Nothing the US did in Iraq could ever constitute a war crime

[elder999]

i think it IS that simple, just because they cant pull their thumbs out NOW, doesnt change the fact that we had the authority to do it based on the documents from 1992

What you're missing is that is clearly not a fact that we had that authority-it's ambiguous at best. Resolution 1441 says something to the effect of "serious consequences" for violations of the other resolutions, but nothing specific about the use of force-as other resolutions, such as those for Kuwait, Haiti and Bosnia specified.

 

[Twin Fist]

IF the 1992 hostilities were stopped by a cease fire, and the iraqi's violated that cease fire (these are all facts mind you, not up for dispute) then the cease fire is over, and hostilities can start all up again.

thats the thing so many people miss

it was never "over"

it was put on a conditional hold

they violated those conditions

 

[elder999]

IF the 1992 hostilities were stopped by a cease fire, and the iraqi's violated that cease fire (these are all facts mind you, not up for dispute) then the cease fire is over, and hostilities can start all up again.

thats the thing so many people miss

it was never "over"

it was put on a conditional hold

they violated those conditions

In principle, you might be correct. Legally, however, many argue that the cease-fire isn't over until the U.N. approves yet another resolution saying as much. Even though the U.S. did the bulk of the work back then, it was done under the auspices of the U.N., and the cease-fire and conditions for compliance from Iraq, were all written by and approved by the U.N., and it was the U.N. that signed them, not the U.S. Not missing anything, and I can't tell you how much I agree with what you're saying, in principle. Since we're talking facts, though, we have to recognize that all those things: the cease-fire, conditions for compliance from Iraq, restriction of weapons and trade, were all conditions set by the U.N., and set out in U.N. resolutions. As much as we'd like to think that the "cease-fire" was with the U.S., it actually was with the U.N.

 

[Scott T]

IF the 1992 hostilities were stopped by a cease fire, and the iraqi's violated that cease fire (these are all facts mind you, not up for dispute) then the cease fire is over, and hostilities can start all up again.

thats the thing so many people miss

it was never "over"

it was put on a conditional hold

they violated those conditions

Are you going to use the same reasoning to defend North Korea's coming attack of the South when it happens, or does that line of logic only work for the supposed 'good guys'?

 

[Twin Fist]

the south koreans have not violated the cease fire.

see? part of being the 'good guys" is that generally? they follow the rules.............

 

[Scott T]

the south koreans have not violated the cease fire.

see? part of being the 'good guys" is that generally? they follow the rules.............

LMAO!

Really? Were the 'good-guys' following the rules when the pointy-gun was authorized to invade Iraq?

If so, whose rules. The ceasefire was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations. Was it the UN that authorized the violation of that cease-fire by the US and it's 'friends'?

 

[JDenver]

Haliburton and JP Morgan also had their mitts in Iraq during the sanction period. Companies from every country in the world had their fingers in Iraq during the sanction period.

Now that Iraq is a mess and needs significant rebuilding, companies from which country are benefitting?

If it's fair to say that France, Germany and Russia opposed the war because they foresaw intense loss of profit, then it's equally fair to say that the war began because American companies foresaw intense future profit.

By the by, if America makes $1 Billion annually selling arms to a country that has violated dozens of UN resolutions, would this be considered a similar transgression? Cause they do......to Israel.

 

[Twin Fist]

Was it the UN that authorized the violation of that cease-fire by the US and it's 'friends'?

The US didnt violate the cease fire with Iraq

Iraq shot at the planes that patrolled the no fly zone on an almost daily basis

that violates it

they refused weapons inspectors

that violates it

you should study your history and current events harder, you are quite un-informed

 

[Twin Fist]

then it's equally fair to say that the war began because American companies foresaw intense future profit.

equally un-informed

things are not equal, not everyone is the same

some people or countries are the bad guys in some situations

and casting Israel as bad guys? thats just..................i cant say what it is. TOS here prohitits me

 

[Scott T]

The US didnt violate the cease fire with Iraq

Iraq shot at the planes that patrolled the no fly zone on an almost daily basis

that violates it

they refused weapons inspectors

that violates it

you should study your history and current events harder, you are quite un-informed

Actually, you are quite hypocritical. The terms of the ceasefire (and this has been said before) were under the auspices of the United Nations, not the United States. When the United States invaded Iraq, it also violated the UN-authored ceasefire. Despite Washington's misplaced arrogant belief, the US does not have the right to act unilaterally on behalf of the UN.

 

[Twin Fist]

While I am sure you like to tell yourself that, for whatever reason, it doesnt however make it true.

 

[JDenver]

Iraq shot at the planes that patrolled the no fly zone on an almost daily basis

that violates it

Did you know that, throughout the 1990's, American planes constantly crossed into Iraqi airspace? Did you know that they also ran sorties and bombed specific Iraqi targets?

they refused weapons inspectors

that violates it

Only if you believe George Bush. If you believe the actual weapons inspectors, Iraq didn't refuse their presence.

you should study your history and current events harder, you are quite un-informed

See above--------

 

[Twin Fist]

Did you know that, throughout the 1990's, American planes constantly crossed into Iraqi airspace? Did you know that they also ran sorties and bombed specific Iraqi targets?

i suppose you can cite that american planes flew, UNPROVOKED into Iraqi airspace while NOT on no fly zone cap patrol?

 

[JDenver]

THE GUARDIAN (2000)--

"The Royal Air Force, together with the US, bombs Iraq almost every day. Since December 1998, the Ministry of Defence has admitted dropping 780 tonnes of bombs on a country with which Britain is not at war. During the same period, the United States has conducted 24,000 combat missions over southern Iraq alone, mostly in populated areas."

Gotta run to work, but you get the idea. I actually thought this was common knowledge because I used to see it everywhere. Of course, that was in the early 2000's, before the second war.

Claiming that Iraq needed to be invaded because it was shooting down planes becomes an interesting statement when put up against this one.

 

[Tez3]

There's a big enquiry here coming up about the Iraq war, it's supposed to be in secret but there's pressure (help put the pressure on, see below) on Gordon Brown to testify in public, thats where we may find out exactly what lies were told and what other shenanigans went on...or course we may not!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/generals-go-to-war-over-iraq-inquiry-1706908.html

Brits sign here! (before Wednesday)

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/IraqInquiry

 

[Big Don]

Claiming that Iraq needed to be invaded because it was shooting down planes becomes an interesting statement when put up against this one.

IIRC, they didn't manage to shoot down any. The mere act of shooting AT them was cause.

 

[JDenver]

IIRC, they didn't manage to shoot down any. The mere act of shooting AT them was cause.

You missed reading WHY Iraq was shooting at American planes, which I posted a little earlier. Both the US and Britain spent the better part of 8 years bombing the hell out of Iraq, all while trying to keep it very secret.

 

[Twin Fist]

no link, no way to refute it, no thanks.