PDA

View Full Version : US troops find 100 acre chemical weapons facility


G4scott
Mar 23, 2003, 07:47 PM
Iraq has no chemical weapons what?

Now, tell me that the US is just making this stuff up. Iraq does have chemical weapons. 11 years of UN inspections couldn't find this, but 3 days in Iraq did... Of course, we knew about it long before, but didn't let the UN know for security purposes, because if we let the UN know, millions of american lives would've been in danger.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1048389497622

When I find more info, I'll post it.

Chef Ramen
Mar 23, 2003, 07:58 PM
exactly...11 years of inspections couldnt find what 3 days could? either the inspectors didnt inspect that one place because they had to leave OR its all ************.

just like that place colon bowell was talking about in his presentation to the UN...turned out to be bogus, as proven by independant journalists who traveled there shortly after the 'evidence' was presented

iJon
Mar 23, 2003, 08:22 PM
well good, maybe this show everyone why we are over here, and maybe those dumb protestors will take down their signs.

iJon

ddtlm
Mar 23, 2003, 08:52 PM
Well this hasn't really popped up in mainstream media yet, so right now I'm a bit sceptical about just how much of a smoking gun this is. That article was from the Jerusalem Post, probably not the most unbaised source out there. I'll be interested to see if this is a big find or not.

NavyIntel007
Mar 23, 2003, 08:55 PM
Yeah I love how those inspections were working. How do you miss a 100 acre chemical facility in a small town?

I guess the inspectors got distracted by all those hot iraqi women in bikinis.

NavyIntel007
Mar 23, 2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by iJon
well good, maybe this show everyone why we are over here, and maybe those dumb protestors will take down their signs.

iJon

Fat chance, you'd more likely have Jesus himself walk through your living room.

DavisBAnimal
Mar 23, 2003, 08:59 PM
I think the key phrases in this article are: "apparently used to produce chemical weapons" and "perhaps the first illegal chemical plant to be uncovered by US troops" as well as "it wasn't clear exactly what chemicals were being produced here" .

While I am under the general assumption that Iraq indeed does harbor weapons of mass (chemical) destruction, this is very far from being convincing evidence. For all we know the Iraqi's used this place to manufacture toothpaste.

I'm holding out for more evidence before I come to the conclusion that my personal assumptions were indeed correct.

Davis

NavyIntel007
Mar 23, 2003, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
I think the key phrases in this article are: "apparently used to produce chemical weapons" and "perhaps the first illegal chemical plant to be uncovered by US troops" as well as "it wasn't clear exactly what chemicals were being produced here" .

While I am under the general assumption that Iraq indeed does harbor weapons of mass (chemical) destruction, this is very far from being convincing evidence. For all we know the Iraqi's used this place to manufacture toothpaste.

I'm holding out for more evidence before I come to the conclusion that my personal assumptions were indeed correct.

Davis

Don't kid yourself man, this is Saddam Hussein we're talking about. He has always had them. Why do people just assume that we don't have spies in every country? Chances are it's much worse than the media is making in sound.

iJon
Mar 23, 2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Well this hasn't really popped up in mainstream media yet, so right now I'm a bit sceptical about just how much of a smoking gun this is. That article was from the Jerusalem Post, probably not the most unbaised source out there. I'll be interested to see if this is a big find or not.
its all over the news, go turn on fox news.

iJon

leprechaunG4
Mar 23, 2003, 09:15 PM
It was just on NBC news, is that mainstream enough for those claiming the biased source must be lying. It is a chemical plant built into sand walls and camoflouged to prevent it from being visible from Satelite photos. I'm sorry but you don't go to the work of building a chem factory into sand walls and camo'ing it unless it is doing some sketchy stuff. There are weapons inspectors now going to take a look and officially identify the chemicals, obviously the Marines and the embedded reporter with them are not capable of making the official statement that it is chem weapons. Can you really doubt what the outcome will be though? Maybe people will finally acknowledge the facts.

ddtlm
Mar 23, 2003, 09:17 PM
NavyIntel007:

Don't kid yourself man ... Chances are it's much worse than the media is making in sound.
No no, don't kid yourself! The media lives to make boring things exciting, and so far even "sympathetic" places like CNN are rather cautious about this find. The source provided at the start of this thread is the freaking Jerusalem Post. They do not meet my standards for unbiased reporting any more than an Iraqi newpaper would. The zeal with which you accept this "find" will make you look very stupid if it turns out that this is in fact not a smoking gun. Calm down and let actual information show up.

ddtlm
Mar 23, 2003, 09:20 PM
leprechaunG4:

It was just on NBC news, is that mainstream enough for those claiming the biased source must be lying.
Who said anything about lying? We're talking about the possibility of biased reporters chomping at the bit and stating things with more certainty then they should. It is human nature to let bias change to words you use, for example you somehow got "lies" out of "possible bias", and those two are not the same thing. It is very easy to let zeal distort your words.

