AndrewL Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 Correct. Kofi is fre to his opinion, and the opinion of the UNSC was that the war was not illegal. Untrue. The war was started without a resolution permitting it, and hence was illegal. The fact that Iraq did not comply with previous resolutions, including 1441, does not mean that USA was free to declare war on it. In fact when 1441 was adopted, it was agreed that failure to comply with it will not cause immediate war with Iraq, but rather lead the way to more resolutions permitting stricter actions. The argument is and was that there were umpteen resolutions aurthorizing force starting with the intitial resolution authorising Desert Storm. That brought the cease fire agreement which in turn brought the violation of the ceasefire agreement which in turn brought further UNSC resolutions authorizing force. Ther can be no denying that the issue was tabled and force was authorised. I don't believe there were any shelf llife attached to the authorization. What can be argued is that the UNSC was wrong, what can't be argued is that according to the parameters of the UNSC, that the war was illegal. UNSCR 678 called for the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and to restore peace and international security to the persian gulf region. Some people regard the fact that Saddam fired on US and UK planes as a violation of the cease fire. What they dont realize is that the no-fly zones were a multilateral US/UK/France creation and were never part of any UN cease fire, they were not sanctioned or approved by the UN. The fact that Iraqi ground positions sometimes fired on these planes was not a violation of the cease fire in any legal sense. Further, Iraq withdrew from Kuwait, Saddam was disarmed of his WMD as was reported as early as '93. Resolution 678 was fulfilled and international peace in the gulf region was restored in relation to that situation. Only the UK tried desperately to use UNSCR 678 as legal justification for the war because they are a signatory to the ICC,Blair could conceivably be brought to trial at some later date. The US hardly cares at all about UN resolutions unless they are a means to their own narrow goals, and they could care less whether the UN considers the war illegal or not. But from the perspective of international law the war was illegal in no uncertain terms. Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 Who is saying they allowed anything? Allowing something and being powerless to do anything about it are two different things. Even today, the Iraqi goverments authority in the Kurdish regions is dubious. Well, the Kurds certainly not powerless. Why would they allow this office to operate and allegedly bring in Iranian military types? We do know this: the Iraqi government knew about the office and was, according to the Foreign Minister, in the process of giving it consular status (I don't know enough about Iraqi travel regulations to comment on whether consular status is the only way for foreigners to legally obtain travel documents so I'll let that pass for now). That means someone-either the Kurds or Iraqi government-gave this operation its blessing. Whoa!!!! somewhere some folks are missing an important point. Those, "Iranian military types," carried diplomatic passports and diplomatic immunity. If the Iraqi's decided those guys were illegal, the only recourse is to file a complaint with the Iranians and send their diplomats back home. Keeping them prisoner was an act of war and forbidden by a number of international laws Those sailors were clearly military and the legitimacy of their actions is still in question. the real negotiations now are about how to end the matter without embarassing the US too badly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 In this specific case Iran revealed information that proved Britain was in Iraqi waters. when Iran realized the quadrants and coordinates it released proved Britain was in Iraqi waters it back-pedalled. The display was there and anyone not brain damaged heard it and saw Iran back-pedal. Its just another stupid immature bout of bravado which the British will as usual wait out. Iran has made a fool of itself and long after the British are released thwy will no doubt be up to this again. Its tiresome. Its like a spoiled child that keeps soiling its pants because it won't potty train. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 no, certainly Britain claims to show proof -- but British proof of anything is notoriously questionable -- GWB said they had proof that Iraq had niger uranium - nobody but the right wing choir will blindly believe what the British are peddling - especially when it's tied to the illegal Buschista Regime as this story is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 The consulate was recognized as being what it was in Iraq, we discussed this on other threads at length. It was an illegal grab.Also, this is interesting, eh! Call that humiliation? No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch Terry Jones Saturday March 31, 2007 The Guardian I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated. And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay. The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras! What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her "unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2047128,00.html What an excellent article! I hope George Bush and his minions are happy now that they've reduced American conduct to a standard lower than the Islamic Republic of Iran. What a great accomplishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 It actually kind of does look like the Iranian government treats those prisoners better than the ones at Gitmo, in my own opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 It actually kind of does look like the Iranian government treats those prisoners better than the ones at Gitmo, in my own opinion. Might have something to do with the British hostages having not actively been trying to kill them unlike the ones held at Gitmo.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Might have something to do with the British hostages having not actively been trying to kill them unlike the ones held at Gitmo.... Thats irrelevant... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Iranian Prisons: http://www.iran-e-sabz.org/news/torture.htm One of the physical tortures was to whip the bottom of my feet with steel cables. Lying down and tied to a bed with a pillow under my head, one torturer would sit on my stomach while a second would whip my feet 150 times. If a strike didn't hit exactly right, it wasn't counted. Another form of torture involved tying my arms behind my back with the left arm bent over my shoulder and the right arm tied from underneath. Then, I would be hung on the wall from the left arm, thus pulling all my back muscles to their limit. Only by standing on the tips of my toes could I avoid tearing the muscles completely. I would be left waiting in this position for hours, during which time the guards would amuse themselves by pulling our legs, saying: "Come, lets take a trip" -------------------------------------------------------------- I will find out the truth for you, have no fear. ---Matthew Hopkins: Witchfinder General Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Might have something to do with the British hostages having not actively been trying to kill them unlike the ones held at Gitmo.... Thats irrelevant... Not sure what elephants have to do with kidnapping personnelle performing a UN mission...on the other hand, fighters who had been actively trying to kill you tend to get a more gruelling interrogation. That being said, the last time Iran took British hostages the brits were subjected to mock executions and rough treatment. Given that the sailors and Marines this time round confessed so quickly, to assume they were treated according to the Geneva Convention is to live with rose coloured glasses while your head is firmly stuck up rear end passeage. In fact, Iran broke the Geneva convention almost immediately. If they are so cavalier about the rights of prisoners onthe onset, it gives a good indictaion how tey will treat you day 5. BTW, how do they treat canadian photographers? They rape, beat and kill them. ...so much for this Gitmo buillshit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 It actually kind of does look like the Iranian government treats those prisoners better than the ones at Gitmo, in my own opinion. Might have something to do with the British hostages having not actively been trying to kill them unlike the ones held at Gitmo.... Who in Gitmo tried to kill who? Where's the proof of that accusation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 It actually kind of does look like the Iranian government treats those prisoners better than the ones at Gitmo, in my own opinion. Might have something to do with the British hostages having not actively been trying to kill them unlike the ones held at Gitmo.... Who in Gitmo tried to kill who? Where's the proof of that accusation? What a stupid question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Might have something to do with the British hostages having not actively been trying to kill them unlike the ones held at Gitmo.... Thats irrelevant... Not sure what elephants have to do with ... That's the second time in a week you've rolled out that same lame pun. Time for some new (and better) material M. Dancer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Might have something to do with the British hostages having not actively been trying to kill them unlike the ones held at Gitmo.... Thats irrelevant... Not sure what elephants have to do with ... That's the second time in a week you've rolled out that same lame pun. Time for some new (and better) material M. Dancer! There is no better material than the Marx Brothers.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 It actually kind of does look like the Iranian government treats those prisoners better than the ones at Gitmo, in my own opinion. Might have something to do with the British hostages having not actively been trying to kill them unlike the ones held at Gitmo.... Who in Gitmo tried to kill who? Where's the proof of that accusation? What a stupid question. Stupid answer, rather. Who in Gitmo killed anyone? You don't know, do you? You have no proof, do you? So, you're just talking bullsh!t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 It actually kind of does look like the Iranian government treats those prisoners better than the ones at Gitmo, in my own opinion. Might have something to do with the British hostages having not actively been trying to kill them unlike the ones held at Gitmo.... Who in Gitmo tried to kill who? Where's the proof of that accusation? What a stupid question. Stupid answer, rather. Who in Gitmo killed anyone? You don't know, do you? You have no proof, do you? So, you're just talking bullsh!t. If you are too ignorant to read the news or too dishonest.... don't expect me to play with you, but I will reply just once because I'm an asshole. There are 395 men in Gitmo. They have been detained as enemy combattants. A combattant you may ask, is not a follower of Ghandi, but a fighter whose goal is to kill his enemy. One detainee, omar khadr was arrested for the killing of an american soldier. Of course I do not posses the evidence, The US military possesses the evidence. Now please, play your stupid games with someone else, I don't suffer fools gladly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 all but a handful of gitmo prisoners are being held for no reason it is the greatest hypocrisy of this moment in history Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 One detainee, Omar Khadr was arrested for the killing of an american soldier. Ding-Ding-Ding This round goes to: M.Dancer ---------------------------------------------------- Every shot was thrown with bad intentions. ---Mike Tyson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 all but a handful of gitmo prisoners are being held for no reason it is the greatest hypocrisy of this moment in history Is a handful bigger or smaller than the number of non german nazis were greater than the number of german nazis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 There are 395 men in Gitmo. They have been detained as enemy combattants. A combattant you may ask, is not a follower of Ghandi, but a fighter whose goal is to kill his enemy. One detainee, omar khadr was arrested for the killing of an american soldier. Of course I do not posses the evidence, The US military possesses the evidence. If there is evidence, why can't these dudes be given a trial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 There are 395 men in Gitmo. They have been detained as enemy combattants. A combattant you may ask, is not a follower of Ghandi, but a fighter whose goal is to kill his enemy. One detainee, omar khadr was arrested for the killing of an american soldier. Of course I do not posses the evidence, The US military possesses the evidence. If there is evidence, why can't these dudes be given a trial? The first arrainment was on the 26th of March. I believe the process has been delayed due to appeals to the SCOTUS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 There are 395 men in Gitmo. They have been detained as enemy combattants. A combattant you may ask, is not a follower of Ghandi, but a fighter whose goal is to kill his enemy. One detainee, omar khadr was arrested for the killing of an american soldier. Of course I do not posses the evidence, The US military possesses the evidence. If there is evidence, why can't these dudes be given a trial? Since when do enemy combatants get trials? When have they ever had trials? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Since when were they enemy combatants ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 There are 395 men in Gitmo. They have been detained as enemy combattants. A combattant you may ask, is not a follower of Ghandi, but a fighter whose goal is to kill his enemy. One detainee, omar khadr was arrested for the killing of an american soldier. Of course I do not posses the evidence, The US military possesses the evidence. If there is evidence, why can't these dudes be given a trial? Since when do enemy combatants get trials? When have they ever had trials? I suppose when it was decided they weren't prisoners of war but instead, fighters in a criminal terrorist organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Haven't innocent people gone to Gitmo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.