The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Just before Bell goes bonkers, this was the resolution vetoed by the US:
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
OK, admittedly this is rather late, but I think this puts us on 'equal' intelluctual footing.
Belldandy wrote:
> Number of actual legal rulings that the Iraq War was illegal=0
Who made these rulings? Could it perhaps be the countries who favoured military action in the first place? And even amongst these, are doubts not manifesting themselves?
> Number of Parliamentary Votes taken by nearly all MP of all parties
> which voted in favour of action=2
Number of parliamentary votes taken when the information available to MPs was demonstrable bullsh*t?
> Number of UN Sanctions against invading powers for illegal invasion
> of another country =0
Given that 2 of the invading powers have veto powers? Ha ha ha ha ha etc!
> Number of world leaders quoted as saying it was illegal=0
Without sources, I would still say quite a few: and if they didn't they should be ashamed of themselves.
> Number of Actual Cases brought, or currently running in a court of
> law that war was illegal=0
Because the US exempted itself from the international court of whatever? And most national governments don't have the balls to stand up to them?
> Number of countries Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded=2
Number of countries invaded since we won a glorious victory back in 90-whatever?
> Does a new UN resolution which would see some power restored to an
> Iraqi elected government somewhat disprove this was a landgrab ?
> Yes.
Uh, no.
> Does the US Statement that it wants Iraqi's to police themselves as
> soon as possible somewhat disprove this was a landgrab ? Yes.
Uh, no. But I'd be interested to see how you spin it that way.
> 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.
> Had Iraq broken endless resolutions post 1991 ? Yes.
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)?
Belldandy wrote:
> Number of actual legal rulings that the Iraq War was illegal=0
Who made these rulings? Could it perhaps be the countries who favoured military action in the first place? And even amongst these, are doubts not manifesting themselves?
> Number of Parliamentary Votes taken by nearly all MP of all parties
> which voted in favour of action=2
Number of parliamentary votes taken when the information available to MPs was demonstrable bullsh*t?
> Number of UN Sanctions against invading powers for illegal invasion
> of another country =0
Given that 2 of the invading powers have veto powers? Ha ha ha ha ha etc!
> Number of world leaders quoted as saying it was illegal=0
Without sources, I would still say quite a few: and if they didn't they should be ashamed of themselves.
> Number of Actual Cases brought, or currently running in a court of
> law that war was illegal=0
Because the US exempted itself from the international court of whatever? And most national governments don't have the balls to stand up to them?
> Number of countries Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded=2
Number of countries invaded since we won a glorious victory back in 90-whatever?
> Does a new UN resolution which would see some power restored to an
> Iraqi elected government somewhat disprove this was a landgrab ?
> Yes.
Uh, no.
> Does the US Statement that it wants Iraqi's to police themselves as
> soon as possible somewhat disprove this was a landgrab ? Yes.
Uh, no. But I'd be interested to see how you spin it that way.
> 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.
> Had Iraq broken endless resolutions post 1991 ? Yes.
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)?
*It amazes me that that you ignore a by product of the war, a free Iraqi populus.
Dr Duck wrote:
> 1000?
> Care to back that figure up?
> It doesn't seem.. remotely realistic.. somehow :^)
It wasn't a factual figure, just an example.
> Still, most would accept that IF the coallition pull their thumb out
> and start acting in the interests of the Iraqi people, instead of
> leaving them hanging while they work out who gets to keep what, then
> the invasion would have overall worked out for better.
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.
> What amazes me is how everyone seems willing to leave the issue at
> that.
It amazes me that that you ignore you by product of the war, a free Iraqi populus.
> Next time we may not fluke an acceptable outcome.
This was far from a flukey victory. Ask the allied planners, i doubt they'd say 'we didn't think we could do it'.
> 1000?
> Care to back that figure up?
> It doesn't seem.. remotely realistic.. somehow :^)
It wasn't a factual figure, just an example.
> Still, most would accept that IF the coallition pull their thumb out
> and start acting in the interests of the Iraqi people, instead of
> leaving them hanging while they work out who gets to keep what, then
> the invasion would have overall worked out for better.
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.
> What amazes me is how everyone seems willing to leave the issue at
> that.
It amazes me that that you ignore you by product of the war, a free Iraqi populus.
> Next time we may not fluke an acceptable outcome.
This was far from a flukey victory. Ask the allied planners, i doubt they'd say 'we didn't think we could do it'.
Dr Duck wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> We invade this year, risk killing 1000 Civilians.
>
> 1000?
> Care to back that figure up?
