More WMD Found

[August1991]

This "decision" was an Advisory Opinion.

The advisory procedure of the Court is open solely to international organizations. The only bodies at present authorized to request advisory opinions of the Court are five organs of the United Nations and 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations family.

World Court

So, Kofi Annan asks some guys in The Hague what they think about Israel building a wall. (This is why the UN is now basically irrelevant.)

I DO get it; you probably do too; you just refuse to acknowledge it.  US experts HAVE, reluctantly acknowledge it, recently.

The question is whether the actions of the US government over the past three years or so have increased or decreased the likelihood of a terrorist attack.

The invasion of an Arab/Muslim country without just cause will only lead to young people from those regions in believing that joining the terrorists is the only answer for them.

If you believe that, then I think you are extremely naive and have little or no understanding of the nature of terrorism in the Middle East.

Who were the 19 idiots who flew those planes? Where were they from? What reason did they give for doing what they did?

Simply put, it is impossible to provoke these people in the way you think. They are provoked rather by the kinds of things you post to this forum. They think it is blasphemy.

[KrustyKidd]

Terrorism has increased.

Wonder why. Could it be that they have been hurt badly? They see the winds blowing against them and know that the world, with the US leading is not going to let them have their way anymore? I would increase my resistance as well if somebody was inflicting damage to me, damage that was conducted on every front that I needed for survival.

Point being, increases in terrorist activity will be or relevence five years from now, not the year that the hornets nest has been chooped off the tree or disturbed. Your observation is like saying that traffic activity is greatest during rush hour.

[caesar]

Don't count on it. The USA has bitten off more than it can chew this time. Hopefully, President Kerry will put them back on track. Stop over protecting and subsidizing Israel and perhaps the Middle East will get moving on cooperating and settling matters more amiably. USA meddling has only exasperated the whole situation.

If the UN is so irrelevant; tell Bush to quit asking it for help.

The USA was WRONG. USA Congress is recognizing that; USA Courts are recognizing that.

[KrustyKidd]

Don't count on it. The USA has bitten off more than it can chew this time.

In order to make this statement true, you would have to show me how terrorism was going to go away and how.

Was the US and the west to suffer 911s time and again until some grand event made the thousands of dedicated terrorists stop their mission?

Is this a bigger mission than taking on the Soviet Union in a war of wills, idealology, economy and military might?

If the UN is so irrelevant; tell Bush to quit asking it for help.

I think the US is in Iraq and has it under control as it is. The UN did help but bailed out the moment the bullets came their way, opnce again showing their ineffectiveness. Bush has once again offered them a chance to be counted. He needs them like a hole in the head.

The USA was WRONG. USA Congress is recognizing that; USA Courts are recognizing that.

In what aspect? What particular points are they recognizing that they are wrong?

WMD? Intelligence.

Action in Iraq? Only those in opposition or retired looking to sell a book.

Congress is wrong. How many congressmen are saying that who voted for the action and how many have resigned?

USA Courts? WTF are you on? What courts? What jurisdiction and who are the plaintiffs and who are the defendants and what are the damages and what are the penalties and what have been the payouts? And ..... seeing as how three years after the fact, the 911 commision is just rounding up it's findings, what officail evidence from a year ago are these 'courts' finding their own asses with? Got to hear this one ...... waiting .....

[caesar]

Krusty; you just do not seem able to comprehend the situation. Iraq and Saddam were not real players in the Terrorist actions. The Terrorists have been set aside and ignored to enable these little excursion into Iraq. The causes that have made these terrorist organizations grow is not being addressed.

Time to wake up and smell the bacon.

Until the causes for unrest and anger are addressed; terrorism will flourish.

Attacking a country that was cooperating and destroying border line illegal weaponry is not the way to combat terrorism.

You have a closed mind and are still looking for those WMD; the whole situation is beyond you; give it up.

Iraq was not a terrorist country despite, however, irritatating Saddam could be. America's ally, Pakistan IS a hotbed of terrorists. Pakistan did allow its scientist to supply nuclear technologies and parts to rogue nations. Bush didn't say a word as those scientist were immediately pardoned and allowed to keep their ill gotten gains. And even that doesn't make you wonder?????

