War with Iraq

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
[B]
The US spend 0.1 % of their GDP on aid (with a GDP of about $ 10.000 billion, the 'billions of dollars' you talk about, is actually only about $ 10 billion, which is about as much as they spend on foreign military). Relatively spoken, that's peanuts. The EU forces all its members to spend at least 1%, ten times as much.
In actual dollars spent, the US are nr. 2 (behind Japan).
In actual dollars, the EU-15 spend about $ 80 billion a year on aid, 8 times as much...

---

Ah.... your argument is that since it is such a small part of their GDP it isn't worth anything..... Go tell that to the people who receive it Neg.......

Quote:

---

Resolution 1441:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area.

---

Negative old chap.... You probably should have read the Dutch/Flemish text so there would be no misunderstanding of good old English....... The phrase "and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660" includes UN 1441 thus use of force is authorized in UN 1441 for materiel breaches of it. (not meaning to pick on your comprehension but it does kind of blow a hole in your response..... It isn't just about the Iraq-Kuwait conflict.

Quote:

---

Please, in the future, don't make up resolutions. And they US don't 'give aid to us all', thank you. We ratified Resolution 1441, and we're still acting according to it (all necessary means, remember...).

---

See above! I won't go nah, nah nah nah nah nah......... ;)

Quote:

---

And please stop thinking there's only the US and the third world. Maybe you should take a look at some of European countries' economy (Flanders is the wealthiest region in the world, for example), their social security systems, their real freedom of speech, their culture,...
There are over 300 million Europeans who have more freedom than you will ever know, Tiger Shark.

---

Negative.... Take a look at the goddamn flag by my name. That, Sir, is a Union Jack... The Flag of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. A sovereign nation within the boudaries of the continent of Europe. Been there, seen it, done it. Born in Europe! Still a British citizen. Fought in the british military for 10 years defending Europe...... I know freedom my son.....

Now - if that was your neg AP that stated my post was "childish and not well thought out" I would appreciate it's removal on the grounds that your comprehension is lacking and your observation is zero. Fair??????

I didn't mean to imply that the money they spend isn't worth anything. It still is a lot of money in actual dollars, as I stated. Relatively spoken, it's peanuts though.

Quote:

---

Negative old chap.... You probably should have read the Dutch/Flemish text so there would be no misunderstanding of good old English....... The phrase "and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660" includes UN 1441 thus use of force is authorized in UN 1441 for materiel breaches of it. (not meaning to pick on your comprehension but it does kind of blow a hole in your response..... It isn't just about the Iraq-Kuwait conflict.

---

We didn't authorize the use of force in the case of non-compliance. For material breaches of resolution 1441, we authorized 'the use of all necessary means', not 'the use of force'. My point is that no resolution subsequent to resolution 660 (not even 1441) gives anyone the right to use force against Iraq. Why do Bush and Blair want a new resolution? Because no resolution subsequent to resolution 660 authorizes the use of force. The use of force requires a new resolution.
And I use a dictionary sometimes, so don't you worry ;) I won't hide behind my 'misunderstanding of good old English'.

Quote:

---

Negative.... Take a look at the goddamn flag by my name.

---

Sorry, my mistake... I know what the Union Jack looks like, just didn't look at it ;)

Quote:

---

Now - if that was your neg AP that stated my post was "childish and not well thought out" I would appreciate it's removal on the grounds that your comprehension is lacking and your observation is zero. Fair??????

---

It wasn't my antipoint, so I would appreciate the removal of your 'your comprehension is lacking and your observation is zero'-comment. Fair? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
[B]We didn't authorize the use of force in the case of non-compliance. For material breaches of resolution 1441, we authorized 'the use of all necessary means', not 'the use of force'. My point is that no resolution subsequent to resolution 660 (not even 1441) gives anyone the right to use force against Iraq. Why do Bush and Blair want a new resolution? Because no resolution subsequent to resolution 660 authorizes the use of force. The use of force requires a new resolution.

---

Neg, "all necessary means" is "legalese". It is entirely subjective and is intended to be so. The wording is such that _nothing_ is ruled out. Therefore the phrase authorizes the use of force in UN 678 to "to restore international peace and security in the area". Again, the word security is a little subjective. If you feel secure sat next to Iraq that's all well and good, but if I don't then "security" has not been maintained. Therefore until everyone feels that Iraq is not a threat then UN 678 allows the use of force to make it so.

Bush and Blair are playing politics sooooo hard it's not true. The UN has become practically irrelevant, (let's see, Lybia is going to be the head of the next Civil Rights Council.... there's a joke don't you think), but they are still trying to "play the game". They don't need to subsequent to UN 678 any more than Bush needs any more approval from Congress, (they granted approval ages ago and the liberal politicians here really want him to come back for more so they can say they had a hand in the successful operation when in truth they have done everything to impede it).

Quote:

---

And I use a dictionary sometimes, so don't you worry I won't hide behind my 'misunderstanding of good old English'.

---

Cool, I can respect you for that..... <BG>

Quote:

---

Sorry, my mistake... I know what the Union Jack looks like, just didn't look at it ;)

---

This is where I took the "observation" point from..... You made an assumption that I was American because I was defending them quite vehemently. Yes, I live in the USA and have done for almost 15 years - but I am a Brit to the core, proud of it and will never renounce that citizenship..........

Quote:

---

It wasn't my antipoint, so I would appreciate the removal of your 'your comprehension is lacking and your observation is zero'-comment. Fair?

---

To be fair allow me to rephrase:

Your analysis based upon your subjective view of UN 678 is misleading. Your assumption that I was American when evidence to the contrary was clearly available _could_ lead one to believe that you are ruled by impulse rather than a close attention to detail.

Is that fairer....... :p

As to the antipoint, (and it's not the score I care about it's the comment), would the spineless coward who places comments like "childish and not well thought out" without putting a signature to it like to step forward and stun us with their deep knowledge and understanding of world politics. Hell, just step up and have the courage to try to explain it........

Look at it this way. At the end of the day, there's always going to be people who agree with war against Iraq, and those who for whatever reasons, disagree. Does anyone here think the Iraqi people would be worse off without Saddam, public executions, torture, opression, state-sanctioned murder, airstrikes, and starvation, and UN sanctions? I didn't think so.

Out of all these things that are happening right now, how many would stop if the world turned a blind eye and walked away right now, allowing things to carry on as they are? The airstrikes would stop, yes, but I doubt it would be for very long. I'd bet if there was no international intervention, the airstrikes would resume, only this time it would be Saddam ordering airstrikes against his own people, killing thousands over a prolonged period of time. This is why there are no-fly zones in Iraq. Because Saddam can't be trusted not to murder his own people.

Say the US and the UK did walk away from this pretty nasty situation, what would happen then? Iraq would rearm, and that would make a lot of Iraq's neighbouring countries very nervous. Saddam would also like to gas the Kurds and all those who rose up against him after the 1991 war. He won't have forgotten them, you can bet on it.

Israel couldn't sit back idly and allow Saddam to develop long-range nukes either, or even deadlier chemical and biological weapons to drop on who he pleases. That would surely cause Israel to act, and so causing the middle east to explode into the sort of war all those opposed to war would like to avoid. Who would you all blame then? I'd bet the same people you blame for NOT allowing Saddam to carry on as he pleases. Face facts, Saddam is a very dangerous man, and the sooner he is gone, the better, and through whatever means is deemed neccessary.

Hopefully war can be avoided, but it's in the entire world's interest do be rid of this evil two-bit tyrant once and for all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Beryllium9
Hopefully war can be avoided, but it's in the entire world's interest do be rid of this evil two-bit tyrant once and for all.

---

I think most of us agree with (and so do I): Saddam IS a problem, and that problem needs to be taken care off. The only thing we seem to disagree on is the way to get rid of him.
I personnally belief that there are 'more civilized' ways to get rid of Saddam. The problem we're facing right now is that not only we'd have to fight a war against Saddam, but also against his people. After the Gulf War, Saddam could do anything he wanted. 'Yes, my people, I executed 5000 people today, but they were spies for the US. The US, remember? Those guys who bombed the **** out of us a while ago.' Most of the Iraqi's are with Saddam today. Not only will that be a problem during the upcoming war (since 5 American companies already have signed contracts to "rebuild" Iraq after the war, I'm not that naive to think there won't be a war. Very sarcastic I find this.), but it'll even be a bigger problem when the war is over.

And Tiger Shark: allow me to give you an analogy. Suppose you are asked to try to open a heavily-secured vault. You are authorized to use all means necessary to open it (don't mind the budget ;) ). Whatever is in the vault, will be yours when opened. Would your first attempt be to use dynamite to blow it up, risking the destruction of what is inside the vault? Or would you consider trying to lock-pick it? Maybe ask some experts, find a backdoor,...?

Compare that to the Iraq-situation: the vault of course is Iraq, the authorisation to use all necessary means is a UN-resolution, dynamite is a war, lock-picks and the like are weapons inspectors and diplomats.

Dynamite would be something I'd only consider when all other means would fail...

BTW: I've had a Palestinian flag next to my name for quite some time :D

weve been picking the lock for 12 years, its time to move on.

*worm wood*

Quote:

---

also, how many of those statistics came from north an south iraq where saddam isnt in full control. i mean just because he kills them using the very same NBCs he dosnet have and destroyed, wreaked several thousands geneticly, so that even though they didnt die, there children have birth defects if they are born at all, and they are living off whatever they can scrape by with and through togather, w/o ANY support from their govt. but its all the us and their evil imperialistic goals....though the last time we annexxed a country against their will escapes me, perhaps one of you could provide a link?

---

There isnot any part of iraq that saddam doesnot control now :cool:
They are all united to die againse us troops

Quote:

---

and g.w. bush is th elegal president, and their was no difference in how he was elected compared to other preisdents...excpet the supreme court having to explain gore how the election system has worked for the past 200 years. bush DID not steal the election, he mearly one by electorial vote, the SAME WAY EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT has. the populer vote is their to make u feel better. it dont mean jack, weather thast good or bad is another thread, but thats the way its always been, so quit bitching about it.

---

Americans see world as being 2 parties either with them or as evil
They are not aware of the fact they are doing evil themshelfs so they also call nutral people evil and as a result conflict arises and innocents die.
Just because they are stupid!!!!

*info au*

Quote:

---

I do not agree to my Prime Minister following blindly Bush and not listening to the people of Australia.If 3 countries go to war without U.N backing those countries will be starting W.W.3.

---

I dont either but he has no choice but to agree with us because as i said before he had 2 choices to make at his first meeting he had with bush

Quote:

---

Either you are with us or with them. Its your choice to make

---

By george bush
Now if you were the president of australia on that moment what would you say?????? Please
let me know. mail me at [email protected]
Or u can use the personal mail stuff on this site
U know what i would do????







I would rather say no



They would then never get encouraged


Hey


Calling a resolution was colen powel's mistake


look
they didnot make any resolutions when thy destroyed the whole afganistan


did they????


I dont think so


*Beryllium9*

Quote:

---

Look at it this way. At the end of the day, there's always going to be people who agree with war against Iraq, and those who for whatever reasons, disagree. Does anyone here think the Iraqi people would be worse off without Saddam, public executions, torture, opression, state-sanctioned murder, airstrikes, and starvation, and UN sanctions? I didn't think so.

---

Look at it now. They are more agreed to him then anyone.. aren't thet??????........
What an irony

Quote:

---

Say the US and the UK did walk away from this pretty nasty situation, what would happen then? Iraq would rearm, and that would make a lot of Iraq's neighbouring countries very nervous. Saddam would also like to gas the Kurds and all those who rose up against him after the 1991 war. He won't have forgotten them, you can bet on it.

---

haha
have you also forgotten US were with iraq on that time and at that time US also deleted Iraq's name from their terrorist list.
Does that not mean they were not encourageing


*negative*

Quote:

---

I think most of us agree with (and so do I) Saddam IS a problem, and that problem needs to be taken care off. The only thing we seem to disagree on is the way to get rid of him.

---

I agree with you too but what i am trying to say is u dont have to take about 130000 troops to kill one guy. am i right????
You may say saddam has lots of troops that they wont allow saddam to be killed la bla bla bla
Why dont u shoot him from the top
U got satalite tergettting system. why dont u do it???
or u wont find peace unless u kill some innocents. Is that right???????


COLOR=crimson]Look[/COLOR] we need to look at these stuff with two eyes. What we find in media is just one side of the whole damn thing. Did you know that what what media calls "Islamic Hamas Terrorist Group" has christan people on it. :o This is a fact.
That is not a fight for religion, that is for land
Did you know that?????
nope
for sure

and they also change their mind everyday :deal:

Today they call that they are fighting for their country...... tomorrow they were terrorising afganis
thats lost

i know that they are pretty convienceing but this is not something we can fully rely on.

Saddam needs to be removed but not in a way US is telling. Because bush is not going to stop. Iraq to kirea to bla to bla..................................

dont u see they want a total world domination.


huh if u got something better feel free to tell me your arguments
i will be looking forword to your arguments.
_______________________________________
Christianity rulZ

wanna bet, he only has a token control of the notrher and southern region. there are armed Kurdish warlords who have control of most of the region. saddam mearly controls the main cities and roads.

Althogh the figures on forign aid i have and what im reading here are slightly different the overall picture is mindboggleing.

Quote:

---

The U.S. currently spends approximately $14 billion per year on foreign aid -- far less than most people believe, but still a substantial sum. Since the end of World War II, the United States has spent more than $400 billion on aid to other countries. But there is little evidence that any of these programs has significantly improved the lives of the people in countries receiving this aid. Instead, foreign aid has typically slowed economic development and created dependence.

---

We can increase this amont to include the additional 10 billion Bush pledged to fight aids in africa this year and as if that isn't enough we spend an unimaginable amount defending others...some that dont want or need defending

Quote:

---

For example, it costs each American more than $1,000 per year in taxes to pay for the military, while it costs each German or Japanese less than $360 per year. How can we justify these commitments? NATO currently costs American taxpayers more than $90 billion annually. For what purpose? The European Union has a collective population of 370 million, a gross domestic product of $7 trillion per year, and more than two million troops.

---

Quote:

---

Likewise, the cost of American efforts to defend Japan and South Korea totals more than $40 billion per year (counting air, ground, and naval forces designated for that purpose as well as ground troops stationed in the two countries). Yet, Japan is an economic giant and South Korea a budding one. Alone or together, both countries are fully capable of defending themselves.

---

ok lets use $10 Billion
AIDS $10 Billion
NATO $90 Billion
Japan and So Korea $40 Billion

thats a total of $150 Billion Dollars spent on forign aid in my book and i agree. much of that could be put to allot better use.

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

Down with the UN

Down with NATO

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

quotes from lp.org

You guys may be interested in this report on the last gulf war by Ramsey Clarke (former US Attorney gen.)...chilling stuff.


http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

Joneseyboy