The War in Iraq

[Bittersteel]

Re: The war In Iraq

but it surely a weapon of mass destruction :lol: .So guess we finally found something in Iraq.

 

[czgibson]

Re: The war In Iraq

Greetings,

Ok, let's get one thing clear, the United States did not sign the treaty against the use of Whisky Pete in combat it is not illegal for the United States to use it in battle. We do not clasify it as a chemical weapon.

Of course - the US would never sign anything that would impede its belligerent behaviour.

You can be sure that if the Iraqis had used white phosphorus as a weapon the US would be shouting "chemical weapon" loud and clear.

Peace

 

[imaad_udeen]

Re: The war In Iraq

Greetings,


Of course - the US would never sign anything that would impede its belligerent behaviour.

You can be sure that if the Iraqis had used white phosphorus as a weapon the US would be shouting "chemical weapon" loud and clear.

Peace

I don't think so, the US does not consider it a chemical weapon.

 

[ola]

Re: The war In Iraq

Only Allah (swt) can decide who is a "true Muslim" not you.

ok ok not so hard on me man

take a chill pill
well i still think theyre muslims BUT NOT PROPER MUSLIMS ok??


slmz
xx:loving: eace:

 

[czgibson]

Re: The war In Iraq

Greetings,

I don't think so, the US does not consider it a chemical weapon.

Well, oddly enough, here's a US military document that describes white phosphorus as a chemical weapon:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html

Of course, here it's not their own use of it that's in question, but Saddam Hussein's.

Peace

 

[imaad_udeen]

Re: The war In Iraq

Greetings,


Well, oddly enough, here's a US military document that describes white phosphorus as a chemical weapon:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html

Of course, here it's not their own use of it that's in question, but Saddam Hussein's.

Peace

Interesting doc there.

Here is an article from Rueters:

US defends use of white phosphorus weapons in Iraq
16 Nov 2005 21:38:46 GMT

Source: Reuters

(Adds details, paragraphs 2, 7-9, 11-13)

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON, Nov 16 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Wednesday acknowledged using incendiary white-phosphorus munitions in a 2004 offensive against insurgents in the Iraqi city of Falluja and defended their use as legal, amid concerns by arms control advocates.

Army Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said the U.S. military had not used the highly flammable weapons against civilians, contrary to an Italian state television report this month that stated the munitions were used against men, women and children in Falluja who were burned to the bone.

"We categorically deny that claim," Venable said.

"It's part of our conventional-weapons inventory and we use it like we use any other conventional weapon," added Bryan Whitman, another Pentagon spokesman.

Venable said white phosphorus weapons are not outlawed or banned by any convention.

However, a protocol to an accord on conventional weapons which took effect in 1983 forbids using incendiary weapons against civilians.

The protocol also forbids their use against military targets within concentrations of civilians, except when the targets are clearly separated from civilians and "all feasible precautions" are taken to avoid civilian casualties.

The United States is a party to the overall accord, but has not ratified the incendiary-weapons protocol or another involving blinding laser weapons.

White phosphorus munitions are primarily used by the U.S. military to make smoke screens and mark targets, but also as an incendiary weapon, the Pentagon said. They are not considered chemical weapons. The substance ignites easily in air at temperatures of about 86 degrees F (30 C), and its fire can be difficult to extinguish.

'APPROPRIATE OR NOT'

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, questioned whether the U.S. military was using the weapons in a manner consistent with the conventional weapons convention.

"White phosphorous weapons should not be used just like any other conventional weapon," Kimball said.

Kimball called for an independent review of how the United States was using the weapons and possibly an investigation by countries that are parties to the convention "to determine whether their use in Iraq is appropriate or not."

U.S. forces used the white phosphorus during a major offensive launched by Marines in Falluja, about 30 miles (50 km) west of Baghdad, to flush out insurgents. The battle in November of last year involved some of the toughest urban fighting of the 2-1/2-year war.

Venable said that in the Falluja battle, "U.S. forces used white phosphorous both in its classic screening mechanism and ... when they encountered insurgents who were in foxholes and other covered positions who they could not dislodge any other way."

He said the soldiers employed a "shake-and-bake" technique of using white phosphorus shells to flush enemies out of hiding and then use high explosives artillery rounds to kill them.

The Italian documentary showed images of bodies recovered after the Falluja offensive, which it said proved the use of white phosphorus against civilians.

"We don't target any civilians with any of our weapons. And to suggest that U.S. forces were targeting civilians with these weapons would simply be wrong," Whitman said.

 

[Hajar]

Re: The war In Iraq

yes very nice indeed bro... but let we take a look at this article:

U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah – Health ministry​

Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq’s health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli was assigned by the ministry to assess the health conditions in Fallujah following the November assault there.

He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.

The health official announced his findings at a news conference in the health ministry building in Baghdad.

The press conference was attended by more than 20 Iraqi and foreign media networks, including the Iraqi ash-Sharqiyah TV network, the Iraqi as-Sabah newspaper, the U.S. Washington Post and the Knight-Ridder service.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli started the conference by reporting the current health conditions of the Fallujah residents. He said that the city is still suffering from the effects of chemical substances and other types of weapons that cause serious diseases over the long term.

Asked whether limited nuclear weapons were also used by U.S. forces in Fallujah, Dr. ash-Shaykhli said; “What I saw during our research in Fallujah leads me to me believe everything that has been said about that battle.

“I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.”

Dr. ash-Shaykhli promised to send the findings of the researches to responsible bodies inside Iraq and abroad.

Fallujah residents said napalm gas was used

During the U.S. offensive, Fallujah residents reported that they saw “melted” bodies in the city, which suggests that U.S. forces used napalm gas, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that makes the human body melt.

In November, Labour MPs in the UK demanded Prime Minister Tony Blair to confront the Commons over the use of napalm gas in Fallujah.

Furious critics have also demanded that Blair threatens the U.S. to pullout British forces from Iraq unless the U.S. stops using the world’s deadliest weapon.

The United Nations banned the use of the napalm gas against civilians in 1980 after pictures of a naked wounded girl in Vietnam shocked the world.

The United States, which didn't endorse the convention, is the only nation in the world still using the deadly weapon.

And this is a story of a person who has been there, saw it and researched it.

 

[imaad_udeen]

Re: The war In Iraq

So now the US used "limited nuclear weapons" in Fallujah?

Give me a break.

Whisky Pete is not a chemical weapon. The US used no nukes in Fallujah.

 

[czgibson]

Re: The war In Iraq

Hello Imaad,

So now the US used "limited nuclear weapons" in Fallujah?

Give me a break.

You'll notice that nowhere in the article is that claim made, it's simply that the possiblity is not excluded.

After all, the US have lied about their use of white phosphorus, initially denying that it was used as an incendiary weapon; they have lied by claiming not to have used napalm; if they claim not to have used nuclear weapons - well, who can say? As far as Iraq is concerned, I stopped believing whatever the US says a long time ago.

The lies that have surrounded this war (even before it began) have outraged the world. The US finds itself in a difficult position in Iraq - one which was predicted by millions around the world before the invasion took place.

Whisky Pete is not a chemical weapon.

But it was when Saddam Hussein used it, right?

Peace

 

[Hajar]

Re: The war In Iraq

After all, the US have lied about their use of white phosphorus, initially denying that it was used as an incendiary weapon; they have lied by claiming not to have used napalm; if they claim not to have used nuclear weapons - well, who can say? As far as Iraq is concerned, I stopped believing whatever the US says a long time ago.

Yes i agree with you. Everything that the US says cant be trusted. How can you believe them when they say they dont use chemical weapons or napalm in Iraq, when they lied about the so called "chemical threat" of Iraq. This was just a lame excuse so that they could invade the country

peace

 

[Noir_deluxe]

Re: The war In Iraq

Hajar, can you please put the link to where you obtained that story? It might make it a little more credible to believe.

 

[imaad_udeen]

Re: The war In Iraq

Hello Imaad,


You'll notice that nowhere in the article is that claim made, it's simply that the possiblity is not excluded.

uh-huh, no evidence that nuclear weapons were used, yet just by mentioning them...

