YT2095 Posted December 7, 2003 Author Share Posted December 7, 2003 holy crap dude!... he killed Kenny! You Ba$tard! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Some UN stuff General page http://www.un.org/peace/index.html Charter http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html Statute for criminal court http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Yes, we've been through all this before. The UN charter basically says that unless the Security Council specifically identifies a threat and forms a resolution authorising the use of force, or a member country is directly attacked, a member CANNOT invade another country. Read this thread newbie. It's extremely long but very interesting http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=770 UN Resolutions List: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/scres91.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I will make this short, all this talk about being illegal is just a conspiracy that you want to hold on too because of reasons you dislike the country. I read some of the thread you posted and stopped when I read faf's post. Iraq did have WMD and the whole point of the resolutions was to prove that they destroyed them. That was one of the reasons Bush gave to go to war and was justified when Iraq did not comply. There have been instances where we have found possible links to Osama, but as of now we are unable to verify the claims. Regarding your thoughts on my last post: One only needs to read the resolution to understand that Iraq did not comply. Also the Security Council was undecided on the issue like I said before. If I do have a "problematic history on this forum" it’s because I must. When you reply to a post you are replying to that person, not the entire thread. My first statement was directed to you; I have no problem admitting that, but you make one to me and I challenge it; then you call out that I am making assumptions, which I have not. Your comment was directed too me, if not why would you type it in your reply if it wasn’t? I am not trying to cause trouble here, just that there is no PROOF of this illegal action. There is no reading behind the lines because everything is out in the open, no secrets, no conspiracies and no illegal actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 newbie said in post #29 :One only needs to read the resolution to understand that Iraq did not comply. I'm pretty sure there wasn't a resolution that read "if Iraq doesn't comply with their wishes, the USA and UK can invade them", so you'll have to be a touch more specific. The UN has quite a few resolutions. Also the Security Council was undecided on the issue like I said before. Yes, which makes the attack a breach of international law. Which bit of that is hard to understand? If I do have a "problematic history on this forum" it’s because I must. When you reply to a post you are replying to that person, not the entire thread. I disagree with both points. In the first case, you are reaping what you sow. Your history is catalogued in some detail in the forums' administration area. In the second case, you are unilaterally ruling out the possibility of a user responding to a specific post but discussing a general subject. In the example of my post, where I stated "I can't argue against that so I will just ignore it is getting old too", this was meant to be commentary on the general attitude of people on the "pro war side" - just as I interpreted your "I really don't wish to discuss the illegal speak anymore its really getting old" to be commentary on the "anti war side". Why you would think that I accused you of ignoring something you had just posted about is something of a mystery to me. Damn, I'm so devious that even I don't notice my evil plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 If the UN is undecided then it defaults to the countries in question to resolve the matter. Why is that so hard to understand? I disagree again. If you really wanted to convey a sad believe and not direct that comment to me then you should of rephrased it, as it stands it was directed to me. This is getting us nowhere so I think its time to say goodbye to this discussion. Can we agree on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Indeed I do agree that we are getting nowhere. Having the same argument that's been done to death elsewhere and bashing our skulls together when that gets boring is a bit of a drag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 The UN is gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Just because you've never seen them with a lady, doesn't mean you can jump to wild conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 10, 2003 Author Share Posted December 10, 2003 Hmmm.... This is going Well !? if I may go back to the ORIGINAL idea of this thread, DOES anyone Actualy feel safer? (don`t get me wrong, I`m all FOR side chats and stuff, and the Poll is interesting, tho some more votes would be better, it`s just that we seem to have REALLY driffted off the point here!) as Dudde would say: " the next one off topic gets banned" LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Not really. The UK is presenting itself more and more as a "legitimate" target. THANKS TONY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Nobody feels safer. Some people are happy becase other people have died. Some people don't feel enough people have died, and want more people dead. Some people don't want other people to die, but apparently they are just stoopid. And the world spins on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matter Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Don't be worried Sayonara old chum. I have a feeling in my gut that the strikes from Islamic fundamentalist groups have ended. Your country is safe. Everyone loves the UK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 I doubt that many people like us to be honest. The UK has done some terrible things, a lot of them quietly recent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 The thing I don't feel safe about isn't the terrorists going around blowing things up, it's the way that about 3 days ago the police turn up on our road and start pulling everyone over completely randomly, and this happens on a monthly basis. Before all this started, I don't think I've ever seen it happening before. The Government has used this 'terrorist threat' to get in legislation that would otherwise just be clearly thrown out of Parliament. I just don't like the way it's going, because at this rate they'll turn it into a police state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 13, 2003 Author Share Posted December 13, 2003 and the terrorist will have won by default Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 In some ways people in the west are safer from terrorists, al Qaeda has been busy in Afghanistan and it seems is diverting some of its people to Iraq where the US troops are easier targets. They have a good opportunity to undermine the US there and have been finding it harder to move money around, so they aren't as likely to be doing any of the riskier attacks overseas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 By the way I found this interesting which was quoted in a recent opinion article: "Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible...we would have been forced to occupy Bagdad and, in effect rule Iraq...there was no viable 'exit stategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. "Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we had hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." It's from George Bush Senior's memoir, A World Tansformed. As the journalist pointed out, "it's a pity his son can't read." Now back to the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 If we were really after oil in Iraq we would have taken in in the Gulf War. The UN required Iraq to produce documents outlining what happened to their chem/bio weapons. They failed to do this. If the UN expects countries to follow their laws, they should try enforcing them once in a while. Oppose the war all you want, but don't be so bold as to accuse the US of violating international law for enforcing the threat of force approved earlier by the UN when the UN was afraid to act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 14, 2003 Author Share Posted December 14, 2003 Saddam`s busted anyway now, and what a coward! YT opens a cellebration beer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 Unless he was stuffed with WOMD when they found him, that's not really here nor there. Of course, after the interrogation things might be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 14, 2003 Author Share Posted December 14, 2003 well he obviously wants to stay alive, hence his cooperative attitude during capture, I think he`ll try a wriggle out a little by bargaining for a lesser sentence, giving up names and places of his henchmen for leniency(sp?). tho he IS of the mindset in his past history, to have gotten rid of all his WMD, but played the bluff that he still HAS THEM. all we need to do now is capture Osama Big Lamer, and I recon the rest will crap themselves! either give up to forces, go into hiding and reform or die trying. what we DONT want, is him to be seen as a martyr! under ANY circumstances! but I for one, am a happy bunny about this news ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 You mean "binny hippy"? AHHH HA HAAAAAAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 14, 2003 Author Share Posted December 14, 2003 leave Dudde outa this, he`s not here to deffend himself LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 heh heh heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now