Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » United States using chemical weapons in Iraq?
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181233 is a reply to message #181214] |
Sat, 03 December 2005 10:20   |
 |
glyde51
Messages: 1827
Registered: August 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| PhantomScope wrote on Sat, 03 December 2005 06:32 |
Ok Glyde, Tell me that this is [http://digilander.libero.it/ak47web/AKS-74U..A%5B1%5D.jpg] Now, remove the clip, Also keep in mind that most middle eastern civilians and insurgents alike wear rather baggy robings. You now have a concealed automatic weapon that can be locked and loaded in under 15 seconds. Get shit through that thick skull of yours that Concealing a weapon can be relatively easy. And it's true the AK-47 is widely use but I highly doubt they are restricted to just that. that link was an assault carbine weighted at most likely 5-7 pounds, not much. Ammunition clips can be pouched on a belt under said garments unnoticed. I know people who can hide 16 inch knifes and still move naturally in public. Also keep in mind a little think called suicide bombing, those are just walking shrapnal and they also try to get them infected with AIDS to assure death.
And like I goddamn said, I don't advocate the killing of civilians but in war it's likely to happen, also tell me this, what good is a home if your dead? I know they don't have much but come now, if someone invades your home town are you going to
A:Pick up a weapon and defend your home [Technically making you an insurgent if you fire upon Genevia Convention confined groups.]
B: Stay in your home at the risk of becoming collateral damage and casualty
or C: Leave the bulk of your possesions, take what you need and return once things get better. Remember, items can be replaced and walls repaired but losing family or limbs for possesions is just foolish
Oh and for your information I'm against killing civilians, but I'm also a firm beleiver in darwinism. Your acting aweful childish, people die in wars, it's what happens. Should we try to reduce casualties? Yes. Is it completely unavoidable? No.
Unless you experience this crap yourself first hand I wouldn't talk shit All you know is what media has told you you dillusional little fuck. Start getting your own opinion and learn something for christs sake.
|
Now you're just DEFENDING the killing of civilians by accident, and possibly encouraging, since anyone can be a big scary insurgent.
As I said before, they are in a poor country. This isn't your all holy America where you can find a bank that will likely give you money to live off of, or you have your magical Mastercard. All your possessions and stuff at that place is what you have. You can't just suddenly go OMGWTFBBQ RUN AWAY WAR IS HERE! If all your money, family, friends, everything is in that one city, then how can you just get up and say "lol, bibi2u."
Acting childish is defending something that is obviously wrong. You still have failed to critize your own country for it's mistakes, haven't you? What about Mk-77?
I, as a "dillusional little fuck," have developed my own opinions. You, as a "mentally challenged jackass," are nothing more than an advocate for war, the most extreme option for accomplishing anything.
No. Seriously. No.
[Updated on: Sat, 03 December 2005 10:20] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181253 is a reply to message #181211] |
Sat, 03 December 2005 13:08 |
 |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Sat, 03 December 2005 04:23 |
9/11 would have happened regardless. Perhaps not when it did, and perhaps not in the form it did, but a 9/11-type attack would have happened. But yes, the involvement in the Middle East did not help that.
|
I mentioned 9/11 since when asked "After all this time, why attack Saddam now?", the answer people usually give is along the lines of: "9/11 changed the world and threats like Saddam can't be tolerated any more." So, I'm really just saying if 9/11 happened differently and/or at a later time, we likely wouldn't be in Iraq right at this moment.
| Javaxcx wrote on Sat, 03 December 2005 10:03 |
The big problem here is that this is simply not accurate, but the general public takes it as truth. We went through this argument ages ago, and it was concretely proven that while American soldiers did act in the Kuwait campaign, they were working under U.N. orders and as such (and affirmed by the UN itself) ought to be considered a UN army; acting under UN law and its periferals. This is especially important, seeing how America's army wasn't the only one IN Kuwait.
That being said, the Gulf War I was not between America and Iraq, it was between The United Nations (United States, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, France, The Netherlands, Egypt, Syria, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Canada, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Honduras, Italy, Niger, Romania, South Korea) and Iraq. This goes further to say that a cease-fire was never made between America and Iraq, it was made between the UN and Iraq. Thus, *only* the UN has juristiction to nullify the cease-fire in the event Iraq does; not the members acting independently of both UN rulings and universally ratified international law.
|
I must be forgetting that argument. Can you point me to a link? I'd like to read it. Seriously, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I would like to read over it.
That said, the UN doesn't say in its resolutions that it is at war with Iraq. UN Resolution 687, the "ceasefire" resolution, says:
| Resolution 687 |
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);
|
The ceasefire is between Iraq on one side and Kuwait and its allies on the other side. The US was the controlling power of those allies. When the first President Bush ordered a ceasefire, the shooting stopped because the US was in charge. Actually now that I think about it, that resolution could be taken to mean there were three sides in the conflict: Iraq, Kuwait, and the Coalition.
Since it mentions resolution 678, I'll bring up the part that "authorized" the Coalition:
| Resolution 678 |
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
|
I think it is clear that the UN considered this a conflict between Iraq and Kuwait's allies, not between Iraq and the UN. It mentions the Member States cooperating with Kuwait, not all the Member States of the UN. If Iraq was at war with the UN, all the members of the UN would be in a state of war with Iraq. I don't think this was the case.
The US was the leader of Kuwait's allies. Saddam violated the ceasefire, in part, by shooting at the US repeatedly. I don't see why the UN is the one who had to declare the ceasefire breached if it's own resolution declares the UN was not involved in the war. The principle parties involved were Iraq, Kuwait, and the US (as leader of the Coalition).
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181257 is a reply to message #179455] |
Sat, 03 December 2005 13:29 |
PhantomScope
Messages: 8
Registered: September 2005
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I never said It was OK to kill Civilians dipshit, I was just making a point that it will happen. Also consider the fact that many people have rebuilt what was lost. There are various organizations that gather funds to help families who lost everything to get back on their feet. But As I said if your stupid enough to stick around in the wrong places then shit to you. There are people stupid enough to stick around but there are rules and measure taken to keep them out of the line of fire, but again I stress that getting caught in or near a fire fight will likely get you killed. Think about the main tactics that are used in wars to soften hard targets. Explosives, Artillery or a massive spray of bullets. Again, Darwinism, natural selection. Besides I doubt starving in your home is better than living in a red cross or other humanitarian aid refugee camp.
I also criticize my own nation enough without explaining myself to you, I fucking hate bush, he's a total dumbass and I know 6th graders who likely have a bigger library of terms than he will ever have. Bush was a jackass who was basically pampered but was a failure at life, but also had the political and financial backing of his family and family friends. By all means I hate him but Your damn right I'm going to support the troops that have to make the sacrifices, not the blood stained hands of white collars. I also hate the other Bush because he could have ended this over a decade ago, but didn't, we had Saddam surrounded, but left him, which was a big mistake because immasculating someone in that region is a big ass slap to the face of their beliefs. [Such as any Japanese who was capture was dishonored because of their belief in the warriors spirit.-ww2 Era but valid as comparison]
Asfor munitions such as the mk77 Keep in mind that these are soldiers and they take commands, so they do exactly as ordered unless they see a better method which most suggest before the plan is set in motion, and they are more dedicated to helping out their own guys. As a firebomb I'll say it is too extreme a method but keep in mind that nearly all weapons can be inhumane. I don't think the thing should be used but in the most dire of situations for combat support.
So I do support my armed forces, but I don't approve of my current government head. I have my own quarrels about my country that have nothing to do with this subject, so I'm staying on subject. You can keep your opinion of my country as you like, it's fine with me, just make sure you put your blame on the right people, not just stereotype of the nation because of the main shit you see on the teli. You can even judge me if you want just make sure you have the right list of names, unlike the washed down intelligence of the CIA.
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181270 is a reply to message #179455] |
Sat, 03 December 2005 15:24 |
|
glyde51
Messages: 1827
Registered: August 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
As I said, they have nothing, and before, they didn't have anything. This is completly new to them, and people like you can only think about what we give them because you can see a large part of the picture, but they see a small part of the picture in greater detail. They aren't "starving" either.
There was a point in the Kuwait wars where the Iraqi civilians tried to escape, they went on the same highway as the Iraqi military. The US, being the all great humanitarian people they are, fired on the RETREATING Iraqi military AND civilians, killing both. Way2go.
Supporting the troops is important, but you need to get your military under control because what they're doing is unacceptable.
Of course, whenever I say "US" or the likes, I'm not saying "lol u al sux," I'm saying in general, like the military in general, the administration in general, etc.
No. Seriously. No.
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181278 is a reply to message #179455] |
Sat, 03 December 2005 15:51 |
PhantomScope
Messages: 8
Registered: September 2005
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
And like I said, mistakes are made, they wanted to completely dismantle the Iraqi army in the gulf war. Those civilians were just at the right place at the wrong time. But your wrong as that region is always in times of comflict, war is not new to them. not to say all of them have participated but there are just too many conflicts over there to say they have no idea of whats going on. The military is under control just under some who is out of control, I personally compair Bush to a Hitler that has yet to commit his holocost in his own country.[My country and any other US resident.] Either way we here need to deal with an idiot for 2 more years unless he is assassinated, in which case it's still bad because Cheney takes over so the puppet master happens to get authority anyway. Either way, this war in my opinion has been pointless as it's like looking for a needle in a heystack accept the needle happens to prick you and recede. Hunting down "terrorists" is like trying to eliminate racism in my opinion, it can't be done unless you can get everyone to believe on religion which is also near impossible.
All in all the "chemicals" use are not defined as chemical weapons but incedidary devices. The one issue is that some people choose to stay at the wrong times weather they are militiants or not won't be possible to confirm as the common practice is they carry off the dead outside of cities and urban practicies have yet to be confirmed as knowledge of their tactics are limited at best. So lets try to leave this in a good note
Killing civilians is wrong and globally is atleast attempted to avoid it, but it can't always be prevented and it's typically misinformation or accidental. Some of the weapons used should not be used but are as a result of arms issued and orders givin to use them. And last but not least, idiots in power with shadowy figures pulling the strings results in bad leadership and bad wraps.
I'm not sure of the accuracy of this site but at the least it could be in the area of give or take http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/mar2004/tni-1yr0318042.htm l Of coarse this is the UN and not the US so at least it shows cooperation is still present
[Updated on: Sat, 03 December 2005 16:05] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181279 is a reply to message #179455] |
Sat, 03 December 2005 16:00 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
The ceasefire is between Iraq on one side and Kuwait and its allies on the other side. The US was the controlling power of those allies. When the first President Bush ordered a ceasefire, the shooting stopped because the US was in charge. Actually now that I think about it, that resolution could be taken to mean there were three sides in the conflict: Iraq, Kuwait, and the Coalition.
|
Notice that the Resolution says "Member States". Meaning that at that point in time they were being represented as the UN members involved in the war, and not the individual countries themselves. This is why, ultimately, the UN has/had the controlling factor in what to do with Iraq, and not the individual countries.
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181288 is a reply to message #181278] |
Sat, 03 December 2005 17:26 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| About Us |
Keeping the Public in Touch
DefendAmerica, an official Defense Department website, was launched just weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to keep the public informed about efforts by the United States and its coalition partners to combat global terrorism.
The site offers the latest news, photographs, transcripts and other information about the U.S.-led war on terrorism. It highlights the words and activities of key U.S. , Defense Department and coalition officials related to terrorism.
But DefendAmerica also offers something not so readily available in the mainstream media: daily news reports and photographs by U.S. military photojournalists on the frontlines as well as in supporting units.
The site reports on the roles all branches of the military play in the war on terror: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard, those on active duty as well as in the National Guard and Reserve. It covers contributions by coalition partners who have joined the United States in the war on terror. And DefendAmerica highlights a critical but often overlooked partner in the terror war: the American public that stands by to support the troops as they take a stand against the forces of terrorism.
|
Seems credible enough to me.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
[Updated on: Sat, 03 December 2005 17:27] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181291 is a reply to message #179455] |
Sat, 03 December 2005 17:54 |
|
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Sat, 03 December 2005 18:00 |
Notice that the Resolution says "Member States". Meaning that at that point in time they were being represented as the UN members involved in the war, and not the individual countries themselves. This is why, ultimately, the UN has/had the controlling factor in what to do with Iraq, and not the individual countries.
|
It doesn't just say Member States. It says Member States cooperating with Kuwait. That part of the resolution is referring to the countries that were involved in the conflict that also happened to be members of the UN as well. It would have said "all states", or "all member states" if the UN itself was party to the conflict. There are points in the resolution where the phrase "all States" is used. For example:
| Resolution 687 |
24. Decides that, in accordance with resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent related resolutions and until a further decision is taken by the Security Council, all States shall continue to prevent the sale or supply, or the promotion or facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq by their nationals, or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft
|
(Note: I snipped out the specifics of what sales were outlawed)
Here the UN agreed all countries have to comply with an embargo on Iraq. Even though it says "all states" had to comply with this, it never says "all states" were involved in the hostilities. The UN itself probably isn't even a part of this provision, as it is not a state unto itself. As I quoted before, at the end of the resolution it says Iraq, Kuwait, and Kuwait's allies are the parties of the conflict.
In the original "use of force" authorization it had this to say about all other states:
| Resolution 678 |
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
|
The UN made a request that everyone support the countries who were authorized to attack Iraq. This is separate though from the actual use of force by those involved countries. Paragraph 2 would have authorized all members to use force, or the UN itself to use force, if the UN was a party to the conflict. All the authorization really did was say that Kuwait's allies were free from UN obligations as of a certain date. The UN never authorized itself to attack Iraq, it agreed that using force was justified. The resolution essentially says the UN "washed its hands of the situation" and let the involved parties do what they wanted to.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181296 is a reply to message #179455] |
Sat, 03 December 2005 19:54 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
It doesn't just say Member States. It says Member States cooperating with Kuwait. That part of the resolution is referring to the countries that were involved in the conflict that also happened to be members of the UN as well.
|
That's exactly what I said.... not once did I say "all states", had I implied that, I would have placed "All" in front of "Member States".
"Appropriate support" does not mean "do as you wish, whenever you wish, however you wish".
Paragraph 2 only states that "unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements the resolutions regarding it" that they can use all necessary means to ensure it. That date has come and gone, and Iraq had, at that time implemented what they had to (without checking, I believe it refers to the dismantling of its WMD's). If those conditions were met, then the paragraph 2 that you refer to does not possess any strength. They were met.
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181302 is a reply to message #179455] |
Sat, 03 December 2005 20:31 |
|
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I think we're getting a little mixed up here. The date that resolution referred to was for the first Gulf War. Iraq had to withdraw from Kuwait to comply with that deadline as far as I'm aware. I was going to mention something about the UN's declaration that Iraq breached the ceasefire for the first Gulf War, but I cut it out, since I figured it wasn't really part of the discussion yet...
I took your reference to "Member States" to mean that the UN was in charge because members of the UN were involved in the war. I'm saying that the UN organization itself wasn't involved in the war at all, regardless if some of its members participated in the conflict. The resolutions make distinctions between the UN itself and the countries that participated in the fighting. The ceasefire applied to the combatants, which the UN itself is not listed to be among. The UN took on some responsibilities as part of the ceasefire, but that didn't make it the authority on it.
The way I read it is that "All States" is basically a reference to the UN body as a whole, whereas "Member States" are countries that although are part of the UN, are not acting on its behalf. Iraq was a member state too, but it certainly wasn't acting on behalf of the UN.
A judge has to settle a dispute between two parties. When he does, that doesn't make him a part of the dispute, just the arbiter of it. The UN played a similar role in the first Gulf War. That didn't make them the victorious side of the conflict, just a mediator of it. That left the ceasefire agreement between Iraq, Kuwait and the US. The UN wasn't part of it. Although they agreed to supervise some parts, that doesn't give them the authority to nullify the ceasefire.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181340 is a reply to message #179455] |
Sun, 04 December 2005 09:59 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Ah, I see. THat's where the mix up was.
You're partially correct then. I did mean that the UN is in charge, as the governing body of the resolution at least, however, the only parties affected by the resolution were those who took part in the war.
In short the Resolution was between the UN Member States involved in the war (with the UN as the body that governs them), Iraq, and Kuwait. It was a UN resolution, and only the UN has the power to say when it has been broken.
You compared the UN to judges, and that is an adequate comparison. However, your inference of what the UN did (as judges( was a little off. The UN did settle the dispute, by setting out a Resolution (or, to keep the comparison the same, a judgment). A judgment can be effected by the winning side, but it can not be acted on by the winning side if the benefiting party feels that the other side is not abiding by the judgment. If a dispute arises out of one side not abidign by the terms of the judgment, the party that wishes to act on that must first return to someone for instructions. In the legal system, this would simply be a lawyer/collcetion agecy. With UN Resolutions, the only place to go is back to the UN for assistance with enforcing the judgment/resolution.
A Judge can only make the ruling/mediation. But the individuals do not have any authority in dealing with someone who does not adhere to the ruling without involving the system that gave said ruling.
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181349 is a reply to message #179455] |
Sun, 04 December 2005 11:56 |
|
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I use the judge analogy a little loosely though, since a judge can turn to the executive branch of the government to enforce a judgment, and the UN doesn't really have a force to turn to that enforces its resolutions. Enforcement is basically left to the involved parties.
Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right in that the ceasefire resolution was ultimately under the authority of the UN. The UN later passed resolution 1441, part of which stated:
| Resolution 1441 |
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
|
The UN did declare Iraq to have breached the ceasefire agreement (resolution 687). So Saddam breached UN resolutions by invading and occupying Kuwait, and then he breached them again in violating the ceasefire agreement. The UN declared both these things, which leaves Saddam at fault for the current situation. The only way the US would be at fault is if the UN passed a resolution declaring the US in breach of the ceasefire for invading Iraq in response to Saddam's breach of the ceasefire. I'm unaware of such a resolution being passed, or even if such a resolution is possible. Wouldn't a resolution like that require the approval of the five permanent members of the security council (America, Britain, China, France and Russia)? If that's the case, the five permanent members are essentially "above the law" when it comes to UN resolutions. 
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181364 is a reply to message #179455] |
Sun, 04 December 2005 14:37 |
|
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Iraq was still in breach though, even if the UN was going to let it slide one last time. The origin of our disagreement here is who was at fault for the present situation, Saddam or America. The UN only said Iraq had breached the resolutions, even if given one last chance. The US was never declared in breach as far as I'm aware. So technically/legally the US is not at fault for what happened, since the UN has yet to pass a resolution declaring the US at fault for breaching paragraph 2 of resolution 1441.
To the letter of the law then, Iraq was declared in breach of several resolutions and the US wasn't. Therefore, Saddam is at fault and not the US. That could change if the UN ever passes a resolution saying the US breached 1441 (by taking away Iraq's "Final Chance"), or 687 (by firing on Iraqi forces), or whatever, but so far it hasn't. Officially/technically/legally Saddam is at fault. The US didn't breach any resolution if the UN doesn't say it did.
That may be using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law, but the "spirit" was lost long before when Iraq started firing on US forces repeatedly for years. Hard to call it a ceasefire when the sides weren't ceasing to fire, regardless of who fired first.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 02 22:46:25 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01259 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
