The Iraqi Saga: Remix

This thread is slowly becoming more and more of a "bash fest"....sad lah

Sorry, WinterNights. Just get overly emotional dealing with liar. Sorry for messing with your thread. No more bashing.

regards

Debmey

Relaks yu all, why get so emotional over losing a debate?

Then why have any resolution at all when there is no threat of force?

The war is over man, its time to move on. and in case yu don't realise it, the world isn't run out pf that round table at the UN through countries like France, Syria, Chile and Namibia.

Debmey,

Do you know what you are saying at all?????

If the mere breach of UN Resolution by itself permits the use of force, then the whole world will be at war!!!!!

The reason why the United Nations was founded is the nations desire to pursue peace and justice. There were and are many countries that have opposed to certain UN Resolutions and their repercussions are ECONOMICAL and certain political restraints(this is the result if States ignore UN Resolutions) and NOT military because as I have said before and will do so again, the mere breach of UN Resolutions DOES NOT lead to the use of force because if it does, then everybody will be fighting everybody now for their own claimed interest.

In relation to Security Council Resolution 1441,

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/unres.htm

I'm sure you can read it for yourself and it DOES NOT even say anywhere for such exceptions. You will note that it even went to the extent of saying:-

"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"

Debmey

12 years of violation is enough.
The UN will never sanction war simply because Germany, Russia and France were bribed by Iraq with lucrative contracts. These countries made the UN irrelevant and violated the spirit of earlier UN resolutions. In order to rescue the UN, consequences to violation must be enforced.

Again I repeat, it would be foolish to believe that the world has tobow down to a bunch of guys sitting around a round table in the UN.

The war of Iraq was justified and good. I fuillly support it. It would be hypocitical of anyone to oppose thios war.

12 years of violation is enough.
The UN will never sanction war simply because Germany, Russia and France were bribed by Iraq with lucrative contracts. These countries made the UN irrelevant and violated the spirit of earlier UN resolutions. In order to rescue the UN, consequences to violation must be enforced.

Again I repeat, it would be foolish to believe that the world has tobow down to a bunch of guys sitting around a round table in the UN.

The war of Iraq was justified and good. I fuillly support it. It would be hypocitical of anyone to oppose thios war.

Basically, it is a shift to mere POLITICAL considerations. Do remember that we were initially talking about the LEGAL MERITS of the war.

The above statement you made is clearly within the context of political deliberation, in very simplified terms, used by the US and UK. Basically, they are saying, "Well, we are tired and we think that Iraq still has WMD so we are going to ignore the legal merits and attack Iraq."

Even your statement above can be criticized in a few manners. Firstly, your claim is that the UN SC Resolution 1441 carries weight and I am going to use your claim as the foundation of my next point. Having full legal authority, it is NOT for the parties concerned to simply say, "Oh, we are tired of waiting". When something is of legal merit, it simply means that it is law, whether on a national or international plane. Nobody is above the law and thus nobody can say that, this is common sense.

Secondly, in your previous postings, you have clearly attached significant weight to the merits of the UN Resolutions and now you are saying that it is foolish to 'bow down to a bunch of guys sitting around a round table in the UN'???

The UN is far from 'just a bunch of guys loitering around'. The UN is a forum, between countries getting together as one in discussing policies that regulates international affairs. Each person, in the numerous UN agencies, is a representative of their country and their views and contributions play an essential role in the operation of the UN.   

I respect your opinion and stand for supporting the war. Everyone is entitled to their belief, however if statements you make that follows suit such as, eg, 'well, this shows Muslims are defeated and Islam is the blame', then it would create an unstable element in terms of harmony among people.

[ Last edited by WinterNights on 18-2-2004 at 07:27 AM ]

The UN will never sanction war simply because Germany, Russia and France were bribed by Iraq with lucrative contracts.

--> Think about it, the UN was indeed right not to give the green light. Their pre-war reports indicates that Iraq had no WMD and the proper channels and means should be given more time to verify such claims.

The US and UK ignored this and now, there is still no signs of WMD.

Germany, France and Russia have all indicated that any form of hostile action will not accomplish anything substantial. The US wanted to kick Saddam but in order to do so, many innocent lives will be lost before he is captured.

Now, that the war is OVER, it is becoming clearer that the decision to go to war was indeed wrong.

Lucrative contracts???

Is that a mere allegation or do you have substantial proof?

In fact, the US is prevending the smooth operation of the UN. What they did was basically say, "If the rest don't agree with us, THEY are the ones that should be blamed".

Again, what's the difference between that statement and a dictator's?

Debmey

When we cut through all the politics and processes, the reason for France, Gemany and Russia opposing the war were boiled down to plain cowardice and greed. What they have done in the UN is unreasonable. I therefore understand and fully support the war on Iraq w/o hesitation or reservation.

The sad part of the whole episode is, the UN has lost its relevance and moral authority and I blame it squrely on France. Giving in or apeasing France would have emboldened terrorists and rouge states. This, the world should not and  allow.

laksa

Originally posted by Debmey at 17-2-2004 10:11 PM:
Relaks yu all, why get so emotional over losing a debate?

looks to me, u are the one that are losing.... u keep repeating ur 'claims n facts' over and over again......y?? no idea aaaaa......what u have posted in this thread can be read in other thread in this forum...... cari la idea lain little sister dumbey

Debmey

looks like a;l yu fellas are losing. uits no wonder yu all focus on insults and staryed away from reasoning.

cheers

laksa

then answer all this.....

  Quote:
Does that prove that it was not there? I can prove to you that hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Kurds were attacked with WMD



It was there. It is not here anymore. It is history. Yes, you can prove to me thousands of Iranians and Kurds died under WMD attacks deployed by Saddam. But have I told you not it was never a crime back then? The use of WMD is permitted by the Republicans! I've already told you that, the Democrats issued a legislation The Prevention of Genocide Act 1988 in response against Saddam's use of WMD but the Republicans vetoed this act! The Republicans that you worship is ALLOWING the use of WMD. So, I ask you again, why it became illegal 15 years later?


  Quote:
Looks like you never followed the reports have you?



Prove me wrong Dumboy! I'm CHALLENGING you to prove me wrong.


  Quote:
Debate the justification after the war is over? The UN, France , Germany, etc have already accept reality. How stupid of you.



Yes. We can STILL debate and verify whether it is right or wrong. If debating over it is wrong, then the Inquiry called by Bush is also stupid. You're slapping your own dumb mouth!


  Quote:
You prefer to shy away from CBS and Foxnews have you?



Never shy away from any news that can shed lights and truth. Show me HOW CBS and Foxnews prove your point. I'm VERY sure it will shoot your own foot again. Try it. Show me the link that prove you right. I CHALLENGE YOU. Don't why away...


  Quote:
In that case, the French, Germans and Russians were all fools too, only yu are smarter than them



Yes. We've all been FOOLED by George Tenet in Oct 2002. You post that article yourself. You read it back. There is no way we can verify the truth in such a short time. Nov 2002 called for Resolution 1441. 4 months later, March 2003, US launch attacks on Iraq without WE the people of the world able to verify what George Tenet is lying. But we all REALIZED it was falsehood. Only YOU still wrap yourself in cocoon of delusion believing it STILL the lies are truth! You're the ONE in dreamland. Not me, not France, not Germany and not the rest of the world. We've all been fooled like you but we've all woke up EXCEPT you! So.... who is DUMB here? You are... hahahahahaha


  Quote:
It is illegal since 91, not 15 years later. How dishonest can yu be?



You are the one being DISHONEST! You lied about WMD stockpiles. You lied that the Republicans and yourself disapprove of CONDONING atrocities by Saddam Hussien. I have proven to you that the SAME people in power today are responsible for watching blithely when Saddam carried out attacks. You never CONDEMN the Colin Powell, Bush, Rumsfeld and the rests for condoning the brutality. Never seen you CONDEMN the Reps for vetoeing the Prevention of Genocide Act 1988. You're a liar! To say you care about the Iraqis make me wanna puke! Hypocrites! Liar!


  Quote:
When the info contradicts your lies,u call them outdated



It IS outdated! It carries no weight! Only retarded fools like you would still believe in it no matter what. Because you're Bush Cult devotees. You're no different from terrorists. They commit crimes eventhough it is wrong. You're the same. You commit lies and joyfully believe in it eventhough it is wrong and lies. You're sick!


  Quote:
Already proven since 91. the burden of proof is for Iraq to show us these have been destroyed.They didn't



Already told you, not to fully account does not warrant the US commits aggression on a weak country.


  Quote:
I don't represent the Singapore army any more than yu represent the Msian govt



I'm GLAD to represent my country. Unlike YOU! Obviously you're NOT GOOD ENOUGH to be in the army! Cos you're DUMB. That's why you got yourself kicked! Don't try to fool me by saying you're a soldier. I know what is a soldier and NSmen. If you're a soldier, you're IN the army. NSmen are those doing part-time. Called upon to training upon requests and signals spread across on radio and TVs. Those fallen under the category have to respond to the call and gather in the camp for training. These are NSmen. You SAID you're a soldier. And NOW you're not. That speaks volume of what you are. No wonder you can online 24 hrs a day posting messages even at 4am in the morning. You're unemployed. You're useless!

p/s: i don't respect liar!

Acong

[iframe]http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html[/iframe]

When we cut through all the politics and processes, the reason for France, Gemany and Russia opposing the war were boiled down to plain cowardice and greed. What they have done in the UN is unreasonable. I therefore understand and fully support the war on Iraq w/o hesitation or reservation.

--> Again, I plead to you to insert evidence of your assertions.

With respect, you did not address a single point that I have made in my two posts.

The sad part of the whole episode is, the UN has lost its relevance and moral authority and I blame it squrely on France. Giving in or apeasing France would have emboldened terrorists and rouge states. This, the world should not and  allow.

--> Again, I plead for the relevant evidence.

[ Last edited by WinterNights on 18-2-2004 at 08:22 PM ]

Debmey

Don't yu know that the French had the oil well contracts with the Iraqis? Are you pleading forme to show you the contracts?

I plead with yu not toplay ignorance, it will get us nowhere.

Don't yu know that the French had the oil well contracts with the Iraqis? Are you pleading forme to show you the contracts?

I plead with yu not toplay ignorance, it will get us nowhere.

--> C'mon Debmey, the Americans too had pertroleum based contracts with Iraq, in fact, a significant number of countries have similar contracts with Iraq.

What I am merely asking is for you to prove that France, by having those contracts by itself, led to its(as you alleged) 'foul-play'.

[ Last edited by WinterNights on 18-2-2004 at 11:07 PM ]

With respect, you did not address a single point in my previous posts on page 2 of this thread.

Iraq has the world抯 second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq抯 reserves to 2-300 billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce, leading to a gold-rush of profits for international oil firms in a post-Saddam setting. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. They face companies from France, Russia, China, Japan and elsewhere, who already have major concessions. But in a post-war military governments, imposed by Washington, the US-UK companies expect to overcome their rivals and gain the most lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars in profits in the coming decades.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

--> Shounldn't this be the reason why the US and UK went to war??

When in a discussion, if you have a point to make, back it up with the relevant sources and information.

Do not accuse the other side of ignorance, instead put up the relevant sources so that it can be read and understood by the other side.

This is the basic 'ethic' of any public discussion/debating. You have told me before that everything you say here is substantiated so please adhere to your own words.

DARSITA

Bush Admits Arms Mistake
06/02/2004 08:09 AM
Reuters

US President George W Bush has acknowledged that the United States had not found banned weapons "we thought" were in Iraq, but defended the war as "the right thing" to do.

"We have not yet found the stockpiles of weapons that we thought were there," Bush said in a speech at the port of Charleston, South Carolina, in his clearest acknowledgment of problems with prewar intelligence on Iraqi weapons.

However, he said, "Knowing what I knew then and knowing what I know today, America did the right thing in Iraq."

In a speech that laid out a political defense of his Iraq policy in an election year, Bush also blasted critics of the war, saying, "If some politicians in Washington had their way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power."

Bush spoke shortly after CIA Director George Tenet defended his agency's work despite intelligence that had inaccurately accused ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of maintaining stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Those accusations were at the heart of Bush's case for going to war. Tenet said in a Washington speech that the intelligence community was neither "completely right nor completely wrong" about Iraq, and said analysts "never said there was an imminent threat."

Bush and other administration officials did say before the war that Iraq presented an "immediate" or "gathering" threat, and long after the war they maintained confidence in finding banned weapons. The former chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq, David Kay, said last week U.S. prewar intelligence on Iraqi weapons was almost all wrong.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush still had "great confidence" in Tenet.

"We Had A Choice"

And Bush said on Thursday he acted properly in going to war. "We had a choice - either take the word of a madman or take action to defend the American people. Faced with that choice I will defend America every time."

Saddam "had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction," including scientists, technology and infrastructure, he said.

"We know Saddam Hussein had the intent to arm his regime with weapons of mass destruction because he hid all those activities from the world until the last day of his regime. And Saddam Hussein had something else: He had a record of using weapons of mass destruction against his enemies and against innocent Iraqi citizens," Bush said.

Bush is expected to announce on Friday the appointment of a commission to investigate prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Bush's speech to military personnel and others, in South Carolina, a state that had been crawling with Democratic presidential candidates before Tuesday's primary, was heavily laced with re-election campaign themes of the economy and national security.

After the speech, Bush also made a campaign-style quick stop at the "Sticky Fingers" restaurant and bar to greet customers.

The South Carolina stop was similar to one in New Hampshire two days after that state's primary last month.

"These Democrats have had the state playing field to themselves for months," said Republican strategist Scott Reed. "They have spent millions of dollars advertising, and most of it has been negative towards Bush. There is something to be said for going back in there, getting the (poll) numbers back in balance, and charge up the base of your party so they stay in the Bush column.

Bush beat Democrat Al Gore by a 57 percent to 41 percent margin in South Carolina in 2000. The winner of this year's Democratic primary in South Carolina, Sen. John Edwards, was born in the state and represents neighboring North Carolina in the US Senate.

=====
I could have told him he made a mistake a looonnng time ago. But it is good to see them admitting to their faults.

laksa

Originally posted by WinterNights at 18-2-2004 11:03 PM:
When in a discussion, if you have a point to make, back it up with the relevant sources and information.

Do not accuse the other side of ignorance, instead put up the relevant sources so that it ...

WN... she is a hypocrite...... she can say what she want but other people cant do the same.... try posting something against her believing, u'll see that she'll repeatingly ask u to prove ur facts.

Acong

Originally posted by laksa at 19-2-2004 09:56 AM:
WN... she is a hypocrite...... she can say what she want but other people cant do the same.... try posting something against her believing, u'll see that she'll repeatingly ask u to prove ur facts.

untill u feel want 2 puke on her/his face!