Civil War...? In Iraq...? Inconceivable...!

[Said1]

Dec 20th?

Phew, it is him.

 

[jimnyc]

Where are the charges than have been brought forth to prove that THE WAR WAS LEGAL? The UN, NATO, CIA, FBI, PENTAGON? What organization can you cite that can reveil a report of which justifies the invasion of Iraq?

That's easy, read the various resolutions that Iraq was in breach of, or did you forget about the those? What a stupid ass question!

As far as the oil? You are aware that Russia, Germany and France had very huge oil deals with Iraq. Guess what? Should Saddam Hussein be dethroned, those contracts are null and void.

And what the hell does that have to do with the US gaining anything? Sounds like you you just gave another good reason why those bungholes were so quick to throw up their vetos.

 

[NATO AIR]

the Gulf war was LEGAL, because it had a mandate from UNO.

this war in Iraq 2003 was illegal and injust
Personly, excpet the fall of Hussein and the fact that US get more Oil, I didn't really see a fight against Al Quaeda.
Like said nakedemperor, Al Quaeda has not the monopole of terrorism. And USA have not the right to attack a country without real prooves, documents, and UNO mandate. Because it will be chaos.

For Iraq : there is a big problem between Chiites and Sunnites.
And the civil war has already begun.

so, it is why the situation of the US troops is quite bad - to not say in the deep shit -
with a civil war on the shoulders, it will be hard to win the peace.

THE UN IS AN UNLAWFUL ORGANIZATION RUN BY DICTATORS, TERRORIST SUPPORTERS & OTHER DESPOTS.

we couldn't get the UN to authorize the liberation of Kosovo, because China and Russia were supporting the ethnic cleansing there and the oppressive Serbian government... Does that make Kosovo's liberation unjust or illegial?

we liberated Iraq because we had to, and much of the world's leading powers (france, russia, china) were too busy gobbling up oil money and contracts to care about the suffering of the iraqi people or the threat of saddam's thirst for weapons and power.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

the Gulf war was LEGAL, because it had a mandate from UNO. this war in Iraq 2003 was illegal and injust
Personly, excpet the fall of Hussein and the fact that US get more Oil, I didn't really see a fight against Al Quaeda.

You are the dumbest Frenchie on the planet. Since when are we supposed to give a rat's arse about what the UNO says?!

Repeat after moi,

HERE IN THE US, GAS PRICES ARE GOING UP. IF WE ARE GETTING MORE OIL, WHERE IS IT?!

Liberals obviously have obsessive-compulsive disorder, you guys just can't let go of that myth. Idiots.

 

[padisha emperor]

You are the dumbest Frenchie on the planet

from you, I take it as a compliment. thanks

UN ruled by dictators ? amazing, I believed that UN was create by the traty of San Francisco, and that the more important foudator was....USA.
Illegal ?
Why ? UN respect the niterantional laws, not like some states. (USA ? )
You build the UNO. NOw, UNO is sometimes against your own interest, so you say it is a bullshit.
You are in a great game, respect the rules, guys.....IF UNO would approve all the acts of USA, you will find it great......
hypocrisy...........................................


Jimnyc : the war was illegal because without authorization from international community, wiihtout any mandate, without UNO approval, without UNO security council approval.......
US were not under attack. Not under a direct attack from Iraq, so it was not a real legitim defense.
911 was an attack, but from al quaeda, not from a state. War against terrorism is good, but against sovereing states without prooves....it is vilation of international rules.....

 

[padisha emperor]

Theennemywithin, for your signature :
the 2 red states, for the blood upon their soil ?

 

[CSM]

Jimnyc : the war was illegal because without authorization from international community, wiihtout any mandate, without UNO approval, without UNO security council approval.......
US were not under attack. Not under a direct attack from Iraq, so it was not a real legitim defense.
911 was an attack, but from al quaeda, not from a state. War against terrorism is good, but against sovereing states without prooves....it is vilation of international rules.....

Nope...you are wrong.

Didn't need a mandate from the UN, security council approval, or international community approval either....

Iraq had been in violation of the Cease Fire agreement from the first war for over a decade...that is grounds enough for US action in Iraq.

 

[padisha emperor]

so, why USA justificate their war with the WMD ?
Iraq had no WMD..............

 

[padisha emperor]

I've just heard that 20 marines were killed by an explosion.

It is awful,; very sad, and I'm sorry for their families.

May they will rest in peace.

 

[CSM]

so, why USA justificate their war with the WMD ?
Iraq had no WMD..............

Did you see me mention WMD in my post anywhere or are you reading a different board?

 

[dilloduck]

I've just heard that 20 marines were killed by an explosion.

It is awful,; very sad, and I'm sorry for their families.

May they will rest in peace.

What's worse is they may have been killed by insurgents funded bu the oil-for-food scandal---thanks a lot ,dish !

 

[padisha emperor]

shut up dillo, you moron......think to them instead of throwing your filth on people's face......

CSM

Did you see me mention WMD in my post anywhere or are you reading a different board?

Iraq had been in violation of the Cease Fire agreement from the first war for over a decade...that is grounds enough for US action in Iraq.

CSM, I mean : you say that war was justified (justificated ?) because Iraq was in violation of the cease fire.
So >>
1 - which violation ?
2 - Was the intervention of several dozen of thousands of Marines, tanks, planes, gunships......necessary ?
3 - If this vilation justify the war, why did USA mention it at the UN to justify the war ? why spoke they always of WMD ?
They spoke always of WMD : "on this picture, you can clearly see a WMD.....on this one, a factory of WMD....on this one, saddam is making himself a WMD.....and this one shows saddam making a fuck to US...."...
So, if the real reason was this vilation, why did they only mention the WMD ?


And : if for you the vilation of the ceasef ire is the fabrication of WMD....>>
1 - no prooves of WMD.
2 - why did you ask me this stupid question ?

 

[manu1959]

so, why USA justificate their war with the WMD ?
Iraq had no WMD..............

explain to me where it says the US needs to justify it's actions to anyone?

did you ask the US permission befor sending troops to the congo?

 

[padisha emperor]

France have lot of treaties and assistance accords with african countries.
USA and iraq had not.

And I don't think that France send our troops in Congo without UN approval or other countries' wish.
We don't consider the world as our private garden. It was during the XVII and the XVIIIth centuries, but no more.
Nonation has colonial empire, so, no nation can decide ofr other peoples.I even believe that the Carta of Atlantic, during the WWII, between Roosevelt and Churchill, said that the people of earth have the right to choose their regime, their destiny, wihtout any other country. it was to stop the colonialism.
But it does'nt meant that a country can destruct an other country because he want. That is not the spirit of liberty and self-administration wished by the US in 1776, the French in 1789, and after WWII, in the Paris Convention.

 

[dilloduck]

France have lot of treaties and assistance accords with african countries.
USA and iraq had not.

And I don't think that France send our troops in Congo without UN approval or other countries' wish.
We don't consider the world as our private garden. It was during the XVII and the XVIIIth centuries, but no more.
Nonation has colonial empire, so, no nation can decide ofr other peoples.I even believe that the Carta of Atlantic, during the WWII, between Roosevelt and Churchill, said that the people of earth have the right to choose their regime, their destiny, wihtout any other country. it was to stop the colonialism.
But it does'nt meant that a country can destruct an other country because he want. That is not the spirit of liberty and self-administration wished by the US in 1776, the French in 1789, and after WWII, in the Paris Convention.

well get chirac to tell all the arab terrorists to quit destroying our country then , dish!! That should be easy for him since he's buddies with em all!

 

[padisha emperor]

Well, it is impossible. you know why ? because when USA attack a muslim country and kill 10,000 terrorists, 50,000 new terrorists rise up. because ther hate of USA is stronger then.

Vicious circle.

 

[dilloduck]

Well, it is impossible. you know why ? because when USA attack a muslim country and kill 10,000 terrorists, 50,000 new terrorists rise up. because ther hate of USA is stronger then.

Vicious circle.

the US might have never gone in if the Eu didn't support saddam

 

[padisha emperor]

oh, now it would be our fault.
can't you assume your faults ?

The whole world was against this war, you did it, and now, you say it was the fault of Europe ?
tssssssssssssssssssss.
Bad faith

 

[dilloduck]

oh, now it would be our fault.
can't you assume your faults ?

The whole world was against this war, you did it, and now, you say it was the fault of Europe ?
tssssssssssssssssssss.
Bad faith

Not at all-----YOU could have prevented it but were too damn busy stealing money!!!!

 

[jimnyc]

The whole world was against this war, you did it, and now, you say it was the fault of Europe ?

The whole world? There are over 100 million alone in the US (at minimum) who support the US efforts in Iraq. I also believe there is at least a 30 country coalition involved in the war, why are they assisting if they are against it?

Who were the 3 major countries against the war? France, Germany & Russia. Who was involved in the scandals in the oil for food program and stood to lose billions of dollars in contracts with Saddam?

If the world stood united against terrorism it would have a much better chance of being defeated but it appears some were more concerned about bribes & contracts.