Proof that Iraq is in "material breach" of UNSC resolution 687 since inception.

[rikzilla]

#1. Saddam gave haven and support to the terrorist Abu Nidal and his organization (before he had him killed recently that is) in violation of 687, paragraph 32 which imposes the obligation under international law to report suspected acts of Iraqi support for international terrorism to the UN secretary general.which also addresses Iraq's support of terrorism.

#2. Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one terrorist not captured from the first WTC bombing is currently living free in Baghdad. The only named conspirator still at large. He was one of the "blind Sheik's" nutty Islamic fundie followers....so why did he run for Iraq...and why did Saddam harbor him in full disregard of UN Security Council Resolution 687? (paragraph 32 again)

#3. Abu Mussab al Zarqawi (al Qaida senior operative) is apparently free to operate in Baghdad as well. (pesky paragraph 32 again)
the link

#4. Ramzi Yusef aka Abdul Basit, the mastermind of WTC bombing #!. Was at the time suspected of being an active Iraqi intelligence agent. Also, when finally captured in the Phillipines, found to be also associated with Abu Sayyef (terrorist group known to be linked with al Qaida)

#5. Dr. Hamza's testimony that Iraq's Mukhabarat (political secret police) are running the concealment mechanism for their ongoing proscribed nuclear program. The link

#6. On August 8, 1995 Hussein Kamil (Saddam's son-in-law) defected to Jordan. He had supervised Iraqi unconventional weapons programs. His information confirmed that Iraq had developed and possesed weaponized biological agents.

#7. Egyptian officials arrested one of the first WTC bombers where he was hiding with family in Cairo. He is Abu Halima. He told them about the involvement of two Iraqi intelligence agents who had managed to flee.

#8. UNSCOM 227 inspection (from Ritter's book Endgame) uncovered Iraqi documents detailing biological and chemical agent testing done on humans. (political prisoners)...Endgame page 180.

#9. Calutrons (magnetic isotope seperators) of the kind used in the Manhattan project were found in the process of being moved around by the Iraqis way back in 1991. (another instance of deception, and active nuclear program)

#10. Mukhabarat terrorism "school" inadvertently found by UNSCOM 150 inspection team in 1996. (not part of UNSCOM mandated mission...not WMD's...just terror/torture etc...the issue of this find was not taken up by the UNSC) page 120 "Endgame.


For those of you who continue to cry for evidence I ask you now to attempt to rebut these facts. Put up or shut up.

-z

[crackmonkey]

There are also allegations from a defector that Saddam trained Arab terrorists at the Salman Pak air base. Supposedly they had a 707 parked on a runway, and the trainees used it to practice their hijacking technique.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/khodada.html

[Doctor X]

Yeah . . . but has he done anything bad recently?

--J.D.

[demon]

Oh Yippee, we can now go off and kill a lot of innocent people because of that!

Incidently, International Law doesn`t count to you? An attack unsanctioned by the UN Security Council, or Article 51? Who is going to be in breach of those annoying little articles?

Warmongering has no limits. From the sublime to the ridiculous.

[crackmonkey]

Can you contradict any of his points?

[demon]

If I can`t, does that justify killing innocent people? Want to justify that?

[Doctor X]

Demon:

Back up just a bit. I understand you are angry. However, you have to address the points made. For, you see, one could turn around your question and note that the number of innocent people killed in recent conflicts--Gulf War I-The Motionless Picture and Afghanistan are far less than those being killed by Sadam.

Furthermore, that the UN is unwilling to enforce the "laws" they make. . . .

--J.D.

[demon]

If I can`t, does that justify killing innocent people? Want to justify that?

[AlH]

Quote:

Originally posted by demon
If I can`t, does that justify killing innocent people? Want to justify that?

Just out of curiousity, what should the US/international community do in your opinion?

[Tmy]

Everyone loves to waive the UN flag when it suites them. Sure you can find UN violations, but when the UN wants to try to work on more inspections we here "screw the UN they dont know what theyre doing."

[crackmonkey]

I hypothesize that his answer will boil down to "Nothing".

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by demon
If I can`t, does that justify killing innocent people? Want to justify that?

Innocent people are going to die, whether Saddam stays in power or he is removed. I (and many others) believe that if he is removed, far fewer innocents will die. How is this not justified?

I apply the same justification for removing the Taliban.

I continue on to the despots of Sub-Saharan Africa, by the way.

