The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/ iraq/story/0,12956,1063130,00.html
So now there are ever more prominent lawyers picking up on the dodgy grounds provided for war. This means one of two things:
1. That the legal grounds are shaky and these challenges to the justifications need to be met by the government
2. There are a lot more EVIL GODLESS COMMUNIST SMOKERS in this country than one may have thought.
So now there are ever more prominent lawyers picking up on the dodgy grounds provided for war. This means one of two things:
1. That the legal grounds are shaky and these challenges to the justifications need to be met by the government
2. There are a lot more EVIL GODLESS COMMUNIST SMOKERS in this country than one may have thought.
Page:
I've met Light.
He tried to touch my bathing suit area.
He tried to touch my bathing suit area.
You guys need to meet up and settle your differences in person. Otherwise this idiotic and pointless hatred of eachother will just roll on until the end of time.
Belldandy wrote:
> Okay, another way of putting it.
>
> Number of actual legal rulings that the Iraq War was illegal=0
Number of actual cases brought before western courts naming Dubya and Blair for being War Criminals: 2 (1 in Greece, 1 in Belgium)
>
> Number of Parliamentary Votes taken by nearly all MP of all parties
> which voted in favour of action=2
Number of MP's who have since said that they wouldn't have voted the way they did had they not been misled by Tony Blair: just under 100
>
> Number of UN Sanctions against invading powers for illegal invasion
> of another country =0
Number of UN sanctions ever placed against a Security council permanent member? 0
>
> Number of world leaders quoted as saying it was illegal=0
Number of world leaders quoted as saying it was unjustifid = So far, that I know of, 4 (France, Germany, Russia, Japan)
>
> Number of Actual Cases brought, or currently running in a court of
> law that war was illegal=0
Er...you've repeated yourself. This is the same as your first point.
>
> Number of countries Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded=2
>
Number of countries the US has invaded under Dubya = 2
> Does a new UN resolution which would see some power restored to an
> Iraqi elected government somewhat disprove this was a landgrab ?
> Yes.
Does the fact that the UN have still not passed a resolution approving the initial invasion say otherwise? Yup
> Does the US Statement that it wants Iraqi's to police themselves as
> soon as possible somewhat disprove this was a landgrab ? Yes.
Does the US's decision to disband the army and police prove otherwise? Yes.
>
> Did previous UN Resolutions not allow for such action anyway ? Yes.
Do such resolutions allow Arab nations to therefore invade Israel? Yes.
>
> Had Iraq broken endless resolutions post 1991 ? Yes.
Has Israel? Yes.
> Okay, another way of putting it.
>
> Number of actual legal rulings that the Iraq War was illegal=0
Number of actual cases brought before western courts naming Dubya and Blair for being War Criminals: 2 (1 in Greece, 1 in Belgium)
>
> Number of Parliamentary Votes taken by nearly all MP of all parties
> which voted in favour of action=2
Number of MP's who have since said that they wouldn't have voted the way they did had they not been misled by Tony Blair: just under 100
>
> Number of UN Sanctions against invading powers for illegal invasion
> of another country =0
Number of UN sanctions ever placed against a Security council permanent member? 0
>
> Number of world leaders quoted as saying it was illegal=0
Number of world leaders quoted as saying it was unjustifid = So far, that I know of, 4 (France, Germany, Russia, Japan)
>
> Number of Actual Cases brought, or currently running in a court of
> law that war was illegal=0
Er...you've repeated yourself. This is the same as your first point.
>
> Number of countries Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded=2
>
Number of countries the US has invaded under Dubya = 2
> Does a new UN resolution which would see some power restored to an
> Iraqi elected government somewhat disprove this was a landgrab ?
> Yes.
Does the fact that the UN have still not passed a resolution approving the initial invasion say otherwise? Yup
> Does the US Statement that it wants Iraqi's to police themselves as
> soon as possible somewhat disprove this was a landgrab ? Yes.
Does the US's decision to disband the army and police prove otherwise? Yes.
>
> Did previous UN Resolutions not allow for such action anyway ? Yes.
Do such resolutions allow Arab nations to therefore invade Israel? Yes.
>
> Had Iraq broken endless resolutions post 1991 ? Yes.
Has Israel? Yes.
Light wrote:
> And you don't think maybe the Iraqi people will be p!ssed off at the
> lack of rebuilding?
Maybe they are, but no matter how p!ssed off they are, the re-building is going as fast as it can.
> Free? We'll see; Iraq is occupied by a foreign military, and the US's
> record on installing puppet dicators is appalling.
They are acting to enforce peace, and stop Saddam coming back. Not round people up and have them tortured as Saddam did, so compaired to Saddam, the US troops are quite friendly.