After all, the US have lied about their use of white phosphorus, initially denying that it was used as an incendiary weapon;

I don't know if it was a lie or if one department thought it wasnt used when in reality it was.

they have lied by claiming not to have used napalm;

I must have missed this, but where was napalm used? And then where was the lie?

if they claim not to have used nuclear weapons - well, who can say? As far as Iraq is concerned, I stopped believing whatever the US says a long time ago.

And that is your problem, you are so anti-American that your opinion is pretty much worthless.

The lies that have surrounded this war (even before it began) have outraged the world. The US finds itself in a difficult position in Iraq - one which was predicted by millions around the world before the invasion took place.

What lies?

But it was when Saddam Hussein used it, right?

Peace

WP is illegal to those who signed the convention banning its use. The US is not a party to that treaty. Whether Saddams Iraq was or not I do not know.

The article you linked to earlier speaks of Whisky Pete being used against civilians, as a weapon of terror.

The United States used it in battle against insurgents.

But to you, I bet, there is little difference between Ba'athists and Americans, right?

 

[czgibson]

Re: The war In Iraq

Greetings,

uh-huh, no evidence that nuclear weapons were used, yet just by mentioning them...

No evidence that Saddam had WMD, but that didn't stop Bush & co. invading on that pretext...

I must have missed this, but where was napalm used? And then where was the lie?

Baghdad. See here:

U.S. admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

And that is your problem, you are so anti-American that your opinion is pretty much worthless.

Anti-Bush, yes, very much so. Anti-American, no. Many of my favourite artists, musicians, film-makers and writers are American, so it would be pretty strange if I were anti-American. It's just that when I see an objectionable foreign policy in action, I say so.

What lies?

Have you watched or read the news at all in the last three years?

The two biggies were:

1. Saddam possesses WMD. (Bush may or may not have known this was untrue.)
2. Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. (The White House had been informed by the intelligence services that this claim was untrue months before Bush announced it in his State of the Union address.)

WP is illegal to those who signed the convention banning its use. The US is not a party to that treaty. Whether Saddams Iraq was or not I do not know.

The point is that you claimed the US did not regard WP as a chemical weapon; I was simply pointing out that when Saddam used it, they did.

The article you linked to earlier speaks of Whisky Pete being used against civilians, as a weapon of terror.

The United States used it in battle against insurgents.

You mean the BBC article? It mentions civilians having been injured by white phosphorus; it doesn't say that WP was deliberately targeted at them though.

But to you, I bet, there is little difference between Ba'athists and Americans, right?

I'll put that down to emotion.

Peace

 

[imaad_udeen]

Re: The war In Iraq

Greetings,


No evidence that Saddam had WMD, but that didn't stop Bush & co. invading on that pretext...

No evidence was needed, Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD, which is why he refused to allow the full inspections which he bound himself to with the Gulf War cease fire and the resulting UNSC resolutions which followed.

Baghdad. See here:

U.S. admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

Ah, missed that one.

It was used against military targets. The UN ban on them (which the US did not sign, so it doesn't apply to the US anyways) specifically mentions it cannot be used on civilian targets. So what is the problem with the US using it on Iraqi troops in the middle of shooting war?

from article:
A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon.

Also, I'm not so sure it was a lie. The Pentagon probably did not know it was used. They are not aware of every tactical situation which occurs.

Anti-Bush, yes, very much so. Anti-American, no. Many of my favourite artists, musicians, film-makers and writers are American, so it would be pretty strange if I were anti-American. It's just that when I see an objectionable foreign policy in action, I say so.

You have stated that you wont believe anything the US says, which obvioulsy takes away any objectivity which you mau bring to a discussion on the issue.

Have you watched or read the news at all in the last three years?

The two biggies were:

1. Saddam possesses WMD. (Bush may or may not have known this was untrue.)
2. Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. (The White House had been informed by the intelligence services that this claim was untrue months before Bush announced it in his State of the Union address.)

The entire world assumed Saddam had WMD and there was intelligence which led us to believe he was hiding something. Saddams own actions did little to help matters.

Concerning the uranium, the CIA warned the President;s staff that the evidence wasn't solid enough to used in the speech, but never said it was flat out untrue at the time.

The point is that you claimed the US did not regard WP as a chemical weapon; I was simply pointing out that when Saddam used it, they did.

White Phosphorus is not a banned substance unless it is used on civilian targets, which is what Saddam used it for. The US used it on legitimate military targets.

You mean the BBC article? It mentions civilians having been injured by white phosphorus; it doesn't say that WP was deliberately targeted at them though.

When civilians are on a battlefield bad things happen. I would blame the insurgents who often refused to allow some civilians to leave and used them as shields in many situations.

But it seems to me that some refuse to attach any blame for the spiraling violence at the brutal insurgency.

 

[czgibson]

Re: The war In Iraq

Hello Imaad,

No evidence was needed, Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD, which is why he refused to allow the full inspections which he bound himself to with the Gulf War cease fire and the resulting UNSC resolutions which followed.

No evidence was needed? :-\

Was the claim that Saddam's possession of WMD represented a major threat to world peace not the main pretext to justify the invasion?

Surely you need some evidence to back up a claim like that?

Especially before you invade a country, with little domestic or international support for your action?

Did Hans Blix's inspections not go far enough?

(Sorry, I always ask lots of questions when I'm in shock.)

It was used against military targets. The UN ban on them (which the US did not sign, so it doesn't apply to the US anyways) specifically mentions it cannot be used on civilian targets. So what is the problem with the US using it on Iraqi troops in the middle of shooting war?

First of all, the fact that the US didn't sign a treaty does not prove that using napalm is not immoral. The US is famous for not signing international agreements, particularly in recent years - it's precisely that unilateral attitude that really ticks off the rest of the world.

from article:
A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon.

Can you think of any other country which has used napalm in recent years?

Also, I'm not so sure it was a lie. The Pentagon probably did not know it was used. They are not aware of every tactical situation which occurs.

Well, that's just fine then. The US military should be allowed to obliterate people in horrendous ways without the Pentagon's knowledge - I can't think of a better system!

You have stated that you wont believe anything the US says, which obvioulsy takes away any objectivity which you mau bring to a discussion on the issue.

When it comes to Iraq, yes, I suspend judgment until the facts are clear, rather than trusting official pronouncements. The point is, I and millions (maybe billions?) of other people on this planet vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq, seeing it as an utterly reprehensible move. So I'm prejudiced - fair enough.

The entire world assumed Saddam had WMD and there was intelligence which led us to believe he was hiding something. Saddams own actions did little to help matters.

Maybe you and the politicians assumed Saddam had WMD - nobody else did. And guess what? You and they were wrong.

Concerning the uranium, the CIA warned the President;s staff that the evidence wasn't solid enough to used in the speech, but never said it was flat out untrue at the time.

So Bush went ahead with the speech anyway. Why let a lack of evidence get in the way of a good bellicose speech when you can twist the facts to suit your purpose?

White Phosphorus is not a banned substance unless it is used on civilian targets, which is what Saddam used it for. The US used it on legitimate military targets.

The question I've been asking about this is: does the US view it as a chemical weapon or not? The target is not relevant - civilians were hurt in both cases, whether targeted or not. When Saddam used it, the US described it as a chemical weapon; when they themselves used it, they chose not to describe it as such. Is there not a double standard here?

When civilians are on a battlefield bad things happen.

Absolutely. It's a real hassle when your country gets invaded.

I would blame the insurgents who often refused to allow some civilians to leave and used them as shields in many situations.

True, they're using very nasty techniques, but you have to ask yourself two questions:

1. If your opponent is the world's only remaining superpower, would you not use desperate measures?

2. Is this not what everyone opposed to the war suspected would happen? When Bush was gearing up for the invasion, these are the kinds of hypothetical situations that people were facing him with - now they are happening for real, the aggressors have only themselves to blame for the human tragedy they have engendered.

But it seems to me that some refuse to attach any blame for the spiraling violence at the brutal insurgency.

There are some violent imbeciles among the insurgency, with some truly unhelpful ideas as to how the situation should be resolved, but I for one place most of the blame with the aggressors.

Peace

 

[imaad_udeen]

Re: The war In Iraq

Hello Imaad,


No evidence was needed? :-\

Was the claim that Saddam's possession of WMD represented a major threat to world peace not the main pretext to justify the invasion?

