War on Terror

[Ranger68]

The meaning of self defense is sufficently vague enough to cover what the US has done - in fact it was suffucient enough to cover the Soviet invasion of Afganistan.(not that anyone believed them) If you really think that any half ass lawyer could convict them, why hasn't anyone tried.

As for what the US is claiming - It's not that they would eventually have it's the fact that did have and retained the knowledge. The US is claiming that it's pre emptive action was to stop Iraq from spreading that info to terror groups unfriendly to the US. Try to keep up will ya.


bbk

No way. No way can this remotely be construed as self-defence, in any legal terms. This would be akin to saying that, if you think a person has gone out and bought a gun, and you think they're planning on using it on you, you're justified in taking them out first.
No chance. Sorry.

Again, what WMD are we talking about? You failed to answer a simple question. I mean, what specific weapons technology would they have disseminated to these terrorists?

 

[danmand]

Sorry, even as half of the US believes the war on IRAQ was in self defence, the rest of the world patently disagrees. Nobody is in a position do do anything about it now, but it will surely be remembered a long time by the emerging powers.

Was the Iraqi navy going to land troops on Long Island, or was the Iraqi air force going to send its long range bombers?

 

[Ranger68]

You would think you where right, but you just described the Bush doctrine and there is very little that can be done to change the legal aspect of the US claim of self defense. Like I said it so vague as to the meaning - do you really believe when they where setting up these rules that Nations would not have left themselves some breathing room if not your very naive. No you can't argue this war as being illegal.

And to point out one last flaw in your argument - you are trying to apply civil law to geo-political situtations. I really wish it was that simple, but it isn't and never will be.


bbk

Yes, I did illustrate the Bush doctrine, and it is certainly illegal. What can be done about it? One would hope the US would realize, sooner rather than later, that there's a good reason why these laws were put in place, why these treaties were signed. They were signed to apply to RELATIONS BETWEEN NATIONS, or as you put it, geo-political situations. They were signed to avoid another World War. This isn't "civil law" we're talking about. You really NEED to do some reading on the topic before you begin arguing about it.

This war is illegal. Tell me in what universe it isn't, and how.

The US isn't claiming self-defence. As far as I know, they haven't come forward with any defense at all. They know it's illegal. They've just said "screw you, we're doing what we want". If you'd like, I can provide quotes.

 

[Ranger68]

I'm still waiting for details on what specific WMDs we're talking about.
Of course, so's the rest of the world.

LOL

 

[langeweile]

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

http://www.hnn.us/articles/1242.html

 

[assoholic]

..Iraq was no threat to anyone, the chemical weapons he gasssed the Kurds with was supplied by the US and Britain.

 

[Ranger68]

Wow. Somehow I'm advocating "the return of Sadaam and his ways".
LOL
As for your pitiful WMD, these *chemical* weapons have practically NO value to a terrorist.
Try again.

Oh, but now we have a question! How could the US solve "the Iraq issue" without going to war?

First, you tell me what issue? 'Cause I have NO idea what the big deal with Iraq was. I know what the US *said* it was, but none of it makes any sense.

You tell me what the issue was, then I'll tell you how they could have solved it.

If you don't respond, I'll just assume that, like the US, you have nothing and, like escohort, just buy into the "might makes right" argument. I hope that works for ya.

 

[Ranger68]

Okay, langeweile. Nerve gas. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that's what you're talking about - that's the title of the first link, even though they're talking about simple CHEMICAL agents, not nerve gas proper. It leads me to believe that these guys who wrote this have no idea what they're talking about.)

Tell me, has nerve has ever been used in a terrorist attack? How many people were killed?
How many people would have been killed by a decent-sized nail bomb, or just a regular explosive (like that used in Madrid)?
Now, tell me how valuable nerve gas is to a terrorist.
(Ignore the fact that THEY CAN ALREADY MAKE IT.)

 

[Peeping Tom]

bbking, the war was fully in accordance with American law. A bill was passed in 1998 detailing the need to remove the Sultan.

The "illegal war" BS thrown about by the left can be dismissed in three words:

Says who exactly?

Since there is no World Sovereign to say exactly, Bush acted responsibly as Executive and obeyed the law, thus removing the Sultan.

You would think you where right, but you just described the Bush doctrine and there is very little that can be done to change the legal aspect of the US claim of self defense. Like I said it so vague as to the meaning - do you really believe when they where setting up these rules that Nations would not have left themselves some breathing room if not your very naive. No you can't argue this war as being illegal.

And to point out one last flaw in your argument - you are trying to apply civil law to geo-political situtations. I really wish it was that simple, but it isn't and never will be.

 

[langeweile]

..Iraq was no threat to anyone, the chemical weapons he gasssed the Kurds with was supplied by the US and Britain.

And that makes it ok to use?
The buildup to the war has given Iraq enough time to move their weapons and facilities out of the country. Look in Syria or Iran.
Unless you wanna make me believe that the whole worlds intelligence was wrong about Iraq having chemical weapons?

 

[langeweile]

Wow. Somehow I'm advocating "the return of Sadaam and his ways".
LOL
As for your pitiful WMD, these *chemical* weapons have practically NO value to a terrorist.
Try again.

Oh, but now we have a question! How could the US solve "the Iraq issue" without going to war?

First, you tell me what issue? 'Cause I have NO idea what the big deal with Iraq was. I know what the US *said* it was, but none of it makes any sense.

You tell me what the issue was, then I'll tell you how they could have solved it.

If you don't respond, I'll just assume that, like the US, you have nothing and, like escohort, just buy into the "might makes right" argument. I hope that works for ya.

For anyone to believe that Saddam has not harbored and finaced terrorists is just plain blue eyed.
It took the world how long to prosecute the last nazi? Just give the wolrd HALF that time to get to the bottom of this. That is all I am asking for.
Y'all jump to conclusions to quick, without having all the facts.

 

[assoholic]

..it means the US and Britain share in the responsibility.

 

[langeweile]

Okay, langeweile. Nerve gas. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that's what you're talking about - that's the title of the first link, even though they're talking about simple CHEMICAL agents, not nerve gas proper. It leads me to believe that these guys who wrote this have no idea what they're talking about.)

Tell me, has nerve has ever been used in a terrorist attack? How many people were killed?
How many people would have been killed by a decent-sized nail bomb, or just a regular explosive (like that used in Madrid)?
Now, tell me how valuable nerve gas is to a terrorist.
(Ignore the fact that THEY CAN ALREADY MAKE IT.)

Japan subway attacks

 

[langeweile]

..it means the US and Britain share in the responsibility.

Oh that argument is so weak. That means that evry weapon sold by any country makes the country responsible for it's use?

 

[*d*]

Well this is exactly what I meant by a book learned socialist. You think the average Iraqi was better off under the rule of Sadaam and his family - Interesting, how many people did Sadaam kill off settling scores with ethic tribes, how many Iraqis died in the two major wars he caused directly. Now you say that pressure form the west could have been applied relentlessly - at what cost? How many people do you think died under UN sanctions because the Hussien family stole all the incoming aid.

No your way will kill far more Iraqi's than what this US lead invasion has done and you think this was the humane way to go? In your words NOT !!!




bbk

LOL. All insults and no reference to facts. That's very typical of you. First off it's well known that Saddam was no saint. Many people died under his regime. No question there. But for anyone to think Iraq is better off now than if Saddam's rule was allowed to continue is sadly mistaken. In 2002 under sanctions the rate of acute malnutrition among children under age 5 in Iraq was 4%. Today the percentage is 7.7% which is worse than Haiti. That's 400000 Iraqi children wasting away from chronic diarrhoea --TODAY. 60% of rural residents have access to only contaminted water. 20% of urban residents are still drinking contaminted water. A percentage that has hardly improved since sanctions ended. Plus its been estimated that over 50000 Iraqi civilians have died from direct US air bombings in the last year and a half. Would this have happened if UN sanctions had ended without a US lead invasion in March '03? With aid instead of war, --I don't think so.

 

[*d*]

For anyone to believe that Saddam has not harbored and finaced terrorists is just plain blue eyed.
It took the world how long to prosecute the last nazi? Just give the wolrd HALF that time to get to the bottom of this. That is all I am asking for.
Y'all jump to conclusions to quick, without having all the facts.

But the US has already jumped to conclusions with a pre-emptive war(illegal in the eyes of Kofi Annan). How long will it take to prosecute the US? Never of course. They see themselves as exempt from international law.

 

[papasmerf]

Ah Hillery
welcome back

 

[Ranger68]

Japan subway attacks

You didn't answer any of my follow-up questions.
The answer is that not nearly as many people died as would have died had the terrorists used a very unremarkable normal explosive device. And this is in a scenario where the nerve gas is as effective as it's going to be - in a very confined space, with little or no wind, with lots and lots of people crowded together.

Nerve gases are of very little use to terrorists.

Next?

 

[papasmerf]

Nerve gases are of very little use to terrorists.

Next?

Just can't see how any device would be passed up

But I bow to your experience in the matters.

 

[Ranger68]

These terrorist groups already know how to make nerve gas. Aum Shinrikyo made the sarin in-house.
What would they need from Iraq??
(BTW, these same guys tried botulism toxin and anthrax in Tokyo - to no discernible effect.)

The only conceivable WMD, the only *real* WMD by the way, that the terrorists may be interested in would be a nuclear device.

And if you think the Iraqis were going to develop nuclear weapons, then hand them over to Islamist terrorists, I think you're badly mistaken.