[kaper1999]

Pakistan has been left alone because it has nuclear weapons. North Korea has "real wmds". They too have been left alone. Saddam had no wmds and that’s why he was attacked. Cheap oil and reconstruction projects. 1000 US soldiers and 15000 Iraqi died because of these two reasons. When a judge asked a bank robber why did he rob a bank? He replied “that’s where the money is your honor

[KrustyKidd]

The causes that have made these terrorist organizations grow is not being addressed.

If it is hopelessness and inability to control one's own life then I would beg to differ. in a sea of mental, political and physical restriction, Iraq is begining to be a beacon of hope.

Other than poverty, lack prosperity and freedom as well as restriction of religious freedom, all of which are becomming less and less each day in Iraq thanks to the US, what other problems cause terrorism?

You have a closed mind and are still looking for those WMD; the whole situation is beyond you; give it up.

I never thought Iraq had feasable WMDs. I did however know they were in violation of enough UN resolutions to make this action a legal shoe-in without that. BTW, I have an open mind. You are the one who seems glued to WMDs.

Attacking a country that was cooperating and destroying border line illegal weaponry is not the way to combat terrorism.

Co-operating? It took South Africa less than a year to rid itself of WMDs. All traces. Why then did Iraq, fully co-operating as you put it, take over twelve years and still the Chief UN inspector was giving instances of material breaches?

America's ally, Pakistan IS a hotbed of terrorists. Pakistan did allow its scientist to supply nuclear technologies and parts to rogue nations. Bush didn't say a word as those scientist were immediately pardoned and allowed to keep their ill gotten gains. And even that doesn't make you wonder?????

Holy cow! You are bitching about invading Iraq and now you want them to take on the rest of the world? Who knows, maybe they are planning their next action against all of them.

Pakistan has been left alone because it has nuclear weapons. North Korea has "real wmds". They too have been left alone

The key was to install democracy in the Middle East. iraq is a centralized local that had an irritating and disposable dictator. The population were inmates and not likely to be unhappy with the action. Pakestan and North Korea are not in central Middle East, nor do they have big buckeroos to ensure funancial freedom for the populace.

People died to set a hopefully infectious democratic process in motion. If Iraqis strong, then democratic changes will occur in their trading parners and nieghbors. If not, then at least one country will be prosperous and less of a recruiting center for terrorism.

People keep going on about oil. Better check your facts and who gets the revenues after Jun 28, it's not the US. Also, check the shipping and purchasing contracts, 85% non-US. French and Asian mostely.

[August1991]

Krusty; you just do not seem able to comprehend the situation.

I can't speak for Krusty but it seems to me that it's you Caesar who doesn't comprehend the situation.

Until the causes for unrest and anger are addressed; terrorism will flourish.

Remember "war-torn Beirut"? Car bombs and so on. No one talks about that anymore.

Why?

[KrustyKidd]

Krusty; you just do not seem able to comprehend the situation. Iraq and Saddam were not real players in the Terrorist actions.

Situation? You don't even have the right situation. The whole house is being cleaned here and Iraq is only the spot where the vacum cleaner is being set up. As I told you before, stop drawing cartoons and drooling on the chessboard, or at least, get your checkers off it so we can discuss the actual 'situation.'.

We all know that Iraq had little actual terrorist ties, we all know they had little or no actual WMD, we do know that Saddam was a very bad man who sooner or later would become a Major problem. We do know that there was a legal opportunity to take him out, we do know that he would not be missed, we do know that the world would be a far better place without him, we do know that the Iraqi people would not miss him, we do know that the oil in Iraq would make any democratic change easier,.

We do know that Iraq will trade and influence other countries, we do know that terrorists are comming out of the woodwork and are attacking Americans - not in America but in Iraq and the places they used to call home, and safe haven.

We do know that no terrorist attacks have occured in America scince,. And that is with every terrorist willing to give his life to do it. Does that not tell you something? They are fighting for their very survival and the US is winning. But of course, I don't understand the situation.

[maplesyrup]

Death toll for U.S.-led coalition in Iraq tops 1,000

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- In a grim milestone, the number of deaths in the American-led coalition in Iraq surpassed 1,000 this week.

The latest reported deaths include a U.S. soldier who died from wounds in fighting Thursday in Baghdad, an American soldier killed in a Samarra attack Wednesday and another who died in a nonbattle-related incident Thursday.

The deaths bring multinational fatalities -- both in combat and "nonhostile" situations -- to 1,002 since the start of the war in March 2003. U.S. military deaths now total 881.

Bush dropped the ball and everyone knows it. If he had focused on bin Laden, who was resonsible for 9/11 he probably would have him by now. But no, he went to Iraq and blew it. We all know Saddam was a bad dude. What does that have to do with anything? So is the N Korean leader and what is the US doing about him? All these young people dying for America's addiction to oil. Tragic.

And to anyone who supports the war in Iraq - get your butt over there and walk the talk, eh!

[caesar]

Don't count your chickens before they hatch Krusty.

The terrorists are very patient and plan well ahead. There could be real problems come election time or when everyone lets his guard down and least expects it. Right now they are concentrating on fighting the USA in Iraq.

I would like you to be right but I very much doubt that North America has seen the last of the terrorists.

The USA did NOT have a legal right to invade Iraq. That is a very murky and devious round about path of lies and deceit. As they have managed to bully the UN into exempting them from presecution for any war crimes; they will probably get away with it. They will even get away with the torturing of prisoners by the use of a few scapegoats that were probably following orders.

[KrustyKidd]

Bush dropped the ball and everyone knows it.

Let's see, terrorists sworn to attack America like never before and not one attack. He did good. Al Queda leadership over 80% gone or in prison, he did good. OBL living in a stinking urine soaked cave in Pakistan probably dead, whatever.

. So is the N Korean leader and what is the US doing about him?

Kim doesn't live in the Middle East. You know, the place that most of our terrorist problems come from. You don't see that connection? Kim - Far East. Saddam - Middle East. Memorize that, it becomes rather importent in the next paragraph.

We all know Saddam was a bad dude. What does that have to do with anything?

Saddam provided a doorway into the Middle East. He was a legiteimate, legal target that nobody in their right mind would miss. He was taken out so that democracy would be replaced in his stead. Terrorist invaritably come from countries with terrible human rights records, not democracies. With democracy it is hoped that Iraq will be free. But that is not the aioverall aim as Iraq really was never a hotbed of terrorism anyway, hence, the doorway. See, with lots of buckaroos from oil, the Iraqis should be able to build a fairly self sufficient existance for themselves. One in which a guy who had his ear amputated by the former Regime and whos wife was raped by the chief of police might have a job and buy a car and even a house if Allah wills. He is far less likely to strap a sucide bomb on his ass if he has something to live for.

It is hoped that Iraq will trade and through that, culturally spread their new, and just human rights and freedom throughout the neighboring countries. Making some inroads in terroist harboring countries. You know, show them what life is like when there is hope, make people understand that life does not have to be maryterdom.

All these young people dying for America's addiction to oil. Tragic.

No, they are dying for the freedom of the Iraqi people. If they are dying for oil, it is French and Japanese oil. Check out the shipments and purchaes to date, 85% non-US. Sure wish you would get less rhetoric and more facts.

And to anyone who supports the war in Iraq - get your butt over there and walk the talk, eh!

Didn't see you trying to assasinate Bush or strapping on a belt bomb in any newsreels. I served twenty years in the Army. Four Un tours and three years in Germany. Seven with the Airborne and was always ready to be the pointy end of the sharp knife. Get stuffed.

[KrustyKidd]

The terrorists are very patient and plan well ahead.

And the US just got off the turnip truck. Better tell the Bush administration that, they might be thinking about forgetting all about terrorism. He is about to transfer Tom Ridge from head of homeland security to head of 'Unemployed Ex Al Queda Job Finderes.' Now that you have provided that news flash, they had better rethink it.

There could be real problems come election time or when everyone lets his guard down and least expects it.  Right now they are concentrating on fighting the USA in Iraq.

LOL, like they were concentrating on fighting the Spanish in Iraq right?

I would like you to be right but I very much doubt that North America has seen the last of the terrorists.

Nobody can afford that luxury. Well, Mr Farris can, he figures that terrorists only attack targets that we don’t really need. He figures that we can take chances with the key elements of the USA like the president and such. It’s good to know that some leftists like yourself know how important it is to NEVER let your guard down.

The USA did NOT have a legal right to invade Iraq.  That is a very murky and devious round about path of lies and deceit.  As they have managed to bully the UN into exempting them from persecution for any war crimes; they will probably get away with it.

Please provide the exceptions to Resolution 678 in which the US in para two was given the responsibility and authorization to ensure Iraq complied with all previous resolutions pertaining to the cease fire. Other than that, it’s all supposition and banter with no legalities. And you are talking about legalities so better come up with some proof in the form of laws that cancel out the laws that I spoke of. As well, in the second sentence, you say it was devious and around laws. I never said it was fair and square, just that it was legal. Prove me wrong. BTW, there is a close argument but nobody here has ever hit on it. Try and find it, I’ll helpo you a bit, it’s in every resolution in which the US is given the right to take action to ensure Iraq complies with the conditions of the cease fire. Conditions which include WMD matters, human rights towards Iraqi citizens, war reparations and return of POWs. Only part of the resolutions that put Iraq in violation and subject to invasion were WMD related. It still does not make it illegal though.

They will even get away with the torturing of prisoners by the use of a few scapegoats that were probably following orders.

Well, those guys are getting theirs. Cigarette Girl is going back on trial. You think that if there is something to come out that 60 minutes won’t broadcast it? Cum cum pussycat. Does a dog have fleas? Of course you think Saddam never had any WMD related material too right? And there are no Kuwati POWs with bullets in the back of their skulls in any of those mass graves too right? And Saddam can come up with the reciepts for the money he supposedly repaid Kuwait for the damage done during the invasion too right? All legal grounds for the US to take action.

[caesar]

Krusty you are a brain washed and a waste of time.

Thankfully, the rest of the world and even the Americans; are discovering the truth.

[KrustyKidd]

Krusty you are a brain washed and a waste of time.

Thankfully, the rest of the world and even the Americans; are discovering the truth.

That's your supporting arguement to how the war is ilegal? No laws, no logic, just a rant? I think Ceasar that if you believe something and cannot substanciate it with logic or proof that can withstand logic or counter-proof, then your belief may possibly be mistaken. And if you cannot understand that, then you are the one who is brainwashed.

Have you ever for a moment considered that you are wrong? That Bush and all may be right? If you have never seriously gone through that thought process then you are an idot. In order to formulate sound arguements, you have to understand the whole arguement, both sides. Know what makes it all tick, wiegh the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. It is a lengthy process that is ongoing but first, you have to let go of preconcieved notions of black and white within the political process. All parties and politicians are primarily out for their survival. It is your job to see through all that and make calls on right and wrong, not what you are told.

I know you have not done that for if you had, you would not give up, but rather come back with something that I can use to question my own beliefs. I shoot back with some pretty basic stuff that you cannot refute and you come back with 'brainwashed.' Why not read the legal arguements themselves before you make staements like 'the war is illegal.' Within the laws are food for your arguements and food for mine. And you don't even know what the heck I'm talking about do you? Just walking around with your sandwhich board on chanting the same old stuff. And when hit with a point you don't have a ready answer for, you use the standard 'brainwashed' comeback. Origionality eludes you.

Thankfully, the rest of the world and even the Americans; are discovering the truth.

And you know the truth, that

The USA did NOT have a legal right to invade Iraq

Yet with every legal applicatin at your fingertips, you cannot prove that. Some truth. And I am supposed to think that you tell me the truth when you cannot even back this up? What other little tidbits of disinformation do you trow out from time to time, or all the time, or none of the time save this time?

[caesar]

You, Krust, are not worth the effort. It would be a waste of time. You still believe that Iraq had WMD

[enigma]

Probably, but then Canada was not bound by several UN resolutions to destroy all such weapons and abandon efforts at development and manufacture as the conditions for a peace signed 12 years previously.

Why should some countries have to destroy all their deadly weapons, when others (like the USA for example) get to keep their supply and keep building it?

[KrustyKidd]

That's easy, they are not bound by UN resolutions, part of which are to destroy those WMDs. As well, the difference between them and Israel is that in Iraq's case, getting rid of WMD was part of a ceasefire agreement, along with them having to make war repayments, repatriation of Kuwaiti Nationls and to make substancial human rights improvements on it's own population. None of which they ever did.

You still believe that Iraq had WMD

They may, I know they did have some shells. I know they were in breach of the UN resolutions when they submitted their declaration as Blix himself said pages were doctored and renumbered. I, like Kerry, Kennedy, Chirac, Clinton and Gore along with a host of others believed at one time that they had many weapons. But Ceasar, the legalities for the war did not hinge on fiding large smoking missiles in the Iraqi desert. Rather, Saddam had to rid himself of any and all delivery systems, WMD material, reasearch, resources, equipment, documentation and dual purpose equipment. He did not.

You, Krust, are not worth the effort. It would be a waste of time.

That's OK, I'm not offended. I know you are just flailing around without a real argument anyhow.