It was just on NBC news
Ok good, this is more reliable. I didn't see it, what did they say?

leprechaunG4
Mar 23, 2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
leprechaunG4:

Ok good, this is more reliable. I didn't see it, what did they say?
They said exactly what I posted, they are only saying the camo nature of the facility, and the fact it is built out of sand walls, which results in it being undetectable from satellite. They also said there are lots of chems there, but they need to have weapons inspectors investigate because the marines have no clue what any of it is. They ofcourse want to be sure that it is in fact chemicals that could be used as weapons before they say too much. I think all the camo work should be a hint of what's going on there.

iJon
Mar 23, 2003, 09:38 PM
well we can add 30 more troops to the pile, some just surrendered at the plant.

iJon

Taft
Mar 23, 2003, 09:44 PM
There seems to be a lot of people with misconceptions about those of us opposing the war.

For example, most of us are not pro-Saddam. Most of us support the troops even though we oppose the action. Also, many of us do believe that Saddam has bio and chemical weapons.

Given the fact that we believe that Saddam has bad weapons, a revelation such as this isn't really going to change our minds, now is it? Given my stance on the issues, this is a non-event. I knew we would unearth weapons banned by the 1991 cease fire agreement.

To make the point absolutely clear: some of us believe that the fact that Saddam has some dangerous weapons isn't, by itself, justification for going to war.

Hope this clears it up some.

Taft

pseudobrit
Mar 23, 2003, 10:01 PM
We know he has some WMD. We sold them to him and encouraged him in the '80's. There are many, many other nations that hold stockpiles of WMD. Iran is developing nuclear weapons. North Korea most likely already has them.

So if we're not proposing to shut them down, the question is: why Iraq?

Any of the other nations hostile to us that has WMD can more easily use them against the people of the US, which is the ultimate reason we have for invading Iraq.

So, why Iraq?

pseudobrit
Mar 23, 2003, 10:04 PM
Another thing concerning WMD: we're going after Iraq, a nation that is not nuclear, while leaving North Korea and Iran isolated to escalate their young nuclear programmes.

What sort of message does this send to nations hostile to the USA?

GET NUCLEAR!

alset
Mar 23, 2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Taft


To make the point absolutely clear: some of us believe that the fact that Saddam has some dangerous weapons isn't, by itself, justification for going to war.


... for the sake of our own troops, in most cases. I don't want to hear any more stories about our young people being destroyed by war.

I protest acts of war for any reason. I don't mean that I protest intervention, I mean I protest waging war in the first place.

you know what would solve a lot of problems? Let's let our world leaders resolve their issues with a good bare-knuckle boxing match! Also, what if world leaders couldn't wage war without serving a term in said war? There certainly would be less conflict.

Dan

iJon
Mar 23, 2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by alset
... for the sake of our own troops, in most cases. I don't want to hear any more stories about our young people being destroyed by war.

I protest acts of war for any reason. I don't mean that I protest intervention, I mean I protest waging war in the first place.

you know what would solve a lot of problems? Let's let our world leaders resolve their issues with a good bare-knuckle boxing match! Also, what if world leaders couldn't wage war without serving a term in said war? There certainly would be less conflict.

Dan or any country we go to war with we can send protestors like you into the country for a month and see what your opinion is.

iJon

Chef Ramen
Mar 23, 2003, 10:17 PM
one should note that the US is currently waging war in both afghanistan and iraq, which surround iran. are they trying to make a future invasion of iran easier? maybe. but it will make invasion of any middle eastern country that much more easier, since iraq, afganistan, and iran are in the very heart of the middle east. saudi arabia isnt close enough for them

G4scott
Mar 23, 2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
NavyIntel007:


No no, don't kid yourself! The media lives to make boring things exciting, and so far even "sympathetic" places like CNN are rather cautious about this find. The source provided at the start of this thread is the freaking Jerusalem Post. They do not meet my standards for unbiased reporting any more than an Iraqi newpaper would. The zeal with which you accept this "find" will make you look very stupid if it turns out that this is in fact not a smoking gun. Calm down and let actual information show up.

OK dude, calm down... Just becasue they had the information before anyone else doesn't mean that they're not creditable...

if this floats your boat, then fine:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/sprj.irq.iraqi.plant/index.html

Originally posted by pseudorbit
Another thing concerning WMD: we're going after Iraq, a nation that is not nuclear, while leaving North Korea and Iran isolated to escalate their young nuclear programmes.

What sort of message does this send to nations hostile to the USA?

