The US Liars???
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: The US Liars???

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    310

    The US Liars???

    I found this both interesting and amusing.Check it out.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,63597,00.html

    "I hereby declare before you that Iraq is clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons," Sabri said, further quoting Saddam. "

    ...and I'm Bill Gates



    And it charged that the United States was working in concert with Israel and was trying to control the Middle East oil supply.

    Haha.If the US was trying to control the middle east oil supply,why don't we control any of it?Has Iraq stopped us?I believe I recall gas prices being jacked up more than once because we don't control the oil supply.If that's not a desperate attempt to throw a little propaganda at the US I don't know what is.
    If Iraq has nothing to hide why stall?It's almost a picture perfect repeat.The inspectors will be allowed in and they will constantly be tailed by Iraqi soldiers.When they get close to something,they'll be removed from the area,with physical force if necessary,and Iraq will come up with some convenient reason like they are spys.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    236
    But wait Horent... Saddam said he would play fair this time and allow unrestricted access to everything the inspectors wanted.... YOu mean you don't believe good ol' Saddam??? For shame

    If anyone believes Iraq doesn't have WMD any more I would like you to IM me so I can sell you some land I have with a bridge on it...

    Let him stall... You're right it is just like last time in that he is allowing for a massive build up of troops and weapons against him once again...
    \"Nuts!\"- Commanding General 101st Airborne Division Dec 1944 in answer to German request that he surrender Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge
    Life has a certian flavor for those who have fought and risked it all that the sheltered and protected can never experience.- John Stewart Mill
    White, Hetrosexual, Christian male. I own guns, hunt, eat meat, burn wood, and my wife wears fur... Any questions?

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    386
    Saddam...What a guy! He's a liar, con man, mass murderer, and those are his good points. And, he's in control of one of the Mid East powers.

    4M, saw your mood. I missed the news yesterday..satellite problems. Did the rocket attack happen yesterday, and is all okay?

  4. #4
    Old-Fogey:Addicts founder Terr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,007
    And the US Govt. is flamingly hypocritical. "Oh, well, let's appeal to the UN about going after Saddam!... but we don't want our own people to be liable for war crimes... and when we don't *call* it a war it isn't really a war, okay? We only work with the UN when it suits us."
    [HvC]Terr: L33T Technical Proficiency

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    400
    Originally posted here by Terr
    And the US Govt. is flamingly hypocritical. "Oh, well, let's appeal to the UN about going after Saddam!... but we don't want our own people to be liable for war crimes... and when we don't *call* it a war it isn't really a war, okay? We only work with the UN when it suits us."
    And why shouldn't we? Do you think we should sacrifice our national interests every time the UN disagrees with them? The UN is making the same mistakes that the League of Nations made before WW2.You cannot back down from your demands on a despotic dictator. The very fact that the UN is even wavering at enforcment is giving Saddam confidence.He will just continue to dash and dodge until he has had time to develop or obtain a WOMD. If we give him time to do that you can bet that America will be the first target...not israel. I fear bio-weapons more than anything. What if he does create a super-virus and unleash some "book of revelation" like desease?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    236
    I read the new National Security Stratagy policy earlier and personally I like the changes... Check it out here:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

    Thank you for asking Chuck56... No happened about 0230 Afgan time this AM at a base about 120 from Bagram Airbase... From what I have been able to get from news sources no Americans were injuried... But I would still like to hear the wifes voice
    \"Nuts!\"- Commanding General 101st Airborne Division Dec 1944 in answer to German request that he surrender Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge
    Life has a certian flavor for those who have fought and risked it all that the sheltered and protected can never experience.- John Stewart Mill
    White, Hetrosexual, Christian male. I own guns, hunt, eat meat, burn wood, and my wife wears fur... Any questions?

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    21
    To the best of knowledge, and I have been known to be wrong once or twice, the United Nations is there so a group of nations can act as a fair and just unit...as appossed by to one country creating a war because the leader or leadership body feels slighted by another country...whether it be usa or iraq....If the United Nations says no....and a country still attacks, shouldnt the leaders be charged with war crimes?

    Peace..... He||sFurY

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    405
    With states like Iraq, though, Benvenisti argued that the conventional rules still applied. It was essential to the international system to have a clear principle that "no single country has the capacity to make a judgement over the intentions of another country". Therefore if there were still time for diplomacy, a military strike (for instance against a country that was about to acquire a nuclear capability) would not be authorized under Article 51.
    http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/bush-intro.html

    Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including . . . wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, . . . taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm

    If the US decided to attack Iraq tomorrow, they would be in violation of the UN Charter, of which they are a co-signatory. But the US (Bush) would not be guilty of war crimes by simply initiating a war with Iraq.

    -toad

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    236
    I wonder what if anything the UN can or would do to us for attacking Iraq... We may be in violation of the UN charter but IMHO the Constitution of the US and our right to self-defense takes a front seat to the UN charter... Heck most member states (the US included) are so far behind on their UN dues as to make it a joke...
    \"Nuts!\"- Commanding General 101st Airborne Division Dec 1944 in answer to German request that he surrender Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge
    Life has a certian flavor for those who have fought and risked it all that the sheltered and protected can never experience.- John Stewart Mill
    White, Hetrosexual, Christian male. I own guns, hunt, eat meat, burn wood, and my wife wears fur... Any questions?

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    405
    Originally posted here by 4MidgetHitmen
    IMHO the Constitution of the US and our right to self-defense takes a front seat to the UN charter
    It may seem like an attractive solution - throw out the charter, charge into Iraq and fix the situation from there. But as soon as one set of principles gets tossed, it becomes acceptable to change the rules to suit your situation. It is especially dangerous in the case of a powerful nation such as the US, since they can do this with ease; they are the most powerful nation on earth. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - and on the world scene, the United States more or less has absolute power. JMHO

    -toad

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •