Vietnam comparison

[RetiredGySgt]

Re-read the post. I said the UN did not sanction the INVASION.

I said that the election was under occupation and to pretend that its really legit is just burying your head in the sand. Its pretty obvious the Iraqi people are not supportive of the govt...our own govt acknowledges this. That govt wouldnt last 24 hours with the US military there holding it up...it hides in the green zone.

The Iraqi govt also knows it, I guess thats why they figure that helping the Iraqi resistance against america is the way to go and get support. They are now turning ON US to try and gain favor with the Iraqi people.

Are these things you are unfamiliar with?

You can not have it both ways. You can not claim the UN was against it and then claim that their open support of the election process doesn't mean they accepted as legal under UN charter the election and its process.

I am waiting for one UN edict condemning the US. One UN edict declaring the Invasion illegal and against the UN charter. One Edict passing Judgement on sanctions against the US and its allies for violating the UN charter. You keep making the claim.... provide the UN resolution that does ANY of these things.

What we DO have is the UN openly participating in the election, declaring it legal and fair. recognizing the elected Government of Iraq AFTER the election. What we DO have is the UN openly working with the elected Government of Iraq, the one you claim is a sham. We have the UN OPENLY pressing member States to aid and help the current elected Government of Iraq you claim is a puppet regime.

 

[maineman]

I know he has me on ignore, but I still have to ask:

What we DO have is the UN openly working with the elected Government of Iraq, the one you claim is a sham. We have the UN OPENLY pressing member States to aid and help the current elected Government of Iraq you claim is a puppet regime.

how's that workin' out for ya, so far?

 

[Ruby]

First off, there is no "our."

Second, why then is it okay for a thug to take over a nation by force, invade two neighboring countries to support his own economic policies, engage in genocidal policies against a race and different sects of a religion, ruthlessly suppressing all, and ruling a nation of people by terror?

The problem here is not WHAT the US does ... it's the fact that it IS the US and no matter what it does, it's wrong, according to you.

I've got NO problem with taking out ruthless dictators of other nations. Only problem I have with it is the way we pick and choose. Unlike you, I think what's happening in nation's like Sudan is a travesty, and it's shameful we ignore it.

But you have no problem ignoring the genocide. You just turn your back, stick youor head in the sand, and pretend it isn't happening, and crticize anyone who tries to help the situation. I shouldn't say anyone ... it appears only the US can do no right in your eyes.

Wow, this post actually begins to DISCUSS somthing! I am sooo proud of you.

Its not ok for Saddam to do the many things he did. He wasnt right to invade Iran...but the US was supporting him then and backed him in his invasion of Iran. We provided the chemicals he needed to gas the kurds and continued to supply him even AFTER he did it. Reagan took him OFF the terrorist list to allow MORE supplies to him.

We empowered the dictator, we should have never done that and then maybe he and his party wouldnt have been successful in their coup in Iraq. We supported him even after he just executed a bunch of people from his own party he said were traitors (no trial, no evidence)....this was very EARLY on and yet we supported him.

If we dont like dictators then lets stop giving them so much support, weapons, training and money.

You dont solve the problems of dicators and genocide by BOMBING the victims or denying them their self-determination rights. If you want to HELP those people and empower them, then you give them humanitarian aid. You dont shove economic policies down their throat that will harm them. You sign onto the international court and you take part in helping bring individuals to court who have committed crimes against humanity. You dont go in bombing and guns blazing creating massive death and destruction of what little they have.

The US does no right in my eyes on foreign policy because US goals are immoral and predatory.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Wow, this post actually begins to DISCUSS somthing! I am sooo proud of you.

Its not ok for Saddam to do the many things he did. He wasnt right to invade Iran...but the US was supporting him then and backed him in his invasion of Iran. We provided the chemicals he needed to gas the kurds and continued to supply him even AFTER he did it. Reagan took him OFF the terrorist list to allow MORE supplies to him.

We empowered the dictator, we should have never done that and then maybe he and his party wouldnt have been successful in their coup in Iraq. We supported him even after he just executed a bunch of people from his own party he said were traitors (no trial, no evidence)....this was very EARLY on and yet we supported him.