> It doesn't seem.. remotely realistic.. somehow :^)
Doesn't he say "risk", as in Skarra is hypothesising and not quoting fact ?
> But lets take a look at the reasons WHY we did go to war - it sure as
> hell wasn't for the sake of the iraqi people, or anybody else who was
> actually threatened by saddam's regime.
> Surely it is actually quite important to work out exactly why our
> governments are so quick to mislead and outright lie to us all? Next
> time we may not fluke an acceptable outcome.
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.
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.
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.
> Skarra wrote:
> We invade this year, risk killing 1000 Civilians.
>
> 1000?
> Care to back that figure up?
> It doesn't seem.. remotely realistic.. somehow :^)
Doesn't he say "risk", as in Skarra is hypothesising and not quoting fact ?
> But lets take a look at the reasons WHY we did go to war - it sure as
> hell wasn't for the sake of the iraqi people, or anybody else who was
> actually threatened by saddam's regime.
> Surely it is actually quite important to work out exactly why our
> governments are so quick to mislead and outright lie to us all? Next
> time we may not fluke an acceptable outcome.
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.
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.
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.
Skarra wrote:
> We invade this year, risk killing 1000 Civilians.
1000?
Care to back that figure up?
It doesn't seem.. remotely realistic.. somehow :^)
Still, most would accept that IF the coallition pull their thumb out and start acting in the interests of the Iraqi people, instead of leaving them hanging while they work out who gets to keep what, then the invasion would have overall worked out for better.
What amazes me is how everyone seems willing to leave the issue at that.
Sure, the final result may be better than non-intervention.
But lets take a look at the reasons WHY we did go to war - it sure as hell wasn't for the sake of the iraqi people, or anybody else who was actually threatened by saddam's regime.
Surely it is actually quite important to work out exactly why our governments are so quick to mislead and outright lie to us all? Next time we may not fluke an acceptable outcome.
> We invade this year, risk killing 1000 Civilians.
1000?
Care to back that figure up?
It doesn't seem.. remotely realistic.. somehow :^)
Still, most would accept that IF the coallition pull their thumb out and start acting in the interests of the Iraqi people, instead of leaving them hanging while they work out who gets to keep what, then the invasion would have overall worked out for better.
What amazes me is how everyone seems willing to leave the issue at that.
Sure, the final result may be better than non-intervention.
But lets take a look at the reasons WHY we did go to war - it sure as hell wasn't for the sake of the iraqi people, or anybody else who was actually threatened by saddam's regime.
Surely it is actually quite important to work out exactly why our governments are so quick to mislead and outright lie to us all? Next time we may not fluke an acceptable outcome.
Not to mention that, unlike 1991, every effort was made to spare the Iraqi army from having to sacrifice itself needlessly.
Well, on the morality of the war, i look at it this way, the war is the lesser of two evils.
We invade this year, risk killing 1000 Civilians.
Or we stay out, and condem several thousands to death next year. Along with hundreds of thousands that would be tortured next year at the hands of Sadam's men.
But, legally, as i posted, the UN did find Iraq in breech of its sanctions, thus giving us their legal backing. Well, should have.
We invade this year, risk killing 1000 Civilians.
Or we stay out, and condem several thousands to death next year. Along with hundreds of thousands that would be tortured next year at the hands of Sadam's men.
But, legally, as i posted, the UN did find Iraq in breech of its sanctions, thus giving us their legal backing. Well, should have.
Dr Duck wrote:
> What's the big deal with legality?
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...
> What's the big deal with legality?
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...
What's the big deal with legality?
The only sources of legitimacy of law are either that those it affects accept its authority or that it's imposed by force.
This can apply at either national or international level.
If a law imposed by force is breached, then there's simply two conflicting powers seeking to impose their 'way', neither with any particular moral justification.
And for international law, there isn't really any 'right' for international organisations to flex their muscle over a state that doesn't accept its authority.
And we've clearly seen that the US doesn't give a toss about the UN, and rejects its legal authority.
So how about we keep the arguments to those based in morality of the US's conduct?
I doubt we'll run out of fodder!
The only sources of legitimacy of law are either that those it affects accept its authority or that it's imposed by force.
This can apply at either national or international level.
If a law imposed by force is breached, then there's simply two conflicting powers seeking to impose their 'way', neither with any particular moral justification.
And for international law, there isn't really any 'right' for international organisations to flex their muscle over a state that doesn't accept its authority.
And we've clearly seen that the US doesn't give a toss about the UN, and rejects its legal authority.
So how about we keep the arguments to those based in morality of the US's conduct?
I doubt we'll run out of fodder!
Page: