Support NeoGAF

[Phoenix]

:lol That's all the possibilities you could find? Think harder.

Give us some options. You have the intelligence agencies of several countries saying Iraq has WMD. Are you saying that they are all conspiring to lie together to give the US reason to invade Iraq? If so, what's the motive. Were all of these intelligence agencies wrong simultaneously? If not, then the weapons must have existed and there could only be two outcomes.

 

[Ripclawe]

The U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq without the approval of the United Nations Security Council was illegal, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a BBC interview Wednesday.

1) Its the UN, so who gives a shit.

2) Still waiting for something on Sudan big brave annan.

 

[ShadowRed]

1) Its the UN, so who gives a shit.

2) Still waiting for something on Sudan big brave annan.

Wait why aren't you waiting for Bush and cronies with their "liberating" armies of justice. If I recall you were creaming your slacks over the freed Iraqis, why are you not gungho over freeing those Sudanese?

 

[Dilbert]

As much as I hate what happened, this is right. This is an unfortunate result of the system 'working'. To prevent this type of thing from happening in the future (this preventive warfare nonsense) there needs to be laws in place. Whenever the president or any other official makes these kinds of decisions, they do so with lawyers examing the laws to make sure they don't violate any of them.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the "invasion was justified because we THOUGHT they had WMDs -- it was just bad intel" argument.

Even if they actually HAD WMDs and had put their secret stashes out for a photo op with UN inspectors, the invasion STILL would not have been justified under the stated rationale. Iraq was NOT a threat to United States security -- how exactly were they supposed to deliver those weapons to our territory, anyway? If you buy the thinking that they posed an "indirect threat" because they could have disseminated those weapons to someone else -- again, hard to reconcile "indirect threat" with "imminent danger" -- then there are a shitload of countries which would rank higher on the threat scale.

It's yet another in a long series of deliberate misdirections offered by the Bush Administration to distract people from realizing that this war was undertaken for vastly different reasons than those stated publicly.

 

[Che]

Give us some options. You have the intelligence agencies of several countries saying Iraq has WMD. Are you saying that they are all conspiring to lie together to give the US reason to invade Iraq? If so, what's the motive. Were all of these intelligence agencies wrong simultaneously? If not, then the weapons must have existed and there could only be two outcomes.

Which countries are you talking about? Puppet-UK or Israel which wanted (and demanded) more than anyone the fall of Iraq? Or Putin who obviously wanted to ridicule USA and serve his own purposes? And since when USA started trusting the Russians? Absolutely ridiculous.

And we all know which is the answer to that. I'll help you. It has three letters it's black and starts with an O.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Is it arson when the fire resulted incidentally, as a result of good and noble intentions?

I don't know, but I'd want the firestarter pointed out so I'd know if he started hanging around my place.

 

[Phoenix]

Which countries are you talking about? Puppet-UK or Israel which wanted (and demanded) more than anyone the fall of Iraq? Or Putin who obviously wanted to ridicule USA and serve his own purposes? And since when USA started trusting the Russians? Absolutely ridiculous.

That, of course, is not the point. If I say the GAF server is on fire, and you say its on fire and someone else heard that the server room that houses GAF might be on fire - is it safe to conclude that the server room housing GAFs server is on fire? Did all of these countries rely on the SAME source for their intel? If not, then why did they all come to the same conclusion? If they did then a more scary thought is not that US intelligence is screwed, everyone elses intelligence is just as screwed.

And we all know which is the answer to that. I'll help you. It has three letters it's black and starts with an O.

Obo?

 

[Phoenix]

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the "invasion was justified because we THOUGHT they had WMDs -- it was just bad intel" argument.

That's good - because I didn't make that argument. Even if they had them it would only be justified if we could show that they intended to use them against us - read the other posts again.

Even if they actually HAD WMDs and had put their secret stashes out for a photo op with UN inspectors, the invasion STILL would not have been justified under the stated rationale. Iraq was NOT a threat to United States security -- how exactly were they supposed to deliver those weapons to our territory, anyway?

Biologics are easy to deliver for any country that wants to deploy them. Nuclear and chemical tend to be more strategic weapons in the limited sense that Iraq would posess them.

 

[Ripclawe]

Wait why aren't you waiting for Bush and cronies with their "liberating" armies of justice. If I recall you were creaming your slacks over the freed Iraqis, why are you not gungho over freeing those Sudanese?

US has gone thru the so called "proper" channels and so far they can't get a unanimous decision on a resolution that has been weakened twice. But the UN is a fine organization.

 

[PS2 KID]

The UN needs to leave New York City pronto. The real estate is too valuable for such a corrupt organization to sit. I recommend they move to Saudi Arabia or something so they can be closer to their misgotten oil money.

PS. Pay their parking tickets.

 

[doncale]

ummm.... the U.N. can go fuck itself

 

[Saturnman]

US has gone thru the so called "proper" channels and so far they can't get a unanimous decision on a resolution that has been weakened twice. But the UN is a fine organization.

The US, with this administration or any other, probably has no intention to really do anything with Sudan, even if it had exhausted all other diplomatic options and had military muscle to spare. Sudan is merely a secundary election campaign issue in an attempt to stir religious conservatives (the Muslims are killing innocent Christians!) and even get some black votes in the process.

It's just like Rwanda, there is little strategic reason for the great powers to intervene there.

 

[xsarien]

The US, with this administration or any other, probably has no intention to really do anything with Sudan, even if it had exhausted all other diplomatic options and had military muscle to spare. Sudan is merely a secundary election campaign issue in an attempt to stir religious conservatives (the Muslims are killing innocent Christians!) and even get some black votes in the process.

It's just like Rwanda, there is little strategic reason for the great powers to intervene there.

As much as I'd like to see something done, the primary reason it's brought up so often is because it highlights the inherent hypocrisy in the Bush administration. That if they're so concerned about human rights violations, what's happening in the Sudan makes Saddam and Kim Jong look like two, cloned Mother Theresas. Their inaction in the matter implies that something other than altruistic efforts were the driving force behind the Iraq invasion.

 

[Guileless]

It would be impossible to remedy every human rights violation in the world. Look how hard it was to try to change things in Somalia and how hard it is now in Iraq. Nobody can simultaneously attempt to fix every problem in the world.

But there is now a chance, however small, that a meritocracy based on consensual government, the rule of law, and free and open markets will become the norm in Iraq. I know I enjoy living in a meritocracy based on consensual government, the rule of law, and free and open markets.

 

[Shinobi]

If you are offended by the violation of international law, you should be more offended by Saddam than the country that ended his long and unparalleled string of international law violations.

Why be more offended by Saddam then all the other nutcases around the globe?

Nope, Bush offends me a lot more...when he's using Christianity and God to cloak his bullshit in some morally justifiable culling, it makes me want to throw up.

"What does it gain anyone? We should all be gathering around the idea of helping the Iraqis, not getting into these kinds of side issues," Powell said in an interview with The Washington Times.

:lol I gave up on Powell a loooong time ago...fuck him.

I think that what Mr. Powell is saying in that quote is that b*tching about the validity of the war this late in the game, instead of concentrating on the more relevant problems at hand in Iraq and finding ways of dealing with them, is probably not the best idea in the world right now.

These are the same people who don't want the UN to deal with things now, right? And didn't want the UN to deal with things when they were over there inspecting, right? Can't have it both ways.

Is it arson when the fire resulted incidentally, as a result of good and noble intentions?

:lol If that's what you believe, then I guess not.

:lol That's all the possibilities you could find? Think harder.

3) Iraq had all the weapons stated ready and waiting for us, but decided to bury each and every one of them under 100 feet of sand in the space of a couple of weeks, instead of prepping them for use to help them in the inevitable invasion of their country by the powerful United States military.