If we dont like dictators then lets stop giving them so much support, weapons, training and money.

You dont solve the problems of dicators and genocide by BOMBING the victims or denying them their self-determination rights. If you want to HELP those people and empower them, then you give them humanitarian aid. You dont shove economic policies down their throat that will harm them. You sign onto the international court and you take part in helping bring individuals to court who have committed crimes against humanity. You dont go in bombing and guns blazing creating massive death and destruction of what little they have.

The US does no right in my eyes on foreign policy because US goals are immoral and predatory.

In other words, people who support and supply the genocider with the wherewithal to carry out his crimes against humanity are no better than the perpetrator. And that's just what the international laws that America refuses to be a party to say, Gooney.

 

[Ruby]

You can not have it both ways. You can not claim the UN was against it and then claim that their open support of the election process doesn't mean they accepted as legal under UN charter the election and its process.

I am waiting for one UN edict condemning the US. One UN edict declaring the Invasion illegal and against the UN charter. One Edict passing Judgement on sanctions against the US and its allies for violating the UN charter. You keep making the claim.... provide the UN resolution that does ANY of these things.

What we DO have is the UN openly participating in the election, declaring it legal and fair. recognizing the elected Government of Iraq AFTER the election. What we DO have is the UN openly working with the elected Government of Iraq, the one you claim is a sham. We have the UN OPENLY pressing member States to aid and help the current elected Government of Iraq you claim is a puppet regime.

I said the election process cannot be viewed as LEGITIMATE under occupation. I am aware the UN will grant it legitimacy...obviously the Iraqi people dont. Even the US govt realizes that govt wont last 24 hours when they arent there to protect them.

Legal wars have to satisfy at least one of the two following condition...

1. self defense against immediate threat
2. Un santion

The US can claim neither, its that simple.

I do agree that the UN barely functions and is corrupted. Of course, you wont like the fact that the US (along with the other security council members) are at fault for this. Which one of the security council (most powerful nations) is NOT corrupt? I cant name ONE, can you?

The reforms needed in the UN to make it more democratic wont happen because the power nations would block each and every effort and smaller nations who tried to fight them would suffer horribly for it...so they dont.

The problem the US had in getting permission to invade Iraq was that there were other power nations who just wouldnt go along and appearantly we didnt offer them anything they wanted to get a go ahead.

The UN did condem our invasion of Panama but that dosent really DO anything does it? I think many nations have already gone on record with their vehement disagreement and condemnation of our invasion of Iraq...but that dosent DO much either of course. The only alternative would be for them to wage war against the US to stop them...how many nations are going to pay such a high price to save Iraq? I think nations have decided its best to allow the US the rope to hang itself and why it wouldnt give the US a legal basis for the war...its the kind of thing that can come back to haunt the US later and they left that ghost for future possible use.

 

[Ruby]

In other words, people who support and supply the genocider with the wherewithal to carry out his crimes against humanity are no better than the perpetrator. And that's just what the international laws that America refuses to be a party to say, Gooney.

Succinct! Not my strong suit

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I said the election process cannot be viewed as LEGITIMATE under occupation. I am aware the UN will grant it legitimacy...obviously the Iraqi people dont. Even the US govt realizes that govt wont last 24 hours when they arent there to protect them.

Legal wars have to satisfy at least one of the two following condition...

1. self defense against immediate threat
2. Un santion

The US can claim neither, its that simple.

I do agree that the UN barely functions and is corrupted. Of course, you wont like the fact that the US (along with the other security council members) are at fault for this. Which one of the security council (most powerful nations) is NOT corrupt? I cant name ONE, can you?

The reforms needed in the UN to make it more democratic wont happen because the power nations would block each and every effort and smaller nations who tried to fight them would suffer horribly for it...so they dont.

The problem the US had in getting permission to invade Iraq was that there were other power nations who just wouldnt go along and appearantly we didnt offer them anything they wanted to get a go ahead.

The UN did condem our invasion of Panama but that dosent really DO anything does it? I think many nations have already gone on record with their vehement disagreement and condemnation of our invasion of Iraq...but that dosent DO much either of course. The only alternative would be for them to wage war against the US to stop them...how many nations are going to pay such a high price to save Iraq? I think nations have decided its best to allow the US the rope to hang itself and why it wouldnt give the US a legal basis for the war...its the kind of thing that can come back to haunt the US later and they left that ghost for future possible use.

I am waiting still, provide me with the UN Resolution condemning the US invasion of Iraq. It is a simple request. If we are in violation of UN treaty obligations and the charter where is the official condemnation? Your claim that because a member state or an official of the organization provided a personal opinion carries absolutely NO WEIGHT. It is the same as Howard Dean claiming Bush stole the Presidential Election in 2000. It means nothing.

Also I do not recall a UN resolution on Panama, please provide me with that also.

And provide some actual evidence that we sold gas to Iraq. It didn't happen. It is a lie. We allowed research material and medical material to be sold to Iraq that may have had dual use. Now if you want the people that supplied Iraq with chemical weapons and the ability to produce and store them, see France, Belgium, Germany, Russia and China. If you want the Countries that supplied arms and ammunition to Iraq again, see France, Belgium, Russia and China.

Further provide this treaty where we sided openly sided with, armed and supported Iraq in the Iran- Iraq war.

 

[Ruby]

I am waiting still, provide me with the UN Resolution condemning the US invasion of Iraq. It is a simple request. If we are in violation of UN treaty obligations and the charter where is the official condemnation? Your claim that because a member state or an official of the organization provided a personal opinion carries absolutely NO WEIGHT. It is the same as Howard Dean claiming Bush stole the Presidential Election in 2000. It means nothing.

Also I do not recall a UN resolution on Panama, please provide me with that also.

And provide some actual evidence that we sold gas to Iraq. It didn't happen. It is a lie. We allowed research material and medical material to be sold to Iraq that may have had dual use. Now if you want the people that supplied Iraq with chemical weapons and the ability to produce and store them, see France, Belgium, Germany, Russia and China. If you want the Countries that supplied arms and ammunition to Iraq again, see France, Belgium, Russia and China.

Further provide this treaty where we sided openly sided with, armed and supported Iraq in the Iran- Iraq war.

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/teaching/reading-media/2/day2.pdf

Page 3, titled New york times/ 30 DEC 1989, p.6 foreign desk/After Noriega: United Nations, Deal is reached at UN on Panama seat as invasion is condemned.

It goes on to give the vote, 75 voted to condem, 20 voted not to and 39 abstained. Of course, not sure it matters much cause it dosent DO anything.

There is no condemnation on the Iraqi invasion that I am aware of, not that it would do it any good. Does that change the fact that they didnt sanction the invasion so we dont meet that criteria to be able to term this a legal war. The only other criteria we have left is self defense, and we all know there was no imminent or immediate threat coming from Iraq to the US. This means we dont meet the criteria we agreed to in regards to legal wars and invasions.

On us selling chemicals to Saddam.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

AND

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.'

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.'

There certainly were other nations also aiding Saddam in this but that dosent change the fact that the US was right there doing it as well does it?

US Support of Iraq during its invasion and war against Iran

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]

and this is ESPECIALLY interesting

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

We wouldnt even condem his use of chemical weapons!

and

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

Lots more of course, read the entire link.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/teaching/reading-media/2/day2.pdf

Page 3, titled New york times/ 30 DEC 1989, p.6 foreign desk/After Noriega: United Nations, Deal is reached at UN on Panama seat as invasion is condemned.

It goes on to give the vote, 75 voted to condem, 20 voted not to and 39 abstained. Of course, not sure it matters much cause it dosent DO anything.

There is no condemnation on the Iraqi invasion that I am aware of, not that it would do it any good. Does that change the fact that they didnt sanction the invasion so we dont meet that criteria to be able to term this a legal war. The only other criteria we have left is self defense, and we all know there was no imminent or immediate threat coming from Iraq to the US. This means we dont meet the criteria we agreed to in regards to legal wars and invasions.

On us selling chemicals to Saddam.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm



AND



There certainly were other nations also aiding Saddam in this but that dosent change the fact that the US was right there doing it as well does it?

US Support of Iraq during its invasion and war against Iran

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php



and this is ESPECIALLY interesting



We wouldnt even condem his use of chemical weapons!

and



Lots more of course, read the entire link.

I don't need to. You haven't provided what I asked, cause you can not. Already said we provided medical and test materials that could be dual use.

 

[Ruby]

I don't need to. You haven't provided what I asked, cause you can not. Already said we provided medical and test materials that could be dual use.

You didnt look did ya? Why make it so obvious you didnt even bother looking? Its all there. We knew exactly what he was using them for and continued to supply with that knowledge and we sent WEAPONS grade levels. We wouldnt condem his use of chemical weapons.

http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

Using its allies in the Middle East, Washington funnelled huge supplies of arms to Iraq. Classified State Department cables uncovered by Frantz and Waas described covert transfers of howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons to Baghdad in 1982-83 from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait.

Gee what OTHER use do BOMBS have?

and

The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment.

We sold them plans to build chemical weapons facilities. We sell him the chemicals and the plans so he can make a chemical weapons plant to produce the weapons with the materials we supplied.

You gotta be willing to bury your head deeply to ignore the overwhelming amount of documented evidence.

 

[dilloduck]

You didnt look did ya? Why make it so obvious you didnt even bother looking? Its all there. We knew exactly what he was using them for and continued to supply with that knowledge and we sent WEAPONS grade levels. We wouldnt condem his use of chemical weapons.

http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html



Gee what OTHER use do BOMBS have?

and



We sold them plans to build chemical weapons facilities. We sell him the chemicals and the plans so he can make a chemical weapons plant to produce the weapons with the materials we supplied.

You gotta be willing to bury your head deeply to ignore the overwhelming amount of documented evidence.

He used them on the wrong people. He didn't play right and those were dangerous toys so we needed to make sure he didn't have em them anymore.

 

[Ruby]

He used them on the wrong people. He didn't play right and those were dangerous toys so we needed to make sure he didn't have em them anymore.

They shouldnt be used on anyone but obviously the US kept supplying him even AFTER he gassed the kurds so I am not sure the US govt would agree with you.

 

[maineman]

He used them on the wrong people. He didn't play right and those were dangerous toys so we needed to make sure he didn't have em them anymore.

ruby has an interesting point. Who were the "right people" to attack with chemical weapons?

 

[dilloduck]

ruby has an interesting point. Who were the "right people" to attack with chemical weapons?

As far as I'm concerned all bets are off in a war. You do anything you can to win. We play patty cake while the enemy uses anything tactic it wants. And you know what? No one cares.

 

[dilloduck]

They shouldnt be used on anyone but obviously the US kept supplying him even AFTER he gassed the kurds so I am not sure the US govt would agree with you.

We should have invaded then.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Sure thing. Your whole house of cards comes crashing down with one simple point. No US, no first Gulf war. When the UN refuses to enforce its own edicts it falls to member states to do so. There is no Treaty that is a suicide pact that is legal. The UN is NOT a Government. It is a body of member States, a body that barely functions. It has no legal standing save that the members agree to. It has no power save that its members chose to enforce. No treaty that abridges the rights safe guards and defense of the US remains legally binding on the US or for that matter any other nation.

There is no such thing as an Illegal war. Why? Because there is no body that can LEGALLY tell Nation States what they can and can not do. No treaty remains binding when the Congress and the President CHOSE to abridge it. Thats how it works. And the President ask and received the blessing of Congress to ignore any agreement that you claim prevented us from acting. THAT is how it works.

Now if the UN feels agrieved it has options. For one it could make a BINDING UN Edict stating the war was against the UN charter. It has done NO such thing. Once said Edict was issued it could seek sanctions against the US. No such action has occurred. The OPINION of the current "leader" of the UN is worth less then the paper it is written on. It means literally NOTHING.

Get back to me when an OFFICIAL edict is signed and delivered to the US claiming our invasion of Iraq was illegal.Why I will even settle for just it being passed by the Security Council, it doesn't even have to be delivered. Ohh wait, small problem, we have Veto power there.

So much for the claim of illegal war.

“Get back to me when an OFFICIAL edict is signed and delivered to the US claiming our invasion of Iraq was illegal”

But, now that you were proven wrong, you moved the goal posts to a different argument; a different question. You original question did NOT ask if there was a formal edict or resolution finding that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.

You originally asked for a “shed” of evidence in our Laws, the Constitution, and our Treaties, that would demonstrate that our invasion was illegal.

I gave you that: the exact text from our International Treaty obligations, and our obligations under our Constitution that makes it illegal to wage war unless you act in self defense against a nation that is attacking you (or is on the imminent verge of attacking you)

Here was your original question:

RGS: "Please do be specific, provide one shred of legal evidence under US law , the Constitution or our treaties, that make the invasion of Iraq illegal."

Here is the “shred” of evidence, from both international law, our treaty obligations, and our obligations under the US Constitution, which makes offensive or “preventative” war against some theoretical, alleged future threat, illegal:

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=603681&postcount=146


Now, once you acknowledge that your first original question was dealt with and completely answered, I’ll be happy to address your new question.

 

[Ruby]

As far as I'm concerned all bets are off in a war. You do anything you can to win. We play patty cake while the enemy uses anything tactic it wants. And you know what? No one cares.

And yet you try to pretend some superior values reside in america, yet there you stand ready to rationalize and support any and all atrocities.

Its obvious you cant be trusted with rope...you would hang yourself!

 

[maineman]

As far as I'm concerned all bets are off in a war. You do anything you can to win. We play patty cake while the enemy uses anything tactic it wants. And you know what? No one cares.

so you advocate violating the constitution?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But, now that you were proven wrong, you moved the goal posts to a different argument; a different question. You original question did NOT ask if there was a formal edict or resolution finding that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.

You originally asked for a “shed” of evidence in our Laws, the Constitution, and our Treaties, that would demonstrate that our invasion was illegal.

I gave you that: the exact text from our International Treaty obligations, and our obligations under our Constitution that makes it illegal to wage war unless you act in self defense against a nation that is attacking you (or is on the imminent verge of attacking you)

Here was your original question:



Here is the “shred” of evidence, from both international law, our treaty obligations, and our obligations under the US Constitution, which makes offensive or “preventative” war against some theoretical, alleged future threat, illegal:

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=603681&postcount=146


Now, once you acknowledge that your first original question was dealt with and completely answered, I’ll be happy to address your new question.

And you haven't proved anything. Congress and the President are the authority. They can and do, on a regular basis determine what a treaty means and whether or not we will follow it or abridge it. You haven't a leg to stand on. No US Court has ruled the Congress and the President violated US law. There you have it ALL 3 branches of our federal Government have accepted that the Invasion of Iraq was legal and authorized thus you have NO standing to claim other wise.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Provide a court case or a resolution from Congress or a declaration from the executive. Failing any of those your claim is flat out false. The US Government followed the Constitution and our laws in authorizing and conducting the Invasion of Iraq. They continue to follow our Constitution and our laws in authorizing continued military action and presence in Iraq.

You can make all the ignorant claims you want, they hold no legal basis in fact. You can't even provide an order from the UN condemning the action, declaring the action a violation of the UN Charter. So even on those grounds you fail miserably.

The US was clear why it was within its rights within the UN Charter to conduct the Invasion, absent any denouncement from the UN one must assume they are correct.

You have failed across the board.

As for Panama, I suggest you check the UN Charter again, the body that makes resolutions that are binding is the Security Council, the General assembly has no power, per the rules of the Organization. I am waiting still for a UN Resolution that condemned the Panama Invasion as well.

It sucks to be totally wrong, but do keep pretending otherwise.

 

[maineman]

"Article. VI.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"

three words:

"Chemical Weapons Convention"

treaty.

law of the land.

...which means, clearly, that you advocate violating the constitution of the united states. go to jail. do not pass go, do not collect $200.