By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 01 April 2011
Rath said:

I agree that in the end Iraq is going to end up a better place than it was before the war, there is no denying that Saddam was a tyrant who had comitted terrible crimes against humanity. However if war can be waged purely to remove a tyrant, I don't think Saddam would be top of the list and they should have said that was their intention before they did it.

The evidence of any WMD program was slim to none at the time of the war and none surfaced during the war, the intelligence saying there was was either a pretense for war or a complete and utter cock up - I'm not sure which. However the intelligence community undeniably should have known that the program had ended. There is no denying that Saddam once had WMDs and a WMD program, however this seems to have ended long before the war began.

There is no evidence that Al-Qaeda was established in Iraq before the war, Saddam's Baath party was strictly secular and he would have seen Al-Qaeda as an affront to his power.

 

Also can you link me to the part of the Geneva convention that gives the right to revoke the sovereignity of a nation?

They actually have specifically stated which.

An Iraqi German source specifically lied about it to get US Invasion.

http://www.bioprepwatch.com/news/237094-curveball-speaks-out

and

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41609536/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

 

In November 1999, as Alwan attempted to travel to England, he was picked up by police in Germany where he began his story. He told German intelligence officers that he had been a director at a biological weapons site outside of Baghdad called Djerf al Nadaf, which Iraqis claimed was a seed purification plant.

The Germans hid Alwan in a hotel in the town of Erlangen. He was then given his code name and interrogated extensively throughout the year 2000. Reports of the interrogations were sent to U.S. intelligence.

“When you look at the written reports, and there about 100 of them, you get a sense of someone who is there, it’s convincing,” Charles Duelfer, a leader of U.N. inspections during the 1990s said, according to CBS News. “The CIA would have been at fault to not take it very seriously.”

 

AND

 

"Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," he told the Guardian. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."



Around the Network
Rath on 01 April 2011
dib8rman said:
Rath said:

I agree that in the end Iraq is going to end up a better place than it was before the war, there is no denying that Saddam was a tyrant who had comitted terrible crimes against humanity. However if war can be waged purely to remove a tyrant, I don't think Saddam would be top of the list and they should have said that was their intention before they did it.

The evidence of any WMD program was slim to none at the time of the war and none surfaced during the war, the intelligence saying there was was either a pretense for war or a complete and utter cock up - I'm not sure which. However the intelligence community undeniably should have known that the program had ended. There is no denying that Saddam once had WMDs and a WMD program, however this seems to have ended long before the war began.

There is no evidence that Al-Qaeda was established in Iraq before the war, Saddam's Baath party was strictly secular and he would have seen Al-Qaeda as an affront to his power.

 

Also can you link me to the part of the Geneva convention that gives the right to revoke the sovereignity of a nation?

In reverse:

Do your own research? I could point at a few good sources but I wouldn't be sure if you could find them quite as plainly as I've laid them out. Those are the four reasons though, note that only genocide on it's own gives the authority for invasion the others require diplomacy first, which is why I keep saying the Libya-America conflict is either illegal or has innocently skipped a step. I would think you could just Google Geneva convention or international law in regards to invasion, I’ve never taken the time to use the web to search for something I already knew.

The Ba'th party was secular, but their weapons suppliers were based in Sudan and are known as a section or were (we eliminated them) known as the Mesopotamian Al Qaeda branch. If you've read through Bin Laden's grievances you'd see secular Saddam or not he just wanted to west to die which is what Saddam wanted as well.

Either way it is well reported that Iraq got it's chemical weapons from Sudanese production facilities since 1998 or at least had proof of it since then after various chemicals were found in soil samples covertly collected.

I'll make it clearer then: If Bush had sent US soldiers into Afghanistan without attacking Saddam first he risked Saddam using a chemical weapon on US soldiers  while on a campaign to kill his WMD supplier.

Now this is just how it is, take it or leave it. This is the reason for saying that WMD's were there it was always an unspoken truth that if he had WMD's he would not waste time to use them on US soldiers again.

I rather enjoy a better safe than sorry approach.

I've already listed 3 ways that have nothing to do with saving baby seals for reasons to invade Iraq.

As for Korea what happened there can never be compared to any other War the US was in and I would agree with you if you said the administration then needs to be hung for their crimes.

I would do my own research but to be honest there is quite a lot of text in the conventions and I do not plan on reading them all just to find those specific points. All I'm asking for is which chapter of which convention (and if possible which articles of that chapter) are relevant to the points of revoking sovereignity?

I'd also like to ask for a link about the Sudan Al Qaeda? The link between Al Qaeda and Saddam seems to have been entirely discredited.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html

And Osama Bin Laden said of Saddam;

"the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is fucking his mother."


@Kasz. Civilian supporters of the rebels were also expected to be targeted.



dib8rman on 01 April 2011
Rath said:
dib8rman said:
Rath said:

I agree that in the end Iraq is going to end up a better place than it was before the war, there is no denying that Saddam was a tyrant who had comitted terrible crimes against humanity. However if war can be waged purely to remove a tyrant, I don't think Saddam would be top of the list and they should have said that was their intention before they did it.

The evidence of any WMD program was slim to none at the time of the war and none surfaced during the war, the intelligence saying there was was either a pretense for war or a complete and utter cock up - I'm not sure which. However the intelligence community undeniably should have known that the program had ended. There is no denying that Saddam once had WMDs and a WMD program, however this seems to have ended long before the war began.

There is no evidence that Al-Qaeda was established in Iraq before the war, Saddam's Baath party was strictly secular and he would have seen Al-Qaeda as an affront to his power.

 

Also can you link me to the part of the Geneva convention that gives the right to revoke the sovereignity of a nation?

In reverse:

Do your own research? I could point at a few good sources but I wouldn't be sure if you could find them quite as plainly as I've laid them out. Those are the four reasons though, note that only genocide on it's own gives the authority for invasion the others require diplomacy first, which is why I keep saying the Libya-America conflict is either illegal or has innocently skipped a step. I would think you could just Google Geneva convention or international law in regards to invasion, I’ve never taken the time to use the web to search for something I already knew.

The Ba'th party was secular, but their weapons suppliers were based in Sudan and are known as a section or were (we eliminated them) known as the Mesopotamian Al Qaeda branch. If you've read through Bin Laden's grievances you'd see secular Saddam or not he just wanted to west to die which is what Saddam wanted as well.

Either way it is well reported that Iraq got it's chemical weapons from Sudanese production facilities since 1998 or at least had proof of it since then after various chemicals were found in soil samples covertly collected.

I'll make it clearer then: If Bush had sent US soldiers into Afghanistan without attacking Saddam first he risked Saddam using a chemical weapon on US soldiers  while on a campaign to kill his WMD supplier.

Now this is just how it is, take it or leave it. This is the reason for saying that WMD's were there it was always an unspoken truth that if he had WMD's he would not waste time to use them on US soldiers again.

I rather enjoy a better safe than sorry approach.

I've already listed 3 ways that have nothing to do with saving baby seals for reasons to invade Iraq.

As for Korea what happened there can never be compared to any other War the US was in and I would agree with you if you said the administration then needs to be hung for their crimes.

I would do my own research but to be honest there is quite a lot of text in the conventions and I do not plan on reading them all just to find those specific points. All I'm asking for is which chapter of which convention (and if possible which articles of that chapter) are relevant to the points of revoking sovereignity?

I'd also like to ask for a link about the Sudan Al Qaeda? The link between Al Qaeda and Saddam seems to have been entirely discredited.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html

And Osama Bin Laden said of Saddam;

"the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is fucking his mother."


@Kasz. Civilian supporters of the rebels were also expected to be targeted.


It's not a Sudan Al Qaeda it is or was a group of production facilities essentially factories that were funded by the Messopotamic Al Qaeda branch. The reasoning under Clinton was the soil samples contained nerve gas which is not natural forming.  This wasn't an effort by the way to find the sources of Saddams WMD's, this was found out by tracking Bin Ladens investments, it just so happens the chemicals were the same he was using on his own people and that Bin Ladens money went to the development of them.

As for the article I noticed the journalist used the words "no direct" two words that say too much while saying so little.

The article starts by saying there was an indirect connection and I'm saying that, that indirect connection helped with the deaths of quite a few Iraqis.

The facts have to be set in list form:

1. There were WMD's being made in Sudan

2. They were identical to the ones used in the past by Saddam

3. The money used to develop these WMD's came in part from Al Qaeda

4. The Messopotamian branch of Al Qaeda is also funded by Bin Laden whom the government in 1998 was tracking.

I'm really tired so I'll continue tommorow.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

Kasz216 on 01 April 2011
Rath said:
dib8rman said:
Rath said:

I agree that in the end Iraq is going to end up a better place than it was before the war, there is no denying that Saddam was a tyrant who had comitted terrible crimes against humanity. However if war can be waged purely to remove a tyrant, I don't think Saddam would be top of the list and they should have said that was their intention before they did it.

The evidence of any WMD program was slim to none at the time of the war and none surfaced during the war, the intelligence saying there was was either a pretense for war or a complete and utter cock up - I'm not sure which. However the intelligence community undeniably should have known that the program had ended. There is no denying that Saddam once had WMDs and a WMD program, however this seems to have ended long before the war began.

There is no evidence that Al-Qaeda was established in Iraq before the war, Saddam's Baath party was strictly secular and he would have seen Al-Qaeda as an affront to his power.

 

Also can you link me to the part of the Geneva convention that gives the right to revoke the sovereignity of a nation?

In reverse:

Do your own research? I could point at a few good sources but I wouldn't be sure if you could find them quite as plainly as I've laid them out. Those are the four reasons though, note that only genocide on it's own gives the authority for invasion the others require diplomacy first, which is why I keep saying the Libya-America conflict is either illegal or has innocently skipped a step. I would think you could just Google Geneva convention or international law in regards to invasion, I’ve never taken the time to use the web to search for something I already knew.

The Ba'th party was secular, but their weapons suppliers were based in Sudan and are known as a section or were (we eliminated them) known as the Mesopotamian Al Qaeda branch. If you've read through Bin Laden's grievances you'd see secular Saddam or not he just wanted to west to die which is what Saddam wanted as well.

Either way it is well reported that Iraq got it's chemical weapons from Sudanese production facilities since 1998 or at least had proof of it since then after various chemicals were found in soil samples covertly collected.

I'll make it clearer then: If Bush had sent US soldiers into Afghanistan without attacking Saddam first he risked Saddam using a chemical weapon on US soldiers  while on a campaign to kill his WMD supplier.

Now this is just how it is, take it or leave it. This is the reason for saying that WMD's were there it was always an unspoken truth that if he had WMD's he would not waste time to use them on US soldiers again.

I rather enjoy a better safe than sorry approach.

I've already listed 3 ways that have nothing to do with saving baby seals for reasons to invade Iraq.

As for Korea what happened there can never be compared to any other War the US was in and I would agree with you if you said the administration then needs to be hung for their crimes.

I would do my own research but to be honest there is quite a lot of text in the conventions and I do not plan on reading them all just to find those specific points. All I'm asking for is which chapter of which convention (and if possible which articles of that chapter) are relevant to the points of revoking sovereignity?

I'd also like to ask for a link about the Sudan Al Qaeda? The link between Al Qaeda and Saddam seems to have been entirely discredited.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html

And Osama Bin Laden said of Saddam;

"the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is fucking his mother."


@Kasz. Civilian supporters of the rebels were also expected to be targeted.

Different from vietnam... how?



Rath on 01 April 2011

@Dib8r. The journalist is writing about a report from the US dept of defence. If you read through the article you will see quotes from the CIA pretty much disagreeing with your points, weapons being sold by Al Qaeda to Iraq would be direct links. I'd like it if you could please post a few links as sources as well for your claims about WMDs being made in Sudan with funding from Al Qaeda being the same as those used by Saddam if possible? I've had a search but so far haven't come up with any.

 

Also can I please have the reference for the Geneve Convention thing? I'm genuinely interested in this because it'd be quite radical for there to be a clause revoking sovereignity - it's the one thing that nations are generally most protective of.

 

@Kasz. There was no imminent expected massacre of civilians in Vietnam as far as I know?



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 01 April 2011
Rath said:

@Dib8r. The journalist is writing about a report from the US dept of defence. If you read through the article you will see quotes from the CIA pretty much disagreeing with your points, weapons being sold by Al Qaeda to Iraq would be direct links. I'd like it if you could please post a few links as sources as well for your claims about WMDs being made in Sudan with funding from Al Qaeda being the same as those used by Saddam if possible? I've had a search but so far haven't come up with any.


Also can I please have the reference for the Geneve Convention thing? I'm genuinely interested in this because it'd be quite radical for there to be a clause revoking sovereignity - it's the one thing that nations are generally most protective of.

There isn't in the Geneva convention.

Well, there sorta is, but it's very vague to say the least.

Theoretically when you sign the Geneva convention you are agreeing to give up some soverignty from the onset.  While technicially countries themselves are supposed to hand over those who have caused "grave breeches" if they don't they other nations basically can revoke soverignty go in and facilitate compliance since grave breeches are given universal jurisiction.