MattJ

[Tmy]

I dont buy the "free the Iraqi people" arguments. More like propaganda if you ask me.

We never cared about the Taliban. If they wouldve turned over Bin Ladin and his crew right after 911, the Taliban would be in power today.

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont buy the "free the Iraqi people" arguments. More like propaganda if you ask me.

Believe what you wish. Time will tell. Some didn't buy the "free the Poles" arguments, either.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
We never cared about the Taliban. If they wouldve turned over Bin Ladin and his crew right after 911, the Taliban would be in power today.

Most likely true, but then that would have been our failure.

[Edit to note that this thread is going off track. If you want to respond, feel free to start another thread.]

MattJ

[demon]

"Just out of curiousity, what should the US/international community do in your opinion"

Maybe stop setting them up and giving them weapons in the first place would help. Then the question of what we have to do with these terrible guys becomes moot.

Also, some of us here could do with learning a little history. We can`t start history yesterday because it is convenient for us to do so.

Anything boils down to nothing crackmonkey if left long enough. Including warmongers. Why don`t you "hypothesize" on that?

[Tmy]

Ok back to topic................who should decide what a "material breach" is? GW? the UN???

Rumor has it the next inspector report gives Saddam a "B" for co operation. Its not an "A", so is that good enough reason to pull the trigger.

[Doctor X]

demon:

Quote:

Maybe stop setting them up and giving them weapons in the first place would help. Then the question of what we have to do with these terrible guys becomes moot.

Perhaps, but that does nothing about now.

For example, it seemed rather reasonable, to me, not to go after Sadam and depose him in GW-I--of course I had thought more of his "stuff" had been destroyed, "we" would support insurrections against him, et cetera--for it would appear the US conquering a nation.

Hind sight appears "we" should have dealt with him.

Of course "hind sight" states the French should not have violated the sanctions, the Clinton administratioin should have paid better attention, et cetera.

Whomever you wish to attribute the most blame to, the fact remains Hussein is a problem now.

Do we wish to have this same argument five years from now?

--J.D.

[demon]

"Just out of curiousity, what should the US/international community do in your opinion"

Maybe stop setting them up and giving them weapons in the first place would help. Then the question of what we have to do with these terrible guys becomes moot.

Also, some of us here could do with learning a little history. We can`t start history yesterday because it is convenient for us to do so.

Anything boils down to nothing crackmonkey if left long enough. Including warmongers. Why don`t you "hypothesize" on that?

[AlH]

Quote:

Originally posted by demon
"Just out of curiousity, what should the US/international community do in your opinion"

Maybe stop setting them up and giving them weapons in the first place would help. Then the question of what we have to do with these terrible guys becomes moot.

Also, some of us here could do with learning a little history. We can`t start history yesterday because it is convenient for us to do so.

Okay, so starting today, the US, Russia, China, France, Britain, Germany, etc. will no longer export anything that is or could be used as a weapon. Good start.

Unfortunately, we cannot go back in time and change history either. So, given the situation with Iraq today, what would your solution to the problem be?

To keep this somewhat on track, I think the UN should be the body that decides if breaches have happened, the US should do what it can to help demonstrate such breaches if it will not jeopardize national security.

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by demon
Oh Yippee, we can now go off and kill a lot of innocent people because of that!

Incidently, International Law doesn`t count to you? An attack unsanctioned by the UN Security Council, or Article 51? Who is going to be in breach of those annoying little articles?

Warmongering has no limits. From the sublime to the ridiculous.

Demon,

Please stick to the facts as put forth on this thread. International law is what has been broken by Saddam. Without Saddam's removal (and the removal from power of all the al Abu Nasir tribe BTW) Iraqi civilians will continue to die under UN economic sanctions. The status quo is too cruel to fathom. The sanctions cannot continue, and Saddam's cruel regime must still be contained. How to do it?? Give us your answer so that we may discuss it.

You can call me a warmonger all you want, but whether or not I am one makes no difference. The facts that I have presented in my initial post still remain. Ad Hominum will not help your argument here.

Like I said before...(it's old tired and trite, but I can think of nothing more apt) Put up or shut up. No more whining. Refute these facts, give us an alternative solution, or go away and say no more.

-zilla

[Advocate]

If I remember correctly, Iraq's acceptance of resolution 687 was part of the terms of the ceasefire ending the Gulf War. So it would seem to me that a new UN resolution authorizing force isn't really necessary if the resolution has been violated. Now you could argue that only the UN could declare that there has been a material breach and I am not sure how that works, but if there has been one then the old resolution authorizing force ought to be in effect once again.

I don't like the thought of another war, even one where the US has as few casualties as the first one. And there are no guarantees that will be the case. However, I do not see any other means of either enforcing complaince or removing the offending regime. A decade of sanctions hasn't done the job. What makes anyone think it can be done without the renewed use of force?

I also understand that the motivations of the US government may be less than noble. I won't disagree with that. But just because there is another motive does not negate that a just purpose will also be served. This is often the case with governments. There is a real motivation and there is a just purpose that is used to justify the action. But the existence of these other reasons does not mean that good is not done. It does mean that a lot of good things fail to get done because there isn't a less altruistic reason to do them, but that is a subject for another day.

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by Advocate
If I remember correctly, Iraq's acceptance of resolution 687 was part of the terms of the ceasefire ending the Gulf War. So it would seem to me that a new UN resolution authorizing force isn't really necessary if the resolution has been violated. Now you could argue that only the UN could declare that there has been a material breach and I am not sure how that works, but if there has been one then the old resolution authorizing force ought to be in effect once again.

I don't like the thought of another war, even one where the US has as few casualties as the first one. And there are no guarantees that will be the case. However, I do not see any other means of either enforcing complaince or removing the offending regime. A decade of sanctions hasn't done the job. What makes anyone think it can be done without the renewed use of force?

I also understand that the motivations of the US government may be less than noble. I won't disagree with that. But just because there is another motive does not negate that a just purpose will also be served. This is often the case with governments. There is a real motivation and there is a just purpose that is used to justify the action. But the existence of these other reasons does not mean that good is not done. It does mean that a lot of good things fail to get done because there isn't a less altruistic reason to do them, but that is a subject for another day.

Wellcome to the forum Advocate,

I could not agree with you more. There are no ALL good governments, nor ALL bad wars. Fuzzy logic, ain't it a bitch?

Sometimes war must be waged....a war can even sometimes be the least evil choice...without war the Jews of Europe would have all gone up the chimneys of concentration camp crematoriums. I came to this subject with only the knowledge allowed me by CNN. I researched it because I wanted an informed opinion. If I was to advocate peace then I wanted to know this war was unjust, if I advocated war I needed to KNOW that what is at stake is worth the lives of our young soldiers. What I found was shocking to me. That such a situation was allowed to drag out so long in unconcionable (sp?)... One book I read said the infant mortality was about 7,000 children per year in Iraq prior to sanctions. Since sanctions started the infant mortality has been above 40,000 kids dead of malnutrition etc every year since 1991!! (Sorry, the source is one I can't remember the name of...please correct me if you have the right figures)

If any of you wish to point the finger at America and say we're evil, well there's you chance. I agree. A banal evil...an incompetent evil. Sanctions do little to hurt Saddam, but kill tens of thousands of innocents every year. If Clinton should be held accountable for anything, it should be for his immorally inept Iraq policy. Instead the repubs nail him for getting blown. (after spending 50 million $!!! A disgrace!)

So, all of you who responded...thanks...and when any of you see someone spouting off the brainless, kneejerk mantra of "no blood for oil", please link them to this thread. They will have a job trying to refute these 10 points,....I hope someone's up to it, because if I'm wrong on any of these points I'd like to know it.

The UNSC is the final arbiter of what constitutes a "material breach". But a decent lawyer could take just one of these 10 points and make a very solid case that indeed the resolution has been breached. Trouble is the UNSC has had a long track record of valiantly looking the other way unless pushed by the US. The US under Clinton did little pushing.....and lots of ineffective cruise missile lobbing. I have hope that GWB will do the job right this time. I look forward to seeing a rebuilt, modern, democratic, and sanction free Iraq be born out of this mess.

-zilla

[Ben Shniper]

I'd like to add that Saddam has repeatedly and deliberately and openly supported suicide bombings in Israel. Israel hasn't directly attacked Iraq in years. So why shouldn't Saddam support suicide bombings in America? Why wouldn't he? If Mohammed Atta's family got 25K from Saddam, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

When Iraq is allowed to use Hamas to bomb Israel without any consequences to him, why shouldn't he bomb America or Europe the same way? After all, he has no end of (illegitimate) grievances against America.

-Ben

[crackmonkey]

The thought of going to war isn't pleasant. In this situation, though, I honestly feel that allowing the status quo to continue would be far worse - both to the US and the Iraqi people.

Does anyone remember that many of the links in the chain from the terror attacks lead to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and some other nations who are now allies of the USA?

Most of the evidence is heresay from defectors and convicts hoping to get a better deal. Remember what happened the last time such evidence was used during the Bay of Pigs? Oh, by the way...many of us are still laughing about the incubator baby story that was manufactured during Gulf War one. I admire the way the Bush I and co. managed to slide that under the rug when it was proved to be hogwash.

The American government inspite of all its posturing has not provided any evidence to support its WMD accusations. Nor have they provided any evidence of links to terrorists.

Oh, I forgot, they are all Arabs, so that's evidence enough.

Everyone knows what this war is about. It is NOT about suppression of terrorism.

By they

[crackmonkey]

I suspect it will be impossible to convince some that Saddam has WMD, even if they were discovered in Baghdad. Even if inspectors stumbled across Iraqi scientists assembling a nuke, there would be cries of outrage that it was a stunt set up by the CIA.

[bangdazap]

Quote:

Originally posted by rikzilla

So, all of you who responded...thanks...and when any of you see someone spouting off the brainless, kneejerk mantra of "no blood for oil", please link them to this thread. They will have a job trying to refute these 10 points,....I hope someone's up to it, because if I'm wrong on any of these points I'd like to know it.

The US has supported and trained a lot more and worse terrorists and dictators than Iraq (Saddam being one of the dictators, Osama bin Laden one of the terrorists, among others). Who's going to bomb the US to make them stop doing these things? So think before you spout of your brainless kneejerk mantra of "war war war, no matter what", OK?

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by susheel

The American government inspite of all its posturing has not provided any evidence to support its WMD accusations. Nor have they provided any evidence of links to terrorists.

Oh, I forgot, they are all Arabs, so that's evidence enough.

Everyone knows what this war is about. It is NOT about suppression of terrorism.

By they [/b]

Susheel,

You are making unsupported assertions. Please examine the evidence as put forward in my opening post and debunk it. There are many anti-war/anti-American posters here and I have given an open invitation for ALL who have claimed there is no evidence to come here and debunk this evidence. As of now Demon and yourself have piped up and said nothing. I posted the evidence, and without addressing one iota of what I posted you have said
"The American government inspite of all its posturing has not provided any evidence to support its WMD accusations. Nor have they provided any evidence of links to terrorists."

Well, the American government may not have provided this stuff, but it's out there anyway for those of you who care to look. You are obviously one of those who like spouting slogans instead of doing research. I posted this thread to point up the fact that people such as you are talking out of their rear ends. Your post has perfectly illustrated that point!

Thank you for your participation!

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by bangdazap


The US has supported and trained a lot more and worse terrorists and dictators than Iraq (Saddam being one of the dictators, Osama bin Laden one of the terrorists, among others). Who's going to bomb the US to make them stop doing these things? So think before you spout of your brainless kneejerk mantra of "war war war, no matter what", OK?

You may feel free to call me any names you like. Ad Hominum attacks do not count very much among the more thoughtful posters here.

The fact that the US has supported bad guys in the past is immaterial to this debate. Let's give you the argument that the US is actually an evil "Great Satan"....does this "fact" in your little head have anything to do with the Iraq question? Does it address any of the points I've mentioned??

No....it doesn't.

The US is evil assertion can be debated to death on another thread, please create one at your leisure. This thread is for the debunking of the 10 points I mentioned. If you cannot do it then please post elsewhere....and remember that if/when you start chanting "no blood for oil" on some other thread here at JREF someone will come along and link you back to these 10 points. If you can't refute them, then your argument has no legs to stand on. This is not going to be a war for just oil...there's a bigger picture. Pull your head out of your bum and have a look around sometime,...the world is a complex and fascinating place.

-zilla

[Doctor X]

'Zilla:

The "but the US has trains lots and lots and lots more terrorists" remains a non sequitur not to mention wrong, as you recognize.

When George the Younger confiscates the next tax rebates to build a statue and palace for himself, I may consider him as reprehensible as Sadam. . . .

Quote:

Since sanctions started the infant mortality has been above 40,000 kids dead of malnutrition etc every year since 1991!!

You might find this all interesting from Pollack's book:

How Many Iraqis Have Died Since 1991?

Unfortunately, the answer is: we just don't know. . . . That said, there are a number of things that we do know and that are worth saying.

First, however many people have died, the numbers that the Iraqui regime is disseminating--and that many well-meaning people and even U.N. agencies are recirculating--are clearly wrong.[1] Iraq's claims are grossly contradicted by the regime's own demographic data. In 1997, the Iraqi regime conducted a census, and two years later it. . . . . . . stated that Iraq's population had increased from 16.5 million in 1987 to 22 million in 1997. Baghdad also claimed that had it not been for the U.N. sanctions, the population figure would have been 23.5 million but that 1.5 million people (1 million of them children) had died prematurely as a result of sanctions. Although this was the headline of the census, all of the other numbers in it controverted this lurid claim. The census figures indicate a population growth rate of 33 percent over ten years, a very high rate . . . by itself. If one were to add back the 1.5 million . . . (and the 500,000 who fled the country. . .), it would produce a ten-year growth rate of 45 percent--which is phenomenal and would have put Iraq among the fastest-growing populations in the world. However, Iraq was not know to be one of the fastest-growing populations in the world prior to the Gulf War. . . .

Amatzia Baram has demonstrated that the Iraqi figures themselves belie the assertions of the regime. . . . [T]he census figures show Iraqi population growth rates remaining stable over the last thirty years, and the decrease in population growth rates the regime claims was produced by the sanctions would not have been big enough to create the actual population increase had 1.5 million people already died. Thus, the census figures for population growth by themselves indicate that the Iraqi claims as to deaths from sanctions are significantly inflated. [2] To explain this discrepancy, Baghdad claims that there was a quantum leap in Iraq's birthrate in 1991-97, which not only offset the deaths but produced the growth. Interestingly, the census does not present any data to support this contention. . . . According to unofficial U.N. statistics, Iraq's birthrate continued to decline right through 1997. . . .

If the ludicrous assertions of the Iraqi regime are clearly false, it still leaves unanswered the question of how many Iraqis truly died. Unfortunately, all we have is a good guess. At present, the most comprehensive, thorough, and sensitive analysis has been conducted by Richard Garfield of Columbia University. Gardfield's research was exhaustive, and his methodology is the current gold standard. based on this work, Garfield concluded that between August 1990 and March 1998, anywhere from 106,000 to 227,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died as a rsult of the war, the intifadah [Various uprisings against Sadam which Sadam conducted punitive reprisals targeting women and children.--Ed.], and its aftermath. . . . [T]he number is probably closer to the high end . . . but . . . roughly 25 percent of those who died were killed during the Gulf War and the intifadah. [3] Since Garfield also estimates that 1,000 to 5,000 Iraqi civilians died during the Gulf War, the vast majority of the children under the age of five killed in combate were therefore probably killed in the intifadah--an estimate that squares with the numerous accounts of the brutality of Saddam's forces and their slaughter of women and children in suppressing the revolt. [4]

So the best estimate we have is that roughly 135,000 to 150,000 Iraqi children died in the first seven years after the war. . . . Regardless of whether one blames these deaths mostly on the sanctions or mostly on the regime's manipulation of and reaction to the sanctions, this is still a very heavy cost. Given that the Gulf War itself probably caused no more than 10,000 to 30,000 Iraqi military casualties and another 1,000 to 5,000 civilian casualties, it raises the question of whether full-scale combat is a more humane policy than draconian sanctions.

Pollack, KM. The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. New York: Random House, Inc., 2002, pp. 137-139.

References Cited in Book:

1. For World Health Organization, UNICEF, and the UN FAO repeating or arbitrarily modifying Iraq's made-up numbers, see Cockburn and Cockburn, Out of the Ashes, P. 137; Hiro, Neighbors, Not Friends, pp. 129, 177.

2-3. Baram, "The Effects of Iraqi Sanctions," pp. 195-198.

4. Garfield, "Executive Summary," pp. 1-2.

I have to agree that hyperbole and fallacy, though sincere, does not solve the current problem.

--J.D.

[rikzilla]

Wow, great work X!
Gotta love a guy who does his homework! Yeah, the purges of General officers after the Iran/Iraq war led to entire tribes being eliminated. Men, women, and kiddies. UNSCOM divers looking for missile parts dumped in the Tigris found many bodies of these purge victims....but it wasn't part of their mandated mission....so they had to turn an official blind eye to it.

Saddam was worried that some Generals who attained great popularity for their conduct of the war would attempt to overthrow him....so after they were no longer useful on the battlefield...and a threat at home....he had them all tortured and killed. That's how he insured the stability of his regime.

I did read about these mass killings tied to the military purges, but did not post that info here as it does not directly bear on the question of Iraqi compliance with 687. Thanks for bringing it up though...it deserves much consideration when attempting to assess the impact of sanctions on the Iraqi people, and the justness of the coming war.

-zilla

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
Everyone loves to waive the UN flag when it suites them. Sure you can find UN violations, but when the UN wants to try to work on more inspections we here "screw the UN they dont know what theyre doing."

I think this is actually 180 degrees. You have people who think that if the UN won't budge, unilateral action is okay. These people caved since the peacefascists demanded that action be done through the UN. So now you have the unilateralists saying "see, they are in breach of the UN stuff, can we get on with this already". Now the peacefascists say "even if they are is that an excuse to kill innocent people!!!!".

The peacefascists have demanded UN crap at every turn, despite the fact that original peace accord has never been complied to which means in theory that Gulf I is still going on.

Its cognitive dissonance with a sprinkle of tunnel vision.

Rik,

Quote:

You are obviously one of those who like spouting slogans instead of doing research. I posted this thread to point up the fact that people such as you are talking out of their rear ends. Your post has perfectly illustrated that point!

Thank you for the insults and ad hominems. There is no point in my providing evidence because with the internet it will be so easy and besides, your 'evidence' will always be bigger than mine. Contrary to what you may think, we in the third world do read and are able to make logical connections.

I pride myself on the fact that I don't get carried away by my own government's propaganda, so what makes you think that you can use similar propaganda to influence me?

You don't have to answer this. It is just a vent. I won't be returning to this forum because after certain things that have happened to some of my friends (yes some are Iraqis) using the Amero-centric logic that has become rampant on this forum, the attitude of many here has begun to turn my stomach.

So...So long and thanks for alll the good times.

[Jon_in_london]

What does UN resolution 687 have to do with it?

You might have posted a link u know?
http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fle...ution_687.html

"32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;"

This resolution never had any 'material breach' clause in it.

And I can think of some other countries that violate UN resolutions...................

[Doctor X]

Forgive the argumentum ad [No Latin!--Ed.] appeal to ignorance or information which readers cannot verify; however, I asked about regarding the No Fly Zones (NFZs) and international law to some involved in international law and diplomacy.

First, as one poster whom I do not recall put it, there are levels of UNSC resolutions. The UN member states can bring forth resolutions as well, of course, as the UNSC. These may not be binding in the sense it would demand compliance from member states.

Second, the UN does not create international law.

As much as any major institution, the ability of the UN to enforce a resolution depends on the ability of it to apply pressure on a member. "Legally" UNSC resolutions that specify actions such as, "get out of Kuwait or we let George the Elder squish you" require the concensus of the UNSC permanent members--no veto . . . which pretty much comprises the major nations involved.

Regarding, "could Canada decide NFZ existed over Cleveland, Ohio" questions, I was reminded a few facts:

1. The US did not invade Canada . . . recently.
2. Iraq lost a war and has failed to comply with UNSC resolutions considered "binding."
3. As one poster put it, if the UNSC found the NFZs "illegal" the members could bring forth a resolution against it. Yes, as another poster protested, the US, Britain, et cetera could veto it; however, it would serve as a demonstrable argument against them.

As the source put it, if the US invaded Canada, was pushed out by a coalition led by Monaco and Iceland, Monaco and Iceland could try to prevent further attacks against Canada by creating a "buffer zone." The NFZ do serve that purpose in Iraq. To continue the analogy, they would prevent the US from droping pro-Dixi-Chicks leaflets on citizens of Buffalo in clear violation of various human rights resolutions. . . .

Now, I can understand if the Readership speculates upon just which orifice I produced this. I asked the question

Any legality or illegality regarding the NFZs?

The source admitted it may simply be that they are not illegal because they have never been declared illegal and, more importantly from a practical standpoint, despite public posturing no one other than Iraq wants them considered illegal.

If I receive any demonstrable evidence, legal wise, I will pass it on.

However, my source noted the very practical problem of intervention, "No one protested significantly when France intervened in the Ivory Coast. France did not ask for a 'UN resolution' granting it permission."

Is the UN just a "rubber stamp" or a "paper tiger" depending upon whom you ask. The source disagreed for two reasons:

First, many small countries just cannot afford to have embassies and consolates. Having a presence in NYC allows them to have contact with diplomats from every country.

Second, it is a venue for small countries to raise points that, frankly, the "big guys" may not consider. Source cited the example of debates on how to regulate patents for, say, AIDS drugs in nations that, frankly, need them the most but cannot afford them. Not that the Big Countries [Tm.--Ed.] do not care, but, for example, Bush and Co. are not exactly innundated by lobbiests on this matter--it falls away in favor of other issues.

--J.D.

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by susheel
Rik,



Thank you for the insults and ad hominems. There is no point in my providing evidence because with the internet it will be so easy and besides, your 'evidence' will always be bigger than mine. Contrary to what you may think, we in the third world do read and are able to make logical connections.

I pride myself on the fact that I don't get carried away by my own government's propaganda, so what makes you think that you can use similar propaganda to influence me?

You don't have to answer this. It is just a vent. I won't be returning to this forum because after certain things that have happened to some of my friends (yes some are Iraqis) using the Amero-centric logic that has become rampant on this forum, the attitude of many here has begun to turn my stomach.

So...So long and thanks for alll the good times.

Thank you and good bye.

One down.....countless more to go. The work has begun, but like the WOT itself the WOS (war on stupidity) rages on....

Susheel....using the "play the victim" card...and taking your ball and going home tactic has been done to death. If you have issues with what I've said why not just address the facts in a calm rational manner? If I am "spouting propaganda" please correct me as my sources are all noted with my points.

This is a forum full of very talented and bright people. I expect someone to tear into my points in a methodical and rational manner....unless they can't. If my points are indeed true and unassailable, (which is beginning to become apparent) then I would hope to see at least a few of the anti-war people come forward and acknowledge it.

Intellectual honesty is something I personally take very seriously....if I am wrong on any point, show me and I will admit my mistake and learn from it....I only ask the same from you guys.

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
What does UN resolution 687 have to do with it?

You might have posted a link u know?
http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fle...ution_687.html

"32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;"

This resolution never had any 'material breach' clause in it.

And I can think of some other countries that violate UN resolutions...................

Sorry,...yeah I could have posted a link.

...ahhh, you are quibbling about language. "Thou shalt not kill" also has no "material breach" clause in it. But, if you were to kill... then it would in fact BE a material breach, wouldn't you say?

Most laws have no "material breach" clauses. They merely stipulate that if you break the law, law enforcement, under certain guidelines pertaining to the law you have broken, will come down on you with appropriate force.

c'mon man, you can do better than that. Besides, look at the preponderance issue....even if you succeed in refuting one point you have nine more to go.

-zilla

[Crossbow]

Nobody, except for Saddam's flunkies, actually support him.

Everyone knows that he is a brutal, paranoid, power hungry, dictator and the sooner he is dead the better.

However, the question really is should a war against the nation of Iraq be waged just to get rid of Saddam?

No. Iraq is pretty much keeping its bad behavior within its own borders due to the strong international focus that has been on it for the last several years. Therefore, since Iraq is not an immediate threat to the USA or its interests, a war against Iraq is not warrented.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Crossword:

Quote:

Nobody, except for Saddam's flunkies, actually support him.

Everyone knows that he is a brutal, paranoid, power hungry, dictator and the sooner he is dead the better.

However, the question really is should a war against the nation of Iraq be waged just to get rid of Saddam?

If he's devoid of support within Iraq, surely that would entail any war being a short with relatively few deaths and casualties?

If he's so utterly reviled by the Iraqi people, I'd wager they could well be praying for Allied military intervention. Remember all the talk about "don't declare war on the people of Afghanistan", and the rather positive reaction on the streets of Kabul in the aftermath of the Taliban's overthrow?

[c0rbin]

Rikzilla,

I agree that Saddam is a bad man and is lying to the world about his WMD programs.

But, so far, Iraq has been unable to flex any muscle.

The US is unpopular right now and cannot find the support for an attack that GW Bush has been quoted as saying needs to happen "right now."

What's the rush? Why "right now"?