The Netherlands: Nothing Here, Move Along

[no1tovote4]

Fair enough, there is a big difference in meaning. But that difference only points to the reason for the killing: when the reason can be justified, it is called a kill, and when it is not, it's called murder.

International institutions have however condemned the invasion of Iraq.
They have deemed it illegal, or in other words, unjustified.

Which Int'l institution have deemed this invasion illegal? You are making stuff up to benefit your ideology.

 

[Harmageddon]

Here's your illegal:

Richard Perle has admitted two years ago that it was an illegal invasion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan the Secretary General of the United Nations called the invasion of Iraq illegal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war

 

[no1tovote4]

Here's your illegal:

Richard Perle has admitted two years ago that it was an illegal invasion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan the Secretary General of the United Nations called the invasion of Iraq illegal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war

The opinion of two people are not an international body. The UN Security Council has not declared this illegal. If you post an opinion piece then say that International Bodies have all declared this illegal you are simply making stuff up. No international body has declared the war illegal, it hasn't happened.

 

[Harmageddon]

Fair enough.

Point is, they cannot, for the US would veto such a statement.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Harmaageddon, grow up. We must interfere in these nations. We cannot allow them to develop nukes. They will blow us up. They said they will. Haven't you been listening or watching al jazeera?

Quit thinking like a child.

 

[no1tovote4]

Fair enough.

Point is, they cannot, for the US would veto such a statement.

That wasn't your point. You point was that it had happened, it has not. It hasn't even been proposed at all so that they can show their displeasure even if it is vetoed. It simply hasn't happened.

 

[theHawk]

Ok, well it seems to me you like to bury facts and paint a bleaker picture of Arabs than they deserve.

How did you come to this conclusion??

 

[theHawk]

Harmaageddon, grow up. We must interfere in these nations. We cannot allow them to develop nukes. They will blow us up. They said they will. Haven't you been listening or watching al jazeera?

Quit thinking like a child.

Most children are smart enough to figure those things out.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr:
Harmaageddon, grow up. We must interfere in these nations. We cannot allow them to develop nukes. They will blow us up. They said they will. Haven't you been listening or watching al jazeera?

Quit thinking like a child.

Haven't you noticed that Al Jazeerah is not exactly a neutral newsfeed?
But more like a Muslim version of Fox news?

Those we'll nuke the bastards are all stupid outcries of people that refuse to debate the topic at hand. I've seen a fair amount of those statements here as well. Did you hear Pat Robertson on Hugo Chavez?

For people to actually start launching nukes is something else entirely.
But you seem to be a proponent of the idea that when someone says he will, then he's probably going to do it, so you'd better kill them outright.

I mean, have you never in your life said something in the heat of the moment like: "I'm gonna kill you!" but then not follow up on it?

Have you never said it? Or have you never refrained from following up on your statements by making the kill?

 

[theHawk]

I mean, have you never in your life said something in the heat of the moment like: "I'm gonna kill you!" but then not follow up on it?

Have you never said it? Or have you never refrained from following up on your statements by making the kill?

Kinda like how the Nazis didn't follow up on killing the Jews.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by theHawk:
How did you come to this conclusion??

Well it seems you are very eager to destroy Arabs, that's all.

Originally posted by theHawk:
Most children are smart enough to figure those things out.

Children have no clue, they think the world is a happy place. Let them.

Originally posted by no1tovote4:
That wasn't your point. You point was that it had happened, it has not. It hasn't even been proposed at all so that they can show their displeasure even if it is vetoed. It simply hasn't happened.

You are correct that was not my point.
My point is that a number of people (individuals) have claimed it to be illegal, and not the regular John Doe's either, powerful people, like Richard Perle and Kofi Annan. Organisations are bound to their memberstates however, and they can be vetoed into making statements or refraining from making them, whereas individuals cannot.

It has however been mentioned in the UN security council meetings, several times. It just never gets out into the public statements, so it's not official.

Besides, for the Security council to give it's full approval for military intervention it needs a majority of the votes, 9 or more out of the 15.
The invasion of Iraq was approved by 4 member states.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by theHawk:
Kinda like how the Nazis didn't follow up on killing the Jews.

Kinda like the Americans didn't follow up on killing Iraqi's.

 

[no1tovote4]

Well it seems you are very eager to destroy Arabs, that's all.


Children have no clue, they think the world is a happy place. Let them.



You are correct that was not my point.
My point is that a number of people (individuals) have claimed it to be illegal, and not the regular John Doe's either, powerful people, like Richard Perle and Kofi Annan. Organisations are bound to their memberstates however, and they can be vetoed into making statements or refraining from making them, whereas individuals cannot.

It has however been mentioned in the UN security council meetings, several times. It just never gets out into the public statements, so it's not official.

Besides, for the Security council to give it's full approval for military intervention it needs a majority of the votes, 9 or more out of the 15.
The invasion of Iraq was approved by 4 member states.

However a war does not have to be approved by the Security Council to make it legal according to international law. Therefore pointing that out still doesn't make the war illegal. There are opinions on the legality of the situation on both sides, simply assuming one opinion is right doesn't make it true. There is nothing in the UN Agreement that nobody would ever go to war without that vote on the Security Council, countries simply didn't want to give up that much power.

 

[no1tovote4]

Kinda like the Americans didn't follow up on killing Iraqi's.

At what point was it American Policy to kill all the Iraqis? You really are just making stuff up to fit your ideology now.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Haven't you noticed that Al Jazeerah is not exactly a neutral newsfeed?
But more like a Muslim version of Fox news?

Those we'll nuke the bastards are all stupid outcries of people that refuse to debate the topic at hand. I've seen a fair amount of those statements here as well. Did you hear Pat Robertson on Hugo Chavez?

We don't have state backed thought control and theocracy. We're not totalitarian. We don't have madrassas that teach nothing but rote recitation of the quaran. We believe in individual thought. Please don't compare us to Iran. We're not even in the same league.

For people to actually start launching nukes is something else entirely.
But you seem to be a proponent of the idea that when someone says he will, then he's probably going to do it, so you'd better kill them outright.

That's not my philosophy at all. I'm with Bush; spread democracy, topple the regimes that focus on the negative aspects of the religion, turning people into mindless martyrs for them, reducing them to human bullets.

I mean, have you never in your life said something in the heat of the moment like: "I'm gonna kill you!" but then not follow up on it?

Have you never said it? Or have you never refrained from following up on your statements by making the kill?

Have you ever considered investing in a ticket for the clue train?

 

[theHawk]

Well it seems you are very eager to destroy Arabs, that's all.

I don't believe I have ever posted my opinions on Arabs. But I forgot I must fit into your sterotypical view of "rightwingers" that want to destroy all people and rule the world as an Empire.

Kinda like the Americans didn't follow up on killing Iraqi's.

I wasn't aware that we went around preaching about killing Iraqis just because they were Iraqis and are currently systematically murdering all of them. Thanks for the heads up though.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by no1tovote4:
However a war does not have to be approved by the Security Council to make it legal according to international law. Therefore pointing that out still doesn't make the war illegal. There are opinions on the legality of the situation on both sides, simply assuming one opinion is right doesn't make it true. There is nothing in the UN Agreement that nobody would ever go to war without that vote on the Security Council, countries simply didn't want to give up that much power.

The UN was initially created after the second world war to prevent nations from declaring war on one another over whatever differences.
A sort of break so to speak, to slow down the process that would lead nations to declare war on other nations. To make this idea work, it was decided that nations would need compliance of at least 9 other member nations to prevent rapidly escalating wars, such as WWII.

That idea has been trampled by the move to invade Iraq.
Which is an excuse for every other nation on earth to start agressive moves against it's neighbours without UN security council approval.

It is thus a move, or giant leap, back in time: to pre-WWII relations.

Originally posted by no1tovote4:
At what point was it American Policy to kill all the Iraqis? You really are just making stuff up to fit your ideology now.

I'm merely responding to utter nonsens with utter nonsense.
You are correct in your interpretations as such.
I just couldn't help myself.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by theHawk:
I don't believe I have ever posted my opinions on Arabs. But I forgot I must fit into your sterotypical view of "rightwingers" that want to destroy all people and rule the world as an Empire.

Maybe I confused you with some other opinions I've recieved as reply's.

Originally posted by theHawk:
I wasn't aware that we went around preaching about killing Iraqis just because they were Iraqis and are currently systematically murdering all of them. Thanks for the heads up though.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[no1tovote4]

The UN was initially created after the second world war to prevent nations from declaring war on one another over whatever differences.
A sort of break so to speak, to slow down the process that would lead nations to declare war on other nations. To make this idea work, it was decided that nations would need compliance of at least 9 other member nations to prevent rapidly escalating wars, such as WWII.

That idea has been trampled by the move to invade Iraq.
Which is an excuse for every other nation on earth to start agressive moves against it's neighbours without UN security council approval.

It is thus a move, or giant leap, back in time: to pre-WWII relations.

Trampled yes, illegal no. My point is that that vote was unnecessary to make the war "legal". When Iraq fired at the US planes against cease fire agreements, according to international law, they declared war on the US. If the war was joined illegally it was by the nation that broke the cease fire agreements, not by the US.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by no1tovote4:
Trampled yes, illegal no. My point is that that vote was unnecessary to make the war "legal". When Iraq fired at the US planes against cease fire agreements, according to international law, they declared war on the US. If the war was joined illegally it was by the nation that broke the cease fire agreements, not by the US.

Depends on your point of view.
Why has the US not decided to withdraw completely from the UN if you seem to disagree with other country's opinions so much you'd rather not hear them?

From the charters, to which it is assumed that the member states comply, it follows that it was an illegal invasion if there are not enough member states convinced of the necessity of war.

The US bombed the crap out of whatever remained of Iraqi infrastructure during the 10 years between the Gulf War and this one. How so was that not illegal or against the rules of engagement? Those bombings and the Iraqi firing at the bombers and spy planes don't seem to me like either of the two maintained a true cease fire.

On another note:
We managed to get from a discussion from actions taken in the Netherlands to the war in Iraq. Whatsup with that? Time to change back to the original topic, and move this discussion to another thread, don't you think?