How's that?

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

That, of course, is not the point. If I say the GAF server is on fire, and you say its on fire and someone else heard that the server room that houses GAF might be on fire - is it safe to conclude that the server room housing GAFs server is on fire? Did all of these countries rely on the SAME source for their intel? If not, then why did they all come to the same conclusion? If they did then a more scary thought is not that US intelligence is screwed, everyone elses intelligence is just as screwed.



Obo?

and what if what you said at the begining was a lie? what if the servers werent on fire at all but you wanted people to believe that it was?

 

[Guileless]

Why be more offended by Saddam then all the other nutcases around the globe?

This thread is about international law, and as I have explained Saddam was the most prolific violator of international law in the post World War II era. There are lots of nutcases, but none of them have violated international law as extensively as Saddam.

And if you're offended by leaders cloaking their bullshit in God, Saddam did a fair amount of that as well. I believe that Allah told him to rape Kuwait as part of a greater strategy to eventually liberate Palestine. I have a hard time seeing how the actions of George Bush,even if you disagree with his policies, could be more offensive than Saddam. How is that exactly?

 

[Shinobi]

Because I'm a Christian, and it disgusts me how Bush has used the faith to run rough shot without any reasoning, ethics or integrity. I'm sure there are many Musilems hwo feel the same way about Saddam or bin Laden for that matter, but it isn't a religion I believe in so that doesn't offend me.

 

[FightyF]

This thread is about international law, and as I have explained Saddam was the most prolific violator of international law in the post World War II era. There are lots of nutcases, but none of them have violated international law as extensively as Saddam.

Yes, this thread is about International Law, and how it was broken by the Bush Administration.

So do you agree, that it was wrong for the BA to break International law? Just because another country did, doesn't give anyone the license to break it.

Secondly, even though he did break International law, he was punished for it.

Yet you see countries (do I really need to mention which one? *LOL*) breaking International laws, and are being protected from punishment by the US (whichever administration it may be).

So the issue is that if the Bush Administration isn't happy with how we've carried out justice, is it alright to do whatever you want?

Say a person was caught breaking and entering, stealing, and then found to have raped a person in that house, and sentenced to 50 years in prison. So he was put in prison, but this wasn't enough punishment according to someone who wasn't a part of the earlier situation...so this person decides to kill the criminal. Is it right? Is it Justice? Is it American Justice? Nope.

You can say that our punishments (economic sanctions) weren't working and effective enough, but that's a stupid argument since it was apparent that it was an idiotic move that would benefit the Western nations with access to oil, and hurt the Iraqi civilian population. The constant bombing with DU bombs didn't help either. For the most part, Saddam was hurting pretty badly except when it came to us wanting access to his oil...strengthening him was a choice made by us. God forbid we actually sanction him to the point where we can't have some of that Iraqi oil.

When it came to the harmful sanctions and bombings, no one cared because no Westerner was getting hurt, and really that's how things work in the International arena when it comes to large scale military intervention (it has more to do with the rest of the World population having little voice and being under dictators, rather than racism or anything like that).

The point is, we punished him. Not enough? Blame Bush Sr. and the rest of the invasion force then. The punishment was designed to benefit us, more than it was designed to punish a dictator who invaded another country.

That, of course, is not the point. If I say the GAF server is on fire, and you say its on fire and someone else heard that the server room that houses GAF might be on fire - is it safe to conclude that the server room housing GAFs server is on fire? Did all of these countries rely on the SAME source for their intel? If not, then why did they all come to the same conclusion? If they did then a more scary thought is not that US intelligence is screwed, everyone elses intelligence is just as screwed.

Some of these countries used documents from 20 years ago to support their claim. Some of them used forged evidence. That's the scary part, how easy it was to lie to the American people without any accountability or any checks or balances left to empower the people.

The scarier part is that people still think that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.