> He didn't say flukey victory; it's flukey that the whole situation
> hasn't collapsed yet. There are insufficient troops to keep the peace
> (thanks to Rumsfields inadequate planning), and US soldiers are being
> killed every day because of that.
Accepted, there are too few troops. But i think the fact that it hasn't all gone to pot shows that the Iraqi people(or the majority) want the US troops there. Otherwise, it would be like Somalia. Where as, it's just Saddam loyalists that are killing US troops, not every Iraqi.
> And you don't think maybe the Iraqi people will be p!ssed off at the
> lack of rebuilding?
Maybe they are, but no matter how p!ssed off they are, the re-building is going as fast as it can.
> Free? We'll see; Iraq is occupied by a foreign military, and the US's
> record on installing puppet dicators is appalling.
They are acting to enforce peace, and stop Saddam coming back. Not round people up and have them tortured as Saddam did, so compaired to Saddam, the US troops are quite friendly.
> He didn't say flukey victory; it's flukey that the whole situation
> hasn't collapsed yet. There are insufficient troops to keep the peace
> (thanks to Rumsfields inadequate planning), and US soldiers are being
> killed every day because of that.
Accepted, there are too few troops. But i think the fact that it hasn't all gone to pot shows that the Iraqi people(or the majority) want the US troops there. Otherwise, it would be like Somalia. Where as, it's just Saddam loyalists that are killing US troops, not every Iraqi.
Goatboy wrote:
> And again here, because I feel it pertinent, I would like to remind
> Belldandy of his unshakeable, never-changing beliefs in The USA's
> foreign policies he is defending here.
> Original posted on Monday:
>
> "Belldandy wrote:
> Yes indeed it does have a Foreign Policy: Disagree with us and we'll
> invade\sanction\politically cripple you\send the CIA to topple you.
> Agree with us and we'll buy your stuff and sell shiny new stuff to
> you, and occasionaly ignore you anyway."
Sense of humour failed you again eh ?
Oh dear, looks like I'm not banned either, all that button pressing wasted, eh Light ?
> And again here, because I feel it pertinent, I would like to remind
> Belldandy of his unshakeable, never-changing beliefs in The USA's
> foreign policies he is defending here.
> Original posted on Monday:
>
> "Belldandy wrote:
> Yes indeed it does have a Foreign Policy: Disagree with us and we'll
> invade\sanction\politically cripple you\send the CIA to topple you.
> Agree with us and we'll buy your stuff and sell shiny new stuff to
> you, and occasionaly ignore you anyway."
Sense of humour failed you again eh ?
Oh dear, looks like I'm not banned either, all that button pressing wasted, eh Light ?
Skarra wrote:
>
> Oh, so they havn't done any re-building have they! No, not a sole has
> electricity, or power. The currency isn't being replaced with stuff
> thats harder to fake. There are no aid agiencies in Iraq helping are
> there!! It would help if Saddam loyalists didn't keep blowing up
> pipe's and stuff a few hours after the US/UK forces build them.
And you don't think maybe the Iraqi people will be p!ssed off at the lack of rebuilding?
>
> It amazes me that that you ignore you by product of the war, a free
> Iraqi populus.
Free? We'll see; Iraq is occupied by a foreign military, and the US's record on installing puppet dicators is appalling.
>
> This was far from a flukey victory. Ask the allied planners, i doubt
> they'd say 'we didn't think we could do it'.
He didn't say flukey victory; it's flukey that the whole situation hasn't collapsed yet. There are insufficient troops to keep the peace (thanks to Rumsfields inadequate planning), and US soldiers are being killed every day because of that.
>
> Oh, so they havn't done any re-building have they! No, not a sole has
> electricity, or power. The currency isn't being replaced with stuff
> thats harder to fake. There are no aid agiencies in Iraq helping are
> there!! It would help if Saddam loyalists didn't keep blowing up
> pipe's and stuff a few hours after the US/UK forces build them.
And you don't think maybe the Iraqi people will be p!ssed off at the lack of rebuilding?
>
> It amazes me that that you ignore you by product of the war, a free
> Iraqi populus.
Free? We'll see; Iraq is occupied by a foreign military, and the US's record on installing puppet dicators is appalling.
>
> This was far from a flukey victory. Ask the allied planners, i doubt
> they'd say 'we didn't think we could do it'.
He didn't say flukey victory; it's flukey that the whole situation hasn't collapsed yet. There are insufficient troops to keep the peace (thanks to Rumsfields inadequate planning), and US soldiers are being killed every day because of that.
Bellghost wrote:
>
> We went to war to destroy a regime. I know as well as you do, and
> everyone else who has commented on this, that no one in the USA or UK
> could have sold the war - politically and publically - on the basis
> of it being about liberating the Iraqi people. The general public, if
> there is such a thing, will never support a war that does not somehow
> potentially involve them. That's why the initial focus had to be on
> WMD, and his links to terrorism. Most people accept Saddam needed a
> good seeing to after 1991. I'd wager that governments are not always
> misleading, but the media certainly is, as the Dr Kelly Inquiry has
> proved on testimony alone. The polticians put out a message, which
> the public receive and have context given to it by the media.
Bwah ha ha haaa! Nice avoiding of the topic;
"I'll wager govts are not always so misleading, but the media are"
So, nothing to back up your point about governments, just an effort to shift the focus onto the media. Yeah, it's all their fault that people don't all agree with your opinion, right?
Incidentally, did you know that the Tories have praised Andrew Gilligan for his bravery in blowing the whistle? Just thought you should know that.
>
> The mistake too many make is in thinking that the media, that the
> politicians, should be giving an unbiased view or report in the first
> place. During the war everyone had a good laugh at the Information
> Minister because we all knew he mostly made up or distorted the truth
> absurdly, yet from most reports we know ordinary Iraqi's, to a point,
> believed him. One thing Saddam's regime recognised was the power of
> the media, and, more than any western society, also the ability to
> use it to convey lies which could be confused with truth for their
> own ends, especially when seen in the West.
Right; so you're now trying to compare the media to Comical Ali? Then how come you're happy to quote media stories that back up your views as unvarnished truth?
>
> This was seen in 1990 when he paraded the hostages on TV, by showing
> them on tv, being treated well and by saying it was just a temporary
> problem etc and guess what ? The next day numerous media commentators
> were wondering if he really was all that bad after all ! Same as this
> year - when the Information Minister talked about the US Army being
> over-run and fleeing few believed, but if he takes cameras to a pile
> of burning houses and says US Bombs hit them he is believed. He knows
> he will be believed in that circumstance because people will believe
> that. Whether the event is real or not is irrelevant once people
> believe.
B*ll*cks. NO media in the west wondered any such thing. Provide proof of that please.
So...that whole post seems to be saying very little other than vague hints at the media being as biased as the Iraqi info minister, and nothing to back it up.
>
> We went to war to destroy a regime. I know as well as you do, and
> everyone else who has commented on this, that no one in the USA or UK
> could have sold the war - politically and publically - on the basis
> of it being about liberating the Iraqi people. The general public, if
> there is such a thing, will never support a war that does not somehow
> potentially involve them. That's why the initial focus had to be on
> WMD, and his links to terrorism. Most people accept Saddam needed a
> good seeing to after 1991. I'd wager that governments are not always
> misleading, but the media certainly is, as the Dr Kelly Inquiry has
> proved on testimony alone. The polticians put out a message, which
> the public receive and have context given to it by the media.
Bwah ha ha haaa! Nice avoiding of the topic;
"I'll wager govts are not always so misleading, but the media are"
So, nothing to back up your point about governments, just an effort to shift the focus onto the media. Yeah, it's all their fault that people don't all agree with your opinion, right?
Incidentally, did you know that the Tories have praised Andrew Gilligan for his bravery in blowing the whistle? Just thought you should know that.
>
> The mistake too many make is in thinking that the media, that the
> politicians, should be giving an unbiased view or report in the first
> place. During the war everyone had a good laugh at the Information
> Minister because we all knew he mostly made up or distorted the truth
> absurdly, yet from most reports we know ordinary Iraqi's, to a point,
> believed him. One thing Saddam's regime recognised was the power of
> the media, and, more than any western society, also the ability to
> use it to convey lies which could be confused with truth for their
> own ends, especially when seen in the West.
Right; so you're now trying to compare the media to Comical Ali? Then how come you're happy to quote media stories that back up your views as unvarnished truth?
>
> This was seen in 1990 when he paraded the hostages on TV, by showing
> them on tv, being treated well and by saying it was just a temporary
> problem etc and guess what ? The next day numerous media commentators
> were wondering if he really was all that bad after all ! Same as this
> year - when the Information Minister talked about the US Army being
> over-run and fleeing few believed, but if he takes cameras to a pile
> of burning houses and says US Bombs hit them he is believed. He knows
> he will be believed in that circumstance because people will believe
> that. Whether the event is real or not is irrelevant once people
> believe.
B*ll*cks. NO media in the west wondered any such thing. Provide proof of that please.
So...that whole post seems to be saying very little other than vague hints at the media being as biased as the Iraqi info minister, and nothing to back it up.
And again here, because I feel it pertinent, I would like to remind Belldandy of his unshakeable, never-changing beliefs in The USA's foreign policies he is defending here.
Original posted on Monday:
"Belldandy wrote:
> Yes indeed it does have a Foreign Policy: Disagree with us and we'll
> invade\sanction\politically cripple you\send the CIA to topple you.
> Agree with us and we'll buy your stuff and sell shiny new stuff to
> you, and occasionaly ignore you anyway."
Original posted on Monday:
"Belldandy wrote:
> Yes indeed it does have a Foreign Policy: Disagree with us and we'll
> invade\sanction\politically cripple you\send the CIA to topple you.
> Agree with us and we'll buy your stuff and sell shiny new stuff to
> you, and occasionaly ignore you anyway."
Belldandy wrote:
> Well Light seems to think it's important, a fair few people would
> applaud the rapid overthrow of one of the most evil regimes seen
> since Hitler's...
Ah, the neo-con "you must be Saddam's best friend"; totally ignores the fact that the biggest objection to the war is that it will be of no benefit to the Iraqi people; they'll simply have another American appointed puppet to persecute them.
As to the big deal with legality...well, bearing in mind that the West is quick to rip into any nation that doesn't observe the niceties of the law...somewhat hypocritical of you, no?
> Well Light seems to think it's important, a fair few people would
> applaud the rapid overthrow of one of the most evil regimes seen
> since Hitler's...
Ah, the neo-con "you must be Saddam's best friend"; totally ignores the fact that the biggest objection to the war is that it will be of no benefit to the Iraqi people; they'll simply have another American appointed puppet to persecute them.
As to the big deal with legality...well, bearing in mind that the West is quick to rip into any nation that doesn't observe the niceties of the law...somewhat hypocritical of you, no?
unknown kernel wrote:
> Number of countries invaded since we won a glorious victory back in
> 90-whatever?
Good question, i'd like to know that. I mean, i know they went into Bosnia, and Kosovo, and others, but they were for good reasons, like stopping mass murder and ethnic clensing.
Can you tell me what countries America has seen, said 'that looks nice', and invaded for no good reason? I can't think of any of the top of my head.
> Did previous UN Resolutions not allow for such action anyway ? Yes.
>
> No. Just as previous resolutions (vetoed by the US) don't approve
> the acquisition of chemical and biological weapons.
As i posted, resolution 1441 finds Iraq in breach of resolutions. That is all the US and UK needs to invade. If the UN can't enforce its own resolutions, the US and UK will do it for them.
> You got me there. But haven't most weapons inspectors since said that
> Iraq's chemical and biological capability was destroyed? And that
> nothing was found before or since to suggest that Saddam was even
> close to being a threat to the West (or nuclear Israel)?
Actually, right up until the war, they were saying Iraq was still building dual purpose buildings. That means one day it could be making shoes, the next day, VX poison gas.
Perhaps he wasn't a huge threat to the west, but i'll bet the folks in Israels city's are grateful they don't have to be afraid of Al Samund, or Scud missiles anymore. Of which, several were still unaccounted for by UN weapons inspectors before the war, and now, thanks to the invasion, have very few places they can launch safely from.
> Number of countries invaded since we won a glorious victory back in
> 90-whatever?
Good question, i'd like to know that. I mean, i know they went into Bosnia, and Kosovo, and others, but they were for good reasons, like stopping mass murder and ethnic clensing.
Can you tell me what countries America has seen, said 'that looks nice', and invaded for no good reason? I can't think of any of the top of my head.
> Did previous UN Resolutions not allow for such action anyway ? Yes.
>
> No. Just as previous resolutions (vetoed by the US) don't approve
> the acquisition of chemical and biological weapons.
As i posted, resolution 1441 finds Iraq in breach of resolutions. That is all the US and UK needs to invade. If the UN can't enforce its own resolutions, the US and UK will do it for them.
> You got me there. But haven't most weapons inspectors since said that
> Iraq's chemical and biological capability was destroyed? And that
> nothing was found before or since to suggest that Saddam was even
> close to being a threat to the West (or nuclear Israel)?
Actually, right up until the war, they were saying Iraq was still building dual purpose buildings. That means one day it could be making shoes, the next day, VX poison gas.
Perhaps he wasn't a huge threat to the west, but i'll bet the folks in Israels city's are grateful they don't have to be afraid of Al Samund, or Scud missiles anymore. Of which, several were still unaccounted for by UN weapons inspectors before the war, and now, thanks to the invasion, have very few places they can launch safely from.
Page: