The US Liars???

[gghornet]

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.

[4MidgetHitmen]

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...

[Chuck56]

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?

[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."

[antihaxor]

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?

[4MidgetHitmen]

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

[He||sFurY]

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

[powertoad5000]

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

[4MidgetHitmen]

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...

[powertoad5000]

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