GET NUCLEAR!

uh, no Kim Jong Il, as far as we know, does not harbor terrorists...

Originally posted by alset
... for the sake of our own troops, in most cases. I don't want to hear any more stories about our young people being destroyed by war.


Would you rather have them die in skyscrapers?

oh, pseudorbit, as to the 'why Iraq' question, you'll find it answered here (disregard the fact it's from drudge, since I know you can't stand him. Just go there. They're quoting a magazine) : http://www.drudgereport.com/flashrt.htm

pseudobrit
Mar 23, 2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by G4scott

uh, no Kim Jong Il, as far as we know, does not harbor terrorists...

Oh. I see. So developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons while taking an aggressive stance toward the US is not enough to get tough on North Korea or Iran, but having chemical artillery shells AND harboring terrorists is enough to invade a sovereign nation and overthrow their government?

In that case, we'd have to go to war with at least Germany, France and England.

topicolo
Mar 23, 2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
Iraq has no chemical weapons what?

Now, tell me that the US is just making this stuff up. Iraq does have chemical weapons. 11 years of UN inspections couldn't find this, but 3 days in Iraq did... Of course, we knew about it long before, but didn't let the UN know for security purposes, because if we let the UN know, millions of american lives would've been in danger.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1048389497622

When I find more info, I'll post it.

More info? How about this: The Pentagon said late Sunday that reports of allied forces having discovered a "huge" chemical weapons factory in central Iraq were "premature."

Chemical warfare factory discovery "premature" (http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030324015210.vbav5l7z.html)

Mr. Anderson
Mar 23, 2003, 11:02 PM
It won't surprise many people if a chemical weapon facility is found. Giving it time to determine exactly what this place did is a good move on the part of the Army. They have to be absolutely 100% sure it was used for making chemical weapons and not an additive for gasoline, for example before going to the world community and saying "See! We told you!!"

D

jelloshotsrule
Mar 23, 2003, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
It won't surprise many people if a chemical weapon facility is found. Giving it time to determine exactly what this place did is a good move on the part of the Army. They have to be absolutely 100% sure it was used for making chemical weapons and not an additive for gasoline, for example before going to the world community and saying "See! We told you!!"


agreed, and this is why i'd expect them to keep quiet until they know for sure, so the media doesn't cry foul prematurely

it could turn out like those metal rods or tubes or whatever they said were used for nuclear weapons when it turned out they had another, legitimate use (to their own admission, if i remember correctly)...

i kinda hope they find chem weapons stuff, so as to have some support for our case, though i fear that those who doubt us will never really believe it (not sure if i even will). i mean, i am sure they have chem weapons, but i guess it's a matter of that being enough for war. but i digress...

let's hope they don't use weapons like this though. a scenario was mentioned where they let our troops get close to baghdad, and then just unload bio/chem on em.... would be devastating and sad.

pseudobrit
Mar 23, 2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
agreed, and this is why i'd expect them to keep quiet until they know for sure, so the media doesn't cry foul prematurely

it could turn out like those metal rods or tubes or whatever they said were used for nuclear weapons when it turned out they had another, legitimate use (to their own admission, if i remember correctly)...

i kinda hope they find chem weapons stuff, so as to have some support for our case, though i fear that those who doubt us will never really believe it (not sure if i even will). i mean, i am sure they have chem weapons, but i guess it's a matter of that being enough for war. but i digress...

let's hope they don't use weapons like this though. a scenario was mentioned where they let our troops get close to baghdad, and then just unload bio/chem on em.... would be devastating and sad.

And would allow the US under Geneva rules to retaliate in kind. It's a tragedy any way you cut it.

Backtothemac
Mar 23, 2003, 11:40 PM
2 things.

1) Chef, the inspectors only inspected sites that were "known" places from previous inspections teams. Sounds kind of like pissing in the wind doesn't it.

2) The facility was camoflauged, in the middle of the desert, is 100 acres in size, and surrounded by an electrical fence. It is guarded by 30 soldiers, and 2 generals! Come on guys, this isn't a baby milk factory. Sure, it will require conformation, but "logic" would say this is a huge find.

Rower_CPU
Mar 23, 2003, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Sure, it will require conformation, but "logic" would say this is a huge find.

"Logic" also told the software in a Patriot missile to shoot down a British jet.;)

I'm waiting for a confirmation.

Stike
Mar 23, 2003, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Any of the other nations hostile to us that has WMD can more easily use them against the people of the US, which is the ultimate reason we have for invading Iraq.

So, why Iraq?

1. Young Bush wants to impress his father
2. There is oil, too.

Backtothemac
Mar 23, 2003, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Stike
1. Young Bush wants to impress his father
2. There is oil, too.

Ok, first know that I am not insulting you, your intelligence, or anything about you, as that would be just as bad as your statement.

How can you even say that? There is no, and I mean no basis for it. it is an insult to my country, my family, and my soldiers that are serving this country and the world by removing this dictator from power.

That is flamebait, and you know it. You have been around here long enough to know it. Please refrain from such meaningless posts!

Backtothemac
Mar 23, 2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
"Logic" also told the software in a Patriot missile to shoot down a British jet.;)

I'm waiting for a confirmation.

Now that is not even funny. That was a tragic accident. We don't know the situation. Was there a mechanical problem. Was the Tornado's transponder not working? We don't know yet.

Bad Rower, Bad Rower, Bad ;)

G4scott
Mar 24, 2003, 12:38 AM
Man, there are so much liberals and so much liberal spin here, that my head's spinning...

WTF does a chemical weapons factory and a patriot missile shooting down a RAF jet have in common? Why did you even link them? No offense, but that was a bad comparison.

When you add up a disguised facility surrounded by barbed wire, booby traps, and guarded by more than the average iraqi soldier, you can see that this ain't no yogurt factory.

You need to put 2 and 2 together. Saddam is insane, he wants total power, he has no regard for human life, and he wants more ways to kill people. Put that together with the findings of this facility, and it's pretty easy to see what it is.

beatle888
Mar 24, 2003, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Why do people just assume that we don't have spies in every country? Chances are it's much worse than the media is making in sound.



this is a very good point. but if we did have hard evidence that a spy was able to collect.....where is it. im not challenging you, im just questioning it.

beatle888
Mar 24, 2003, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
It was just on NBC news, is that mainstream enough for those claiming the biased source must be lying. It is a chemical plant built into sand walls and camoflouged to prevent it from being visible from Satelite photos. I'm sorry but you don't go to the work of building a chem factory into sand walls and camo'ing it unless it is doing some sketchy stuff. There are weapons inspectors now going to take a look and officially identify the chemicals, obviously the Marines and the embedded reporter with them are not capable of making the official statement that it is chem weapons. Can you really doubt what the outcome will be though? Maybe people will finally acknowledge the facts.


i dont think the main reason why people are anti war is because we dont believe saddam has these weapons. im sure he does. i would be surprised if he didnt.

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by beatle888
i dont think the main reason why people are anti war is because we dont believe saddam has these weapons. im sure he does. i would be surprised if he didnt.

How have you been? Question. How would you have handled it? More inspections? I am not trying to flame, I am seriously asking the question out of curiosity.

AtomBoy
Mar 24, 2003, 01:04 AM
Of course Iraq has chemical weapons because we supplied them. We also sanctioned their use in the war against Iran. The USA also has chemical and biological weapons far more lethal than anything Iraq has. Of course The US has signed a treaty to dispose of them but only 25% has been destroyed so far, and that's assuming that you believe the military wouldn't lie about such a thing.

Saddam has used chemical weapons on his own people; in the not-too-distant past, America also tested chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on it's own servicemen.

Someone mentioned earlier that N. Korea doesn't harbor terrorists, yet Bush referred to them as part of the Axis of Evil.

The Lines blur...

topicolo
Mar 24, 2003, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
Man, there are so much liberals and so much liberal spin here, that my head's spinning...


Similarly, "conservatives" shouldn't be jumping to conclusions based speculation of very preliminary breaking news. The Pentagon themselves said that the claim that this factory was a chemical weapons manufacturing plant is premature.

It may turn out to be a WMD plant, or it may not. There's no point in speculating until the hard facts come out.

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by topicolo
Similarly, "conservatives" shouldn't be jumping to conclusions based speculation of very preliminary breaking news. The Pentagon themselves said that the claim that this factory was a chemical weapons manufacturing plant is premature.

It may turn out to be a WMD plant, or it may not. There's no point in speculating until the hard facts come out.

I have to agree with you on this, but at the sametime, I think we have to look logically at what is being discovered here.

I will not even justify Atomicboy's post with a response.

beatle888
Mar 24, 2003, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by iJon
or any country we go to war with we can send protestors like you into the country for a month and see what your opinion is.

iJon


so iJon, your pro ANy war? thats what your statement implies.

LethalWolfe
Mar 24, 2003, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by AtomBoy
Of course Iraq has chemical weapons because we supplied them. We also sanctioned their use in the war against Iran. The USA also has chemical and biological weapons far more lethal than anything Iraq has. Of course The US has signed a treaty to dispose of them but only 25% has been destroyed so far, and that's assuming that you believe the military wouldn't lie about such a thing.



Show me the 17 UN resolutions that relate to the US possessing and/or creating weapons it is banned from having. Oh, that's right. That's Iraq, not the US, that is the focal point of 17 UN resolutions regarding banned WMD's.


Lethal

beatle888
Mar 24, 2003, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
The facility was camoflauged, in the middle of the desert, is 100 acres in size, and surrounded by an electrical fence. It is guarded by 30 soldiers, and 2 generals! Come on guys, this isn't a baby milk factory. Sure, it will require conformation, but "logic" would say this is a huge find.

lets hope so. it will give the US some credibility amongs our fellow nations. america needs friends not enemies and i hope that will be the final result of this war.

beatle888
Mar 24, 2003, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
Man, there are so much liberals and so much liberal spin here, that my head's spinning...

WTF does a chemical weapons factory and a patriot missile shooting down a RAF jet have in common? Why did you even link them? No offense, but that was a bad comparison.

i took the first part as a witty remark about the faults of logic.

his true point was made second....he simply would like to wait for confirmation.

doesnt seem unreasonable to me.....no spin.

beatle888
Mar 24, 2003, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
How have you been? Question. How would you have handled it? More inspections? I am not trying to flame, I am seriously asking the question out of curiosity.

funny you should ask this....i was thinking about a response as i typed it. i really dont know...but what came to my mind first was, bring in some tough special forces teams to LEAD the inspectors. have the US troops and allies at the borders waiting to move if saddam doesnt comply. it would be extrememly risky for the special forces teams and inspectors however we as a peaceful nation :D need to take such risks if our true mission is world peace. how would that of been such a bad plan?

i think we should of had hardcore inspections. i think the UN really droped the ball here....if we have such a heavy violator of sanctions, then why do such petty inspections? we should of flexed some muscle earlier during the inspections.



ive been fine, how about you?

edited to remove excessive emoticons.

DavisBAnimal
Mar 24, 2003, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I will not even justify Atomicboy's post with a response.

I was hoping you would.

Whether or not you believe the US has ever supplied Chemical weapons to Iraq (read this if interested in one take: http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html), there is no denying that the US supported Saddam Hussein throughout Iraq's entire war with Iran - a war in which they used chemical weapons, gassed thousands of Irany soldiers, and we knew about it. In 1983, Donald Rumsfeld himself (serving as special envoy to the Middle East) met with Tariq Aziz and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He hand delivered a letter of support from Ronald Reagan. This has been brought up time and again, though I've never seen it properly discussed. I don't understand what Iraq is doing differently now to make us attack them, when less than twenty years ago, we were an Iraqi ally. Surely Saddam was every bit as crazy as he is now, guilty of the same crimes against humanity. Why did we support him?

I really would like to see this get discussed.

Davis

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
I was hoping you would.
Davis

I was also hoping we could discuss the times when the US government has used military personell and even civilians as guinea pigs in chemical weapons tests that he mentioned.

Stike
Mar 24, 2003, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
How can you even say that? There is no, and I mean no basis for it. it is an insult to my country, my family, and my soldiers that are serving this country and the world by removing this dictator from power.

As you say, you feel this would be a flamebait. This was not my intention. However, you do feel insulted, to be exact, you see this as an insult to (see above). I would never insult someone I donīt even remotely know or heard of enough to have a picture of this person, institution, whatever. This can only be counted as an "insult" (it was more like a cynical comment) towards Mr. G.W. Bush. Not you, your family, or the american people, and not the army. The army simply obeys the commands of the head of the state, like it should be.
In those times, where even the unbiased (at least they should be) media are used by the governments to manipulate people all over the world, it is hard to be objective. Any message can be false. Any message can be true. Trust no one, at least thatīs my way of thinking. I know not much about the war that is going on far away from me. All I have are videos and images from someone who took them, under the eyes of (opposing) military forces, and then those informations are filtered again by the moderators and writers at the TV stations and newspapers.
I have a nice example for everyone. There was once an oil accident, beaches were full of oil, and one image of a bird, dying in the oil, was published. This bird was the icon for that accident later on, it became the ultimate message to improve oil tanker security. The whole story had only this flaw. The bird was an archive shot, taken much earlier somewhere else.
This reminds me how careful you have to be with information you get, and where it comes from. All i know about this war is, that Mr. Bush is going in there without a consensus in the UN, and that war always means pain and suffering, for everyone and everything. Everything else is "could, would, should, maybe, possibly..." watch out for those words. Of course Saddam wants to show injured civilans on TV. Of course Bush wants to prove existance of chemical weapons in Iraq and spreads those news, although everything is filtered and not confirmed by a neutral third party.
You, and many others are standing behind the actions of Mr. Bush. Nothing wrong with that. But where the motivation *really* lies, on both sides, is puzzling me. Getting rid of an dictator seems far too trivial, if you ask me. On the other hand, why Saddam played hide and seek with the UN was also illogical.
There are too many holes in this plot for me to cover, maybe time will tell, and the truth would come out. Or not.
For the interested film freaks out there, I have two connected recommendations on this topic: "Wag the dog" and "Fatherland". Interesting flicks.

I hope this displays my opinion good enough and isnīt taken as a flamebait...!

MyLeftNut
Mar 24, 2003, 05:35 AM
Lets just wait and see about the chemical weapons shall we...it was only a couple of days ago the media were claiming Saddam was killed or injured in an air raid and sure enough here he is today reading out a bulletin....as my grandmother used to say, believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see....

TMay
Mar 24, 2003, 07:49 AM
I don't know the attribution, and am not really interested in tracking down the author, but, it really sums up the stream of information that we are getting from the media. Personally, I am using the foreign media via internet, (BBC) rather than the graphics happy, short attention span, reality show format of American televison journalism.

I do find it extremely hard to believe that there wasn't previous intellingence on this site.

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Stike
As you say, you feel this would be a flamebait. This was not my intention. However, you do feel insulted, to be exact, you see this as an insult to (see above). I would never insult someone I donīt even remotely know or heard of enough to have a picture of this person, institution, whatever. This can only be counted as an "insult" (it was more like a cynical comment) towards Mr. G.W. Bush. Not you, your family, or the american people, and not the army. The army simply obeys the commands of the head of the state, like it should be.

This isn't good enough! Well, at least for some people on these boards.

According to some, insulting the president during a time of war is dang near treasonous. At the very least it is an insult to America, its troops and their families.

I think this is sad. Its exactly these kind of knee-jerk emotional reactions that end up stifling free speach. Just because freedom of expression is allowed by law doesn't mean it is safe to do. When enough emotional, super-patriotic people line up against you dissent becomes very dangerous indeed.

Taft

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I will not even justify Atomicboy's post with a response.

Why is this?

Is it so hard to believe that the infallible US government actually developed evil and dangerous weapons that perpetrate horrible deaths upon their victims? We couldn't possibly have done that, right? I mean, we're good and their evil!

Come on! I'm sure we still have large amounts of chemical weapons even though we said we are getting rid of them. Now who does that sound like...

The only difference is that OF COURSE no one is calling us on these things. Why would they? We give the world money and would rain vengence down upon them if they dared question us.

Thats the biggest problem I have in our actions against the world. There is a double standard. They can't have dangerous weapons and commit acts against humanity. But we can. And with no reprecussions, and very little public knowledge of those acts.

Until we hold ourselves responsible, I cannot support these kind of actions. If we are to play enforcer to the world, we must hold ourselve accountable, too. And enforce in situations where maybe it isn't in our interest to do so, but its just the right thing to do.

We are so far from that now.

Taft

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Taft
This isn't good enough! Well, at least for some people on these boards.

According to some, insulting the president during a time of war is dang near treasonous. At the very least it is an insult to America, its troops and their families.

I think this is sad. Its exactly these kind of knee-jerk emotional reactions that end up stifling free speach. Just because freedom of expression is allowed by law doesn't mean it is safe to do. When enough emotional, super-patriotic people line up against you dissent becomes very dangerous indeed.

Taft
No Taft, no one has said that dissent is treason. I have said that some of the actions of some people is borderline treason. I felt that his comments were without basis. His second post was a very solid post, and I respect his opinion. He is not an American, so, there is no basis for treason, or any accusation of.




Stike,
One question. Where you in favor of the war in the Balkans?

mcrain
Mar 24, 2003, 09:01 AM
Taft-

I took a Human Rights class in law school that focused on human rights violations and violations of international law and treaties.

My professor was a little left of center (an understatement), but a lot of the textbooks had a lot of information pointing the finger at the US when it comes to human rights and international law.

I only point that out because you will likely be flamed for suggesting the US has violated international law or committed human rights violations. However, there are learned professionals who support your statement.

I neither agree, nor disagree, nor wish to participate in a debate on these issues. I am merely letting you know that there are law school textbooks on this issue.

M

markomarko
Mar 24, 2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
2 things.

1) Chef, the inspectors only inspected sites that were "known" places from previous inspections teams. Sounds kind of like pissing in the wind doesn't it.

2) ...this isn't a baby milk factory. Sure, it will require conformation, but "logic" would say this is a huge find.

1) Except for the fact that many of the most recently inspected sites were pointed out by US intelligence, and nothing was turned up.

2) No, it isn't a baby milk factory. To draw a conclusion before having all the facts is not "logic" it's "speculation," Holmes.

markomarko
Mar 24, 2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Show me the 17 UN resolutions that relate to the US possessing and/or creating weapons it is banned from having. Oh, that's right. That's Iraq, not the US, that is the focal point of 17 UN resolutions regarding banned WMD's.