It's less really in the Geneva convention though, then it is a modern interpretation of the Geneva convention.

Without it things like the ICT for Rwanda would of never happened.

 

Overall, i'd say you were right, and in general the international community greatly overreaches on this kinda stuff.  Though for reasons I can understand... since as it is, the UN and Geneva convention would be nothing but optional guidelines anyway.

This action in Libya would be illegal under the Geneva convention according to it's guidelines.



Kasz216 on 01 April 2011
Rath said:

@Dib8r. The journalist is writing about a report from the US dept of defence. If you read through the article you will see quotes from the CIA pretty much disagreeing with your points, weapons being sold by Al Qaeda to Iraq would be direct links. I'd like it if you could please post a few links as sources as well for your claims about WMDs being made in Sudan with funding from Al Qaeda being the same as those used by Saddam if possible? I've had a search but so far haven't come up with any.

 

Also can I please have the reference for the Geneve Convention thing? I'm genuinely interested in this because it'd be quite radical for there to be a clause revoking sovereignity - it's the one thing that nations are generally most protective of.


@Kasz. There was no imminent expected massacre of civilians in Vietnam as far as I know?

Ho Chi Minh was known for slaying poltical opponents and those who supported them in large numbers.   It's  reason lots of people fled North Vietnam, including to south vietnam.

How long do you think those that had fled North Vietnam to South Vietnam?



mai on 01 April 2011

Photo Collage: Staged War (just for fun)

1. Brave fighter for Libyan democracy, pan ataman Gratian of Taurida, I mean... of Benghazi, of course))


2. Look what I've got! Charismatic person, you can't deny that. I like him.


3. Two dead bodies and this guy again, holding Degtyaryov machine gun. Wow, a rarity! Did he rob a military museum or what?


4. Yet another rarity, P-15 Termit ASM. If they'd have got smth like P-500, Gaddafi might have a good chance attacking coalition forces on sea.


5. Norinco Co.! Chinese weaponry, probably copy of Igla or Strela-2 MPADS.


6. Journalist foxhounds are hunting.


7. Photosession))


8. Soviet 125mm HE ammo with unrecognised markings on them (East European?). BTW insurgent managed to break at least two safety rules. I won't recommend to stay near him.


9. Yet another alternatively talented person. Note how he's holding an AKM.


10. Staged photo. An insurgent hiding with RPK-74, while other people calmly mind their own business near him on the road.


11. Yet another staged photo, and a brilliant idiot. He's holding MPADS (with broken handle btw) upside-down like an RPG, probably saw a really low flying aim))


12. Oh, great Shaitan-tube, punish those loathsome gaddafists!


13. An acrobatic action with machine gun, a-la air-defence. Clowns! Needless to say - staged photo.


14. Suprise! FN FAL, and a new one, where did he get it? I wasn't aware that Libya purchased NATO weapons as of recently. After all it was UNSC which raised an embargo due to US and UK requests that was cancelled only in 2004.


15. Yet another FN FAL!


16. FN FAL, again!


17. And again!


18. More NATO weapons - FN MAG. Again absolutely new item. Where did they get all these?


19. Military instructor of suspiciously not libyan apperance?


20. The guy is wearing NATO kevlar helmet and I can't recongise the pistol for sure. Probably of NATO origin as well.


21. Mercenary from 'friendly' Arab World (Qatar, Saudi)? See, he's pointing where those two should deploy 106mm ammo for NATO M40 recoilless rifle. The box is absolutely new, look at zinc hinges.


22. Duh, M40 recoiless rifle.


23. African mercenary?


24. A bunch of insurgents pretend they're fighting Gaddafi, note cameraman on the hill.


25. Firing SSMs god knows where. But who cares?


26. SSM was just fired.


27. Somebody has spread the rumour that loyalists forces are coming!


28. Panic!


29. Run, Forest, run!


30. Photosession is over. Immediate evacuation.

P.S.: The text is not mine. In all fairness, FN FALs are in service in Libya, the author was wrong. Other than that - nice photos.



pizzahut451 on 01 April 2011

Doesnt Gadafi have the full right to fight against the rebels that are a huge treat to his military and his government? Not to mention his supporters. Arent the actions against the government in violent ways treated like terrorism?



pizzahut451 on 01 April 2011

EPIC POST mai btw LOL