Surely you need some evidence to back up a claim like that?

Especially before you invade a country, with little domestic or international support for your action?

Did Hans Blix's inspections not go far enough?

(Sorry, I always ask lots of questions when I'm in shock.)

Did you even read what I wrote about the cease fire and Saddams refusal to abide by it's terms?

First of all, the fact that the US didn't sign a treaty does not prove that using napalm is not immoral.

Ok, napalm is immoral but allowing Saddam Hussein, one of the worst dictators and murderers since Stalin, to remain in control is somehow not?

The US is famous for not signing international agreements, particularly in recent years - it's precisely that unilateral attitude that really ticks off the rest of the world.

The US is under no obligation to sign international agreements which attempt to bind our hands. Kyoto for instance and others seek to shackle the United States and we have never surrendered will to the world just because they want us too.

Can you think of any other country which has used napalm in recent years?

Does that matter?

Well, that's just fine then. The US military should be allowed to obliterate people in horrendous ways without the Pentagon's knowledge - I can't think of a better system!

So the Pentagon should know whenever any soldier fires a weapon in the middle of a combat operation?

When it comes to Iraq, yes, I suspend judgment until the facts are clear, rather than trusting official pronouncements. The point is, I and millions (maybe billions?) of other people on this planet vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq, seeing it as an utterly reprehensible move. So I'm prejudiced - fair enough.

We must agree to disagree. What I find utterly reprehensible is the defacto support all these people were giving for Saddam Hussein.

Maybe you and the politicians assumed Saddam had WMD - nobody else did. And guess what? You and they were wrong.

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

McAdams: [snickers] People who, who, who use the ``Bush lied'' argument, it seems to me, are, are just completely heedless of any standards of, of, of telling the truth or making a plausible argument... um, you know, Let's make a list of those who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction: Russian intelligence, French intelligence, British intelligence, Tony Blair, the CIA, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Kerry. And somehow we're supposed to believe... ah, oh, oh, and the mainstream media, excellent article by Robert Kagan yesterday in the Washington Post where he talks about how the mainstream media, particularly the New York Times but also the Washington Post in the late 1990s and in 2000, before George Bush took office, were hyping the notion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and he has a long list of articles,... [see Kagan quoted below],... [UN chief inspector Hans Blix], who clearly told the United Nations that Saddam had had weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s, was under an obligation to have destroyed them, and to explain to his investigators, to document the destruction, but refused to document the destruction. Were supposed to believe that among all these people, George Bush was the only person who was so brilliant, ah, who was so wonderfully perceptive, that he knew Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction when virtually everyone else who was paying attention did. Remember, the disagreement about going to war between say us and the French was not whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, it was what the appropriate strategy for dealing with that would be. Ah, so, it's, ah simply ahistorical, to make that argument that ``Bush lied'' about weapons of mass destruction. Everybody was making that argument.

So Bush went ahead with the speech anyway. Why let a lack of evidence get in the way of a good bellicose speech when you can twist the facts to suit your purpose?

Again, most people believed it to be true, including the President. I am sure you thought he had them, too, just won;t admit it because it defeats your own purpose of undermining the US effort to liberate Iraq.

The question I've been asking about this is: does the US view it as a chemical weapon or not? The target is not relevant - civilians were hurt in both cases, whether targeted or not. When Saddam used it, the US described it as a chemical weapon; when they themselves used it, they chose not to describe it as such. Is there not a double standard here?

All weapons are 'chemical weapons' if you want to get technical. Gunpowder is a chemical, for instance.

But I digress. WP is not used as weapon 90% of the time. It is used to mark enemy positions and illuminate battlefields at night. When used in Fallujah, it was used to flush out terrorists so that they could be killed with HE artillery rounds.

WP as a weapon is not a very effective weapon. Certainly not as effective as a car bomb at a funeral procession or market place.

Absolutely. It's a real hassle when your country gets invaded.

It also kind of sucks when some blood thirsty tyrant abducts and murders members of your family, even children, and buries them in mass graves. It sucks to have your daughter or sister raped or tortured by said tyrants son.

True, they're using very nasty techniques, but you have to ask yourself two questions:

At least we agree on that, until the 'but...'

1. If your opponent is the world's only remaining superpower, would you not use desperate measures?

Ok, so they can use some of the most descpicable methods they want, out of desperation, they can blow up civilians, saw peoples heads off, etc., but you get up in arms because maybe a couple of people got burned by a little WP?

Hypocrisy.

2. Is this not what everyone opposed to the war suspected would happen? When Bush was gearing up for the invasion, these are the kinds of hypothetical situations that people were facing him with - now they are happening for real, the aggressors have only themselves to blame for the human tragedy they have engendered.

Oh, so everything Al Zarqawi does in Iraq is the fault of the United States?

Sorry bud, but you are dead wrong. Iraq is a free country now with an elected government which has been approved by the United Nations.

There are some violent imbeciles among the insurgency, with some truly unhelpful ideas as to how the situation should be resolved, but I for one place most of the blame with the aggressors.

Peace

Of course you do. You seem to share the same agenda as they do.

 

[S_87]

Re: The war In Iraq

Ok, napalm is immoral but allowing Saddam Hussein, one of the worst dictators and murderers since Stalin, to remain in control is somehow not?

gee mr bush is lovely- he only kills people under the veil of *fighting terrorism* right?


.

Oh, so everything Al Zarqawi does in Iraq is the fault of the United States?

who is zarqawi-where is he and how come he only turns up after the US invaded a country and murdered thousands?

Sorry bud, but you are dead wrong. Iraq is a free country now with an elected government which has been approved by the United Nations

.

err what does america care what the UN think. america is above their rules anyway ...

 

[imaad_udeen]

Re: The war In Iraq

who is zarqawi-where is he and how come he only turns up after the US invaded a country and murdered thousands?

He was living in Iraq, in hiding, under Saddams regime.

He had been a known terrorist for a long time.

The US did not murder thousands, it was a legal war under US law and international law. Please prove otherwise.

Also, Saddam Hussein was given many chances to leave the country and avert war, again he refused and it cost him and many others.
.

err what does america care what the UN think. america is above their rules anyway ...

Please prove that as well. The United States took its case to the UNSC before hostilities commenced and got backing for the war, even though it was not needed for the US to invade Iraq anyways.

 

[Hajar]

Re: The war In Iraq

The US did not murder thousands, it was a legal war under US law and international law. Please prove otherwise.

The war isnt legal at all. The US invaded Iraq on fals assumptions...If this wasnt happen then they wouldnt get aproval to invade.
But they GW. Bush already knew that there wasnt such things happening there, it was just a way for him to get into war. And what has US law to do with this.... international Ok.. but the way the war is going makes me sick.

I just have to say one word "Abu Ghraib". Like u know what happend there.. hmm i guess is that allowed under US law.

Here read this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/lagouranis.html

 

[imaad_udeen]

Re: The war In Iraq

The war isnt legal at all. The US invaded Iraq on fals assumptions...If this wasnt happen then they wouldnt get aproval to invade.
But they GW. Bush already knew that there wasnt such things happening there, it was just a way for him to get into war. And what has US law to do with this.... international Ok.. but the way the war is going makes me sick.

The United States had a cease fire agreement with Iraq, seperate from the UN, which gave the US a Casus belli for the war with Iraq.

There is nothing in international law which prohibited the United States from making war on Saddam's government. If you can find something, then please do.

I just have to say one word "Abu Ghraib". Like u know what happend there.. hmm i guess is that allowed under US law.

Those suspected of torture or mistreatment of prisoners have been charged and either convicted in military court or awaiting trial. The woman in charge of the prison was demoted to colonel, effectively ending her career.

Here read this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/lagouranis.html

Glad you posted this, it's a bunch of crap. Starting with this little nugget of wisdom:

You know, it was Saddam's torture chamber and execution chamber. And it's where thousands of Shi'a died after the uprising. So you know, it's (Abu Ghraib) sort of equivalent of Auschwitz for the Arab people. …

Auschwitz? Come on, millions of Jews were murdered and tortured in Auschwitz. The comparison would be laughable if it wasn't so insulting.

No disrespect for the people Saddam murdered, they are the main reason I support this war. But Abu Ghraib is not Auschwitz.