Lethal

The USA has reneged on the ABM treaty.

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by markomarko
The USA has reneged on the ABM treaty.

And? The President has decided to void the treaty due to national interest and security. That has nothing to do with the current situation.

LethalWolfe
Mar 24, 2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by markomarko
The USA has reneged on the ABM treaty.

And that has to do w/what?

Your (basic) point from the post I responded to: US has WMD's why can't Iraq?

My response: Iraq is banned from having/producing WMD's by the UN (which feels so strongly about the situation they've passed 17 resolutions concerning it).

So, in short the UN says it's "okay" for the US to have WMD's but they say it's "not okay" for Iraq to have WMDs. I'm still confused as to what the ABM trety has to do w/this...No offense but it's much easier to carry on a discussion if you stay on topic. ;)


Lethal

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 11:11 AM
Hmm. Turns out we knew about his site all along. We didn't "find" jack.

link (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/24_plant.html)

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Hmm. Turns out we knew about his site all along. We didn't "find" jack.

link (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/24_plant.html)

Man, you talk about me and speculation.

"The "discovery" of the "huge chemical weapons factory" in Najaf is not a discovery. This facility has been known about since 1991 (witness below). "You do the math"



...Summary: [deleted] Several sites in Iraq with the capability to produce and store BW weapons. Although the capability exists, no evidence of current production or storage was found. Enclosures. Text 1. Background [deleted] suspected biological warfare sites. Among the sites were the Al-Kindi company, An-Najaf, Taji, the Serum and Vaccine institute, the Agriculture Research and Water Resources Center, and the Ibn Haithan institute...."

What the hell does this have to do with the site found. It doesn't describe it, nor name it specifically. It names the city of An-Najaf, but this site is not in that city. It is well outside of the city.

mcrain
Mar 24, 2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
What the hell does this have to do with the site found. It doesn't describe it, nor name it specifically. It names the city of An-Najaf, but this site is not in that city. It is well outside of the city.

I don't get the connection either. :confused:

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by mcrain
I don't get the connection either. :confused:

OMG, my dreams have been answered! mcrain and I agree. Everyone celebrate ;)

What people don't know is we actually agree on probably more than we disagree on.

trebblekicked
Mar 24, 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
OMG, my dreams have been answered! mcrain and I agree. Everyone celebrate ;)


...and there was much rejoicing (yay.)

markomarko
Mar 24, 2003, 12:43 PM
Ok, so the ABM has nothing to do with the UN, or resolutions. I concede.

But here is a little perspective on Security Council resolutions:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/securitycouncil_compliance030314.html


And a nice, quite balanced, FAQ/backgrounder on Iraq and issues surrounding this invasion:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/talkback/faq.html

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by markomarko
Ok, so the ABM has nothing to do with the UN, or resolutions. I concede.

But here is a little perspective on Security Council resolutions:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/securitycouncil_compliance030314.html


And a nice, quite balanced, FAQ/backgrounder on Iraq and issues surrounding this invasion:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/talkback/faq.html

Good information. Thanks.

Taft

Stike
Mar 24, 2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Stike,
One question. Where you in favor of the war in the Balkans?

Well, BTTM, I think, on that topic you got me. I was never well informed about what was going on there and why. Generally speaking I can only say that war is never right... In response to your question I did some research. The first article I found made me already too sad to continue searching and to continue reading. It seems like Iraq was not the first questionable "war against dictatorship". BUT, even here in Germany this topic was handled more like the current war is handled in the US media. It looks like it was in compliance with the UN. I wonder how the UN justifies its existance as an "human rights organization" if they agree with war :rolleyes:
If you like, read for yourself: http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jun1999/balk-j14.shtml

I finally want to repeat that I am not intending to start a flame war. Never was. Looks like that goes to my signature...:p

LethalWolfe
Mar 24, 2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Stike
I wonder how the UN justifies its existance as an "human rights organization" if they agree with war :rolleyes:



Yer kidding right?

Did asking Saddam to treat his people better do anyting? Did saying "please stop the genocide" save any lives in Rwanda or Bosnia? Did letting warlords steal food supplies meant for civilians do any good in Somalia? Maybe if the allies would have asked really, really nicely Hitler would have stopped rolling over Europe and turned the death camps into country resorts. I'm sure many Korean's pleaded w/Japanesse soldiers before they were raped and murdered. I'm sure more than one Cambodian begged for his/her life before becoming the latest victim to die under Pol Pot's rule (2 million total). And then there's China, the poster child for human rights violations...

Like it or not there are mean, sick, twisted irrational people in this world that derive immense amounts of pleasure from being in power and using that power to make others suffer. And in most cases these people will not leave power willing or peacefuly. So that means in order to save millions, even billions, of people (not just the current generation, but future generations as well) sometimes, hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people must die.

In a perfect world there would be no murders, no rapes, no wars, no genocides. But we live in an imperfect world where murders, rapists, and brutal dictators don't live by the golden rule and don't respond to the magic word... No matter how nicely you might say, "please."


Lethal

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Yer kidding right?

Did asking Saddam to treat his people better do anyting? [and so on...]

I thought this war was about Iraq's threat to the USA?

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I thought this war was about Iraq's threat to the USA?

This war is about multiple threats, and you know it. Not just the threat to the USA.

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
This war is about multiple threats, and you know it. Not just the threat to the USA.

No, this war is about a compendium of excuses, bald-faced lies and half-truths used to justify invasion and occupation of a soveriegn nation.

One reason alone is not strong enough because there is no single reason why we need to invade. Without an impending threat of attack on the USA, there is no justification for war.

However, throw together a bunch of other stuff into the possibility that someday they might be a threat and you have more support.

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
No, this war is about a compendium of excuses, bald-faced lies and half-truths used to justify invasion and occupation of a soveriegn nation.

One reason alone is not strong enough because there is no single reason why we need to invade. Without an impending threat of attack on the USA, there is no justification for war.

However, throw together a bunch of other stuff into the possibility that someday they might be a threat and you have more support.

PULEEEZEE! Ok, I can't wait to read this one. What bold faced (not bald) lies, and half truths are there? The tons of WMD? The torture of the Iraqi people? Telling the world to take a flying leap for 12 years? Being an accessory to terrorism? Please, give me the facts to your statement.

LethalWolfe
Mar 24, 2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I thought this war was about Iraq's threat to the USA?


OMG will you please not take my words out of context, manipulate them to suite your political view point and, in the proccess, completly ignore the point of my post?

My reply was in response to part of a post questioning how a "human rights organization" could not be flat out opposed to war. And my many examples (of which you only quoted the one you needed) showed how action has ended human rights violations and how inaction has allowed them to continue. So, in simple, sometimes war is the lesser of two evils.

In closing, thank pseudobrit for hijacking my words, running way past left field, all the way over to "war w/Iraq" land and then posting something completly OT to what I (or the post I quoted)was talking about. :rolleyes:


Lethal

leprechaunG4
Mar 24, 2003, 03:18 PM
Stike - It sounds like you are against any and all war, which sounds good to start with, but crumbles in the real world. It would be great if everyone "played nice together" However, we all know that's not our world, nor will it become our worl by ignoring evil tyrants (here is where some mindless fool lists for me all of the other tyrants in the world. To those people BTTM has already discussed that this war is about many things we need those other things in order to decide where we will put our efforts. If the UN was actually usefull all of the evil tyrants of the world could be dealt with, but the UN prefers to sit with their thumb up their, you get my point). Back to the pacifest at all costs thing. This is a little something I read somewhere, heck might have been here:

Having a discussion with an absolute pacifest:
First engage the person in conversation. Listen to them honestly. Encourage them to tell you more of their theory about how retaliation is wrong. How no matter what violence in return is not the answer. Then while they're speaking punch them directly in the nose. They'll be pissed likely so take a step back, then repeat to them their views of retaliation and how violence is never the answer. They'll likely agree, so let them talk some more. Now hit them again harder this time. Knock them right to the ground. Repeat as necessary until they get the point.

mcrain
Mar 24, 2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Having a discussion with an absolute pacifest:
First engage the person in conversation. Listen to them honestly. Encourage them to tell you more of their theory about how retaliation is wrong. How no matter what violence in return is not the answer. Then while they're speaking punch them directly in the nose. They'll be pissed likely so take a step back, then repeat to them their views of retaliation and how violence is never the answer. They'll likely agree, so let them talk some more. Now hit them again harder this time. Knock them right to the ground. Repeat as necessary until they get the point.

FYI: The British thought that Ghandi and the Indians would retaliate, but they didn't. Non-violence is a very effective technique.

Rower_CPU
Mar 24, 2003, 03:34 PM
What's a "pacifest"?

Sounds like Woodstock, or some such...;)

Stike
Mar 24, 2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Stike - It sounds like you are against any and all war, which sounds good to start with, but crumbles in the real world. It would be great if everyone "played nice together" [...]

Having a discussion with an absolute pacifest:
[...]
Knock them right to the ground. Repeat as necessary until they get the point.

This is a problematic comparison, since you are only hitting one person. For no reason of course. You probably want to show with that, that one should strike BEFORE he gets hