America: are we too arrogant?

[ledhed]

Yep Saddams a great fella, cant wait till he puts on the new neck tie we got him.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

 

[Pistachio]

Yep Saddams a great fella, cant wait till he puts on the new neck tie we got him.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

You do know the US supported him for the 2 most bloody decades of his rule don't you? Giving him weapons, blocking UN efforts to stop him and such.
Including his war against Iran, resulting in 1 million dead.
And gassing of the Kurds which Bush keeps bringing up, taking into account close friend Turkey is killing Kurds in a genocidal war right now.

Saddam will pay for his crimes (rightly so), so should the US and British officials that got him where he is and supported his crimes.



EDIT: I know i've mentioned this a million times but people seem to forget, Israel, Americas best friend, has violated 75+ resolutions. So why is 16 resolutions such a big deal all of a sudden?

 

[ledhed]

Here's the resolution that counts in the US;
Union Calendar No. 451

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

[Report No. 107-721] To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 2, 2002

Mr. HASTERT (for himself and Mr. Gephardt) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

October 7, 2002

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the part printed in italic]

[Strike out the preamble and insert the part printed in italic]

[For text and preamble of introduced joint resolution, see copy of joint resolution as introduced on October 2, 2002]

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

In your dreams YOU may believe the US supported Saddam in the way you describe...nightmares maybe, but still how can you expect anyone else to believe it ?

 

[Pistachio]

Here's the resolution that counts in the US;


In your dreams YOU may believe the US supported Saddam in the way you describe...nightmares maybe, but still how can you expect anyone else to believe it ?

Everyone else KNOWS it, outside the US, UK and Aus that is. Support for this war can't even reach 10% outside those 3 countries. Besides as i said before I WAS THERE. There is extensive evidence as well, it takes a mere google of "US support for Saddam" to turn up a zillion pages about it:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
http://www.sundayherald.com/42648
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

You can continue to deny it for no good reason, but the rest of the world aren't stupid, don't think the whole world is against this war because they are stupid or they don't understand what America is all about. The world is against it because they know about what the US has done, and what it will do and indeed what it is doing.


EDIT: and oh by the way, what your politicians decide on domesticly has no effect on international law, merely passing a law in the legislative arm of government doesn't make it legal to break International Law.
Maybe you don't have a law degree, so here is how it works:

Constitutional Law
International Law
Commonwealth/National Law
State Law

The ones above over rule the ones below, see how international is above national law? If they want justification they need to prove it under Article 51 of the UN charter, or under the constitution, which they haven't and can't.

 

[ledhed]

So sue me. They can have Saddam back...lawyers...
better yet if the war is illegal ..show me the UN resolution saying that the US is or has acted Illegaly in Iraq. show me a security council resolution condeming the war in Iraq..The US made its case for the war with the UN, i showed the reasons in the resolution by congress above..if you read it you see what they used to justify..under international law the war declaration. So how about some UN resolutions .? I showed you mine...

 

[Solid Fro]

Iraqi Links to Terrorism Conclusions

Conclusion 90. The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that Saddam Hussein was most likely to use his own intelligence service operatives to conduct attacks was reasonable, and turned out to be accurate.

Conclusion 91. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) assessment that Iraq had maintained ties to several secular Palestinian terrorist groups and with the Mujahidin e-Khalq was supported by the intelligence. The CIA was also reasonable in judging that Iraq appeared to have been reaching out to more effctive terrorist groups, such as Hizballah and Hamas, and might have intended to employ such surrogates in the event of war.

Conclusion 92. The Central Intelligence Agency's examination of contacts, training, safehaven and operational cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-Al-Qaida relationship was a reasonable and objective approach to the question.

Conclusion 93. The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely sever instances of contracts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.

Conclusion 94. The Central Intelligence Agency reasonbly and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support for Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical nad biological weapons.

Conclusion 95. The CIA's assessment of safehaven - that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control - was reasonable.

Conclusion 96. The CIA's assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise.

Conclusion 97. The CIA's judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might emplow terrorists with a global reach - al-Qaida - to conduct terrorist attacks in the even of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to emplow al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/

Sorry for any spelling errors. I had to copy this from a PDF.

 

[ledhed]

Show me some resolutions claiming the US is in Iraq fighting an illegal war...

 

[Pistachio]

Show me some resolutions claiming the US is in Iraq fighting an illegal war...

Do you know what a resolution is? You don't make a resolution saying that something is illegal. Legality is already expressed in Charters, Treaties and Agreements. Resolutions merely call for an action to be taken.

Besides i already gave you many links showing that the war is an illegal one, go back read them then if your not satisfied maybe i will go all the way to the UN web site and dig up the UN charter for you and its relevant articles.

 

[Pistachio]

Viper Zero, i don't see what threat Iraq poses, even Israeli intelligence officals dismissed the notion that Iraq had any real power to cause harm to even to nations close by let alone the US. Condeleeza Rice said "if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration." Even Iraqs neighbours expressed there deep disagreement with the US and it's views of the supposed Iraqi threat. Long time enemies Iran thought the idea was ludicrous.

Read Conclusions 96 and 97

97 sais : "if sufficiently desperate" perhaps being taken to war would bring about desperation?


The United States i remind you is the only country on earth to be convicted by the World Court of international terrorism for their war against Nicaragua.
Let us not forget that the US is the leading terrorist organization on earth, using force "for political, ideological or religous purposes" on many occasions. Inluding every crime i have mentioned, every time they have overthrown a government (i've already listed, i forgot to list they overthrew the elected government of Syria).

For the US to charge Saddam with any crime is irony in it's most extreme form as it has commited far worse crimes than Saddam, and even when Saddam commited his crimes the US was giving whole hearted support. Bring Saddam to justice then you must also bring the American and British officials who are also guilty, or else the trial of Saddam means nothing.


EDIT: And just to see who everyone thinks is the greatest threat to world peace.
http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html

 

[Solid Fro]

According to Pistachio, every war was illegal.

I checked out this Chomsky guy. He's a cranky old professor at MIT. He doesn't seem very interesting, as his views aren't anything I haven't heard before.

Do you think these Iraqi children think the war was 'illegal'. What if the US had listened to a couple of socialist countries that were secretly making a profit off of these children and never liberated these young soccer players?

 

[Pistachio]

According to Pistachio, every war was illegal.

I checked out this Chomsky guy. He's a cranky old professor at MIT. He doesn't seem very interesting, as his views aren't anything I haven't heard before.

It is the view of the majority of the world, no it isn't new, but his logic and research skills are brilliant.

Robert Fisk is another great intellectual worth checking out.

Do you think these Iraqi children think the war was 'illegal'. What if the US had listened to a couple of socialist countries that were secretly making a profit off of these children and never liberated these young soccer players?

This is sickening, you think a picture of a bunch of children is rock hard evidence of Iraqi support for the war? Do you think these kids have a huge understanding of whats going on? The war was and is unpopular in Iraq. The resistance movement to the US occupation is a popular one. The majority of Iraqi's blame the US in part for Saddams atrocities, and rightly so.

No one is making more profit from this then the US, i would like to see where this claim of "socialist countries that were secretly making a profit of these kids" comes from also.

 

[Solid Fro]

Even Iraqs neighbours expressed there deep disagreement with the US and it's views of the supposed Iraqi threat.

Well, duh. You're surprised that Iran and Syria are biased towards anything America does?

97 sais : "if sufficiently desperate" perhaps being taken to war would bring about desperation?

Doesn't matter. We need to rid terrorists permanently.

Looks like Pistachio is an Anti-American right down to his core. He'll throw out anything that will make America look like the great satan of the world. Sounds a little like Osama.

 

[Solid Fro]

No one is making more profit from this then the US, i would like to see where this claim of "socialist countries that were secretly making a profit of these kids" comes from also.

Secret oil contracts with France, Germany, and Russia.

Scandals with the UN's Oil for Food program. Almost all the companies profiting from this were European.

 

[Pistachio]

Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and even client states Israel and Kuwait.

Let it be known that Israel, Kuwait and Iran are long time enemies of Iraq.

Doesn't matter. We need to rid terrorists permanently.

Looks like Pistachio is an Anti-American right down to his core. He'll throw out anything that will make America look like the great satan of the world. Sounds a little like Osama.

Yeah man refute for me any instance i mentioned above of US commiting crimes. Any of the governments they overthrew, justify.

 

[Pistachio]

Secret oil contracts with France, Germany, and Russia.

How are France and Russia socialists?

I've already known about their reasons for vetoe, protecting there oil interests. They were no secrets though. I don't apreciate why they vetoed, it should have been vetoed on it's own merits, not to protect their wealth.

You know who has ALL the contracts for Iraqi oil now? Yeah go figure.

 

[Solid Fro]

And that's the only reason why the vetoed, to save their precious oil, not because the war was 'illegal'.

Iraq's government has the oil contracts.


http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040709-111232-6323r.htm

 

[Pistachio]

Iraq's government has the oil contracts.


http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040709-111232-6323r.htm

LOL that link sais the contracts are being bidded on. What point are you trying to make?

"The Irish firm Petrel has bid on all three contracts, but bigger oil companies including Royal Dutch/Shell and British Petroleum, haven't put in bids because the deals are so small and because of Iraq's ongoing security problems, sources told the BBC."

Ontop of that it sais it's only "small contracts". The larger ones having already been given to US buisnesses.

http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/061504.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0325-11.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2004/0128oilprofit.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,805530,00.html

Iraqis being in charge of their own resources? What would be the point of the war if that were the case?

 

[Pistachio]

And that's the only reason why the vetoed, to save their precious oil, not because the war was 'illegal'.

Well if they didn't vetoe it would be legal, and if they did it would be illegal. So your above statement is illogical.


Obviously they care very little about Iraq, Putkin himself is using the "War On Terror" and the Iraq War as a opportunity to run a campaign of terror through Chechnya (with US support of course).

 

[Solid Fro]

No, they vetoed because they wanted their oil. They did not veto because they thought it was 'illegal'.

I don't see the problem with American companies getting bigger oil contracts. We buy oil, Iraq gets the profits to rebuild. American companies are willing to pay up the most money for the bigger contracts.

 

[Pistachio]

No, they vetoed because they wanted their oil. They did not veto because they thought it was 'illegal'.

And what did i say?

I don't see the problem with American companies getting bigger oil contracts. We buy oil, Iraq gets the profits to rebuild. American companies are willing to pay up the most money for the bigger contracts.

The problem is, the Americans are getting these contracts on a no-bid basis. On top of that it leaves the governing of Iraq little say on what to do with the oil. The oil becomes privately owned. Suppose the Iraqi people want to make the oil state owned?

And the US companies arent "willing to pay up the most money" they are winning on a no-bid basis. If you read the links i gave you would know that.

 

[Solid Fro]

Why do I keep fighting with an Anti-American, not one thing I say will change his polluted mind?

 

[Pistachio]

Why do I keep fighting with an Anti-American, not one thing I say will change his polluted mind?

Every time someone dares to critisize US foreign policy it must mean they are anti-american.

 

[vladimir]

viper and ledhead,

you say that the US declared war on iraq because iraq violated the resolution 1441, but at the same time you say the US does not have to care about the UN charter but can start a war legally whenever the US wants to.

conclusion: the war has nothing to do with the UN, because if you cared about the UN you would not have violated the charter yourself. and that means that the war is illegal.
that is the typical american arrogance.


and don't tell me i was anti-american, because i like america, americans, american cars etc. i just don't like your government and people like you.

you may think you are a patriot, but you are not. a patriot cares for his country, he wants it to go in the right direction morally, legally and economically and a patriot MUST criticize his government when it is going in the wrong direction.
but you think you are a patriot because you follow your president blindly.

 

[Arwin]

Two points I would like to raise here.

First of all, the war against Iraq has cost the U.S. an enormous amount of money that they can never ever hope to earn back by any profits they can gain from it. In total, the costs could end up being as much as 300 billion U.S. dollars or more, and create a deficit that comes close to the times of Reagan. So don't go claiming the U.S. benefitted greatly from the war against Iraq.

If, on the other hand, you were to say that specific parties in the U.S. greatly benefit from the war against Iraq, such as the Military industry and the Oil companies, you would be a lot closer to the truth. But in general, the number of Wars in the world in history that actually brought profit to more than just a small number of powerful people, is very, very close to zero. In this case, the situation is very, very clear.

The other point is that you're talking about genocide against the Kurds in Turkey. While it is absolutely true that Turkey isn't particularly friendly to the Kurds, and do everything they can to prevent a Kurd state to be formed in the North of Iraq (the major reason why they didn't want to allow the U.S. to bring troops into Iraq over Turkey), they also really, really want to become a member of the European Union. For this reason, large scale repression and warfare has been slowing down considerably, as the EU is watching Turkey's every move in this respect. Turkey knows there are enough (mostly Christian) parties in the EU who don't want Turkey into the EU in the firstplace, and so they are a lot more careful now. They have even desisted from condemning the greatest leader of the Kurds to death, something they would have done in a heartbeat some 10 years ago. So the situation you are talking about here may have been true during the first Gulf war, but for the second it doesn't quite.

I do however agree with you that the Bush' administrations support of Israel's suppression of the Palestinians under the pretext that everything is allowed as long as it is with the intention to prevent a terrorist threat is obscene. I would feel a lot better if I knew that there was even one American on this board who appreciates the situation the Palestines are in. They must exist, because under Clinton there seemed to be many.

And Ledhed, the U.N. was raised to prevent any future world-war from happening. It's statutes state clearly, under the act already mentioned, that a country is allowed to defend itself by going to war under very specific circumstances only. Compare if you will the U.S. Constitution and the rulings of the U.S. supreme court. The Constitution holds unless the Supreme Court makes a specific ruling that states otherwise. So in the U.N., a resolution is required to take action.

That is not to say that I hold this to be the ultimate truth. Say that indisputable evidence would have surfaced that Iraq did pose a serious threat, or Iraq would not have cooperated with the U.N. for a much longer time, and the U.N. would nevertheless never come to agree to a resolution to attack Iraq. Under such circumstances, the U.N. would fail - in my eyes anyway - and a non-U.N. coalition attacking Iraq would be understandeable. Not doing something isn't always right, as I remember very well that one of the reasons Hitler did so well in WWII initially is because some European countries looked away and refused to react properly to his first invasion of another country, giving him far too much time to develop himself.

However, in this case I believe the U.S. should have waited a little longer and thought it through a little better - you can do a lot of very useful things with the money spent on this war, and the damage to the U.S. public relations may have very well caused more incentive to attack the U.S. than this war has prevented.

Although I'm not sure many other countries would have done better, I very much believe the U.S. interests have not been protected by this war (except, again, those of two major industries).

 

[Pistachio]

First of all, the war against Iraq has cost the U.S. an enormous amount of money that they can never ever hope to earn back by any profits they can gain from it. In total, the costs could end up being as much as 300 billion U.S. dollars or more, and create a deficit that comes close to the times of Reagan. So don't go claiming the U.S. benefitted greatly from the war against Iraq.

If, on the other hand, you were to say that specific parties in the U.S. greatly benefit from the war against Iraq, such as the Military industry and the Oil companies, you would be a lot closer to the truth. But in general, the number of Wars in the world in history that actually brought profit to more than just a small number of powerful people, is very, very close to zero. In this case, the situation is very, very clear.

The profit is substantial. Of course i meant to US buisness interests.
All money spent on the Iraqi War is headed towards US buisnesses. Money spent on military and logistics boost what is called "high-tech industry". Aid money is spent on re-building Iraq with the purpose of flowing into American "won" contracts, benefiting those buisnesses greatly.
Pretty much all of the 300billion dollars is flowing to US buisnesses, what we get is the equivelant of a US subsidy into US buisness. Hitler pushed a similar economic plan to pull Germany out of depression, using massive state expenditure.

And that isn't even taking into account they have the contracts for the country second largest oil reserves on earth. As time passes we will see the importance of these resources increasing exponentialy.

The other point is that you're talking about genocide against the Kurds in Turkey. While it is absolutely true that Turkey isn't particularly friendly to the Kurds, and do everything they can to prevent a Kurd state to be formed in the North of Iraq (the major reason why they didn't want to allow the U.S. to bring troops into Iraq over Turkey), they also really, really want to become a member of the European Union. For this reason, large scale repression and warfare has been slowing down considerably, as the EU is watching Turkey's every move in this respect. Turkey knows there are enough (mostly Christian) parties in the EU who don't want Turkey into the EU in the firstplace, and so they are a lot more careful now. They have even desisted from condemning the greatest leader of the Kurds to death, something they would have done in a heartbeat some 10 years ago. So the situation you are talking about here may have been true during the first Gulf war, but for the second it doesn't quite.

Weather or not the problem is increasing or decreasing the crime is still there, and it is far from dissapearing, and the US refuses to recognise that there is or ever was an issue.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan1/8-2-04-opinion-naqishbendi-powell-tky.html
Not the most objective of sources but it serves it's purpose (to show there is still a huge problem)

They must exist, because under Clinton there seemed to be many.

I find little difference in the policies of republicans vs democrats. While Clinton would verbaly chastice the Israeli government for their actions and Bush would rather not, the fact remains neither would cut Israeli funding or apply any pressure. Both would gladly vetoe resolutions attempting to bring about stability for the two nations such as all the following which were vetoed by the US :

2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.

1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.

1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.

1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied
territories.

 

[TheCracker]

Why do I keep fighting with an Anti-American, not one thing I say will change his polluted mind?

Viper Zero - this statement makes you sound like crack-pot extremist - and answers the question in the title with a resounding - YES - as do all your other posts for that matter. So just accept defeat - you are starting to look stupid.

I see no evidence of anti-american sentiment, only people like myself who think the American Govenment, and the large coporations who run it, always have hidden agenders behind all their military movements out side the US.

I love America, i've visited it on many occasions, and am planning on buying property over there quite soon. The people are the friendliest i've met anywhere in the world. I just wish they were better informed about foriegn affairs, although this isn't really your fault since your baiased media is owned by only a handful of people who all have their own political agenders.

 

[ledhed]

here's the case for the US complying with the UN resolutions;
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'
Now YOU say its not neccessary for a UN security council resolution saying the war in Iraq is unjust. And I suggest YOU read the UN charter and also all of the resolutions reguarding Iraq fropm 1990 to date , I have , many times. I have posted a link in fact in this thread if you care to use it . Its VERY much neccessary for a UN security council resolution for any action to be taken by the UN to do anything at all about a war. you should look it up, its never too late to learn something new.
And Cracker dude if you can't see evidence of anti American bias you must have been on the OJ jury, or you are blind , or both.

 

[Arwin]

Now YOU say its not neccessary for a UN security council resolution saying the war in Iraq is unjust. And I suggest YOU read the UN charter and also all of the resolutions reguarding Iraq fropm 1990 to date , I have , many times. I have posted a link in fact in this thread if you care to use it . Its VERY much neccessary for a UN security council resolution for any action to be taken by the UN to do anything at all about a war. you should look it up, its never too late to learn something new.

I believe you are mistaking some stuff here. The U.N. would need a resolution to actively intervene and prevent the U.S. from attacking Iraq, in other words engaging in a war against the U.S. (and it's allies of course), because it acts as an agressor. But it is in the 'Constitution' of the U.N. that a U.N. country must not engage in war under conditions other than, for instance, mentioned under 51.

What U.S. Congress has said has nothing to do with this - it is merely required by U.S. law that they agree to go to war, and they have mentioned the U.N. resolutions as a reason to justify their decision to support the campaign.

 

[Pistachio]

International law is comprised of Charters, Agreements and Treaties.
These are signed and accepted.

A resolution is required for action to be taken. When you want to tell everyone to observe international law you need a resolution (1986 Resolution calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law - Vetoed by the USA). When you want to end apartheid a resolution is required (1984 Resolution for International action to eliminate apartheid - Vetoed by the USA). Or you want to condemn something such as a shooting (1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier - Vetoed by the USA). Or if you want to set up an Internationaly Recognised court (2001 To set up the International Criminal Court. - Vetoed by the USA).

The most prominant Charter that defines International Law is the UN Charter.

Article 24 states : 'a State may not use force and is bound to seek peaceful means to resolve disputes'

There are exemptions though, Article 51 : "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

But there is also Articles 39-50 which outline the role of the Security Council in determining how best to solve conflicts.


I hope we are educated now, Ledhed whether the legislative arm of the US gets together and permits the war under US domestic law, it has no effect on whether or not it is a breech of international law. Whats more, it is arguable that it is even legal under US domestic laws as it is quite broadly seen as a breech of the US constitution, and as you should know the constitution is far more important that legislation.

 

[TheCracker]

And Cracker dude if you can't see evidence of anti American bias you must have been on the OJ jury, or you are blind , or both.

There is a vast, vast difference between anti-american 'govenment' comment, and anti-american comment. I've not seen anything said about your nation as a whole.

Ohh, and OJ was framed