people with as much validity can select statements supporting the legality of the war.
4 years ago Report
0
duncan124
duncan124:
200,000 Nigerian troops can't be wrong can they??
4 years ago Report
0
SWlNE
SWlNE:
Let us recap:

Chronology's statement: "'The U.S. imposed sanctions', please check the facts, the U.N. not the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. Congress constantly held conferences about the appalling effects these sanctions were having on the Iraqi people, especially Iraqi children."

Response: The US imposed sanctions on Iraq. "In response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, the United States imposed comprehensive sanctions, including a trade embargo against Iraq and a freeze of the assets of the then-Iraqi government, which were implemented in the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 575. O" [1]

[1] http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iraq.pdf
_________________________________________

Chronology's statement: "Saddam violated the main articles of the UN Charter and placed himself in the position where an outside Government could Lawfully remove him from Government, he was removed in 2003."

Response: Which law is it that you're making reference to in which an outside country can invade another to remove a government and occupy that country long after? Please state the law.

Chronology's response: Check the Main Articles of the United Nations Charter.

Response: The UN Charter did not make it lawful for the US to remove Saddam and invade & occupy Iraq. [1]

[1] In the interview, Mr. Annan was repeatedly asked whether the war was "illegal." "Yes," he finally said, "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal." - http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11953&#.U7RjkPldX1s

_____________________________________________

We can dismiss your above statements based on the direct source references.

I will give you one last chance to state directly which law mandated the US to be in the legal right to invade another country and occupy said country. My thoughts are with no one else but the Iraq people and I do not wish for this to turn into some emotional play with words. The question is direct and you are to list your sources to support your statements.
A PRESS RELEASE IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT.

4 years ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: "THe Best Enemies Money Can Buy"-----------A story by Russ W. Baker, in the March/April issue the Colombia Journalism Review (CJR), provided the most compelling overview of Iraqgate that I have seen.

"ABC News Nightline opened last June 9 with words to make the heart stop 'It is becoming increasingly clear,' said a grave Ted Koppel, "that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy"
--------------------------"In fact, we now know that in February 1990, then Attorney General Dick Thornburgh [appointed by George H.W. Bush] blocked U.S. investigators from traveling to Rome and Istanbul to pursue the case

"As New York Times columnist William Safire argued last December 7, Iraqgate is uniquely horrendous: a scandal about the Systematic abuse of power by misguided leaders of three democratic nations [The U.S., Britain, and Italy] to secretly finance the arms buildup of a dictator."
---------------------------The L.A. Times, on Feb 23, 1992, dug deep enough to find secret National Security Decision Directives by the Bush Administration in 1989 ordering closer ties with Baghdad and paving the way for $1 billion in new aid. The Times' series, co-authored with Waas, emphasized that, "buried deep in a 1991 Washington Press piece - that Secretary of State James Baker, after meeting with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz in October 1989, intervened personally to support U.S. government loans guarantees to Iraq."----------------------
4 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: Swine. First may I say I am not judging Saddam or Iraq, I have no right to do so I am simply answering your questions'

A nation may wage war on another nation when that nation is a real imminent threat to it's neighbours. Saddam had attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1991 and had refused to comply fully with UN disarmament demands.
The war must be fought only after all peaceful efforts to resolve the dispute had been exhausted, the U.S. had tried every means to resolve the dispute peacefully.
The loss of life in the war must be less than the threat posed by not acting. Civilian deaths in crossfire in Iraq have been judged at 50.000, 500,000 Iraqi's died in Saddams war with Iran.
Internal policies of a government negate it's right to sovereignty, policies such as genocide or slavery or the mass murder of Kurds with nerve gas by Saddam.
The entity waging war must be a competent entity and representative of a legally recognised Government. The U.S. Military was in the region enforcing U.N. decisions.

These are a few of the reasons a nation may go to war. The U.S. was a competent political entity, the U.S. was defending neighbours of Iraq, The U.S. made every effort to protect none combatents. The option of doing nothing and leaving Saddam in place was more hazardous than the war to remove him. Saddam had thrown away his claim to sovereignty with actions comparable to slavery and genocide with his treatment of the Kurds.

We see clearly that U.S. actions towards Iraq in 2003 were lawful under International Law. Check these facts yourself, they are available on the web.

Again, no offence intended to the great people of Iraq, the past is the past, we hope there will foster a long and fruitful friendship with the U.S.A. in the future.
4 years ago Report
0
SWlNE
SWlNE:
You've not answered my question so I'll answer it for you:

The US Military was not enforcing a direct UN decision.

There is no "UN legal" support to the US' invasion of Iraq that allowed the US to wage war. The Bush Administration was already dead set to go to war against Iraq (recall in 2002 his press for force), it was only the pressure from the UK they went towards the UN. It was not to ask permission or seek legal approval, it was to present an ultimatum that the UN either support the US' demand or be sidelined. The result was the Resolution 1441 which was ambiguous (perhaps it was intended for it to be, but that will be speculation mixed with common sense). In another attempt to get UN approval US & UK tried to introduce a resolution linked to the Resolution 1441, if it had been passed it would've provided a 'rationale' for the use of force but in the end there was no Security Council authorisation of this. They withdrew that draft resolution because they were unable to get the affirmative vote. The US & UK (along with the supporting countries) attacked without a UN mandate to approve that attack.
The UN is a powerless structure and a joke as can be seen by this example. There is a lot that can be said on the root of the Iraq war and I do not believe that it should be cast aside as 'past is past'. There should be a deep critizism and inquiry into what had lead up to that war and what occurred during that war instead of sweeping the mess under the carpet. Failure to do that will only mean that as a citizen you are docile and powerless in controlling the action of your own government.

While Bush and Blair might've said that the Security Council Resoultion 1441 authorises the war, it does not. The ICJ made it clear that the war was not keeping with international rule of law.

'Check these facts yourself, they are available on the web.' <- Nothing supports your statement and I've showed you direct sources that states the very opposite of your claims. You can not even post links to your so-called 'facts'.


It is amazing to me that the same blindness I've come across in some theist, I can find in political discussions. The facts are right there in your face, not some conspiracy theory and yet you can't accept it. So what is the point in showing this to you?
(Edited by SWlNE)
4 years ago Report
2
dave3974
dave3974: you have to wonder does the us have an agenda that includes keeping the middle east in bloody chaos , or it is just an incompetent arrogance on the part of the us .
the us has killed many more than saddam , al quada and bin ladden combined
4 years ago Report
3
SWlNE
SWlNE: I think it is incompetence, ignorance and arrogance, something that some persons in authority tend to have. A dangerous thought isn't it, that the mentally incompetent hold so much power and weapons. Politicians need to be accountable but how can a population monitor the government if they prefer to be docile and when a lot of information is kept hidden? There needs to be less patriotism and more criticism. That same criticism that is reserved for 'other countries'. That isn't only towards the US but worldwide. I don't know if that is possible, it seem that the ideals (or agendas) of the most dominant government/country will continue to be enforced with no restraint or question. Ah the human mind is something else...
4 years ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: Yes, Dave, the U.S. govt agenda is to promote chaos in the States and around the world.....it is easier to control and dominate people when they are just struggling to survive. That is also why the govt allows the drug trade to thrive. Events like Watergate, 911, mass shootings help to wake up the public...they realize more and more these events are allowed / and or planned by their own govt....
4 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: Swine. The 'Agenda' of the United States was that Saddam respect Human Rights and stop attacking his neighbours with unprovoked wars. It was pursuant of United Nations Decisions that the U.S. had it's Forces on Iraq's boarders. I will again repeat the grounds on which a nation can be lawfully invaded by other nations.

Wars of Aggression against other nations.
Domestic violations of Human Rights such as Slavery or Genocide, or in the case of Saddam, mass ,murder of Kurdish people and their Ethnic cleansing.
The Ethical grounds for U.S. Military actions were justified by the fact that leaving Saddam in control of Iraq risked more loss of life than removing him.

The UN is not a 'joke' or powerless, but like all bodies of Government it sometimes has procedures that on occasions take too long to be practical.

The responsibility for the Iraq war lies entirely with Saddam. Even most Iraqi's accept this, if he had disarmed when he was required to and stopped trying to purchase more weapons he would still be in power, despite his actions against the Kurds, Kuwait and Iran.
4 years ago Report
0
SWlNE
SWlNE:
Chronology, I've already mentally dismissed you as a lost cause as your words lack 'facts' and is laced with blind patriotism.
4 years ago Report
0
duncan124
duncan124:
Iraq and Syria were both ' Baath ' party states and the party could have moved to the USA and been a serious challenger to the Bushite regime there.
(Edited by duncan124)
4 years ago Report
0
duncan124
duncan124:
US Airlines have banned Tablets, Laptops and Mobiles newspapers report today. They cite the risk of terrorism for the ban!
4 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

The US has banned OVERSEA flights originating outside the US. Here is an article about the change. The ban is not [at this time] going to affect airlines operations in the US.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-planning/travel-news/phones-laptops-could-be-banned-from-planes-heading-to-the-us-20140707-3bgy2.html

.
4 years ago Report
0
duncan124
duncan124:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2682478/Airports-facing-chaos-US-declares-wont-allow-uncharged-cellphones-laptops-flights-bound-America.html

US has banned uncharged gadgets.

If you try Publico.pt via bing translator you get an advert for Vauxhalls rebadged as Opels!

A criminal activity there for sure.


4 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

From Duncan's article..."...The TSA has announced that devices that won't power up will not be allowed on planes"

I believe for many years we in the US would need to power up laptops at the security checkpoints but that fell away since it slowed the line tremendously.

Seems the bad guys are again looking for ways for explosives to look like uncharged power cells so the xray machines could not detect the explosive.

.
4 years ago Report
0
duncan124
duncan124:
Xrays detect electricity?
4 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

x-rays detect density. Seems un-powered cells have the same density as explosive(s).

.
4 years ago Report
0
duncan124
duncan124:
Battery change their density when charged??

Its because they were scammed from other peoples designs and don't work properly.

Many laptops failed and were a fire risk in aircraft.

There was a scene about mobiles in the USA after it was shown that the builders had stolen the idea and everyone was sued. Even the network providers who had shown an illegal phone in their adverts, just like the rebadged Vauxhall it was an sign for organised crime.

The American scammed batteries will explode and catch fire in an aircraft, that has been known for years. It is a powerful enough expansion to bulge even an old Laptop.
4 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Your comment has very little and or nothing to do with terrorism. There are bazillions of laptops, phones and other devices using batteries and bazillions of these battery operated devices have flown on aircraft...including pacemakers.

.

.
4 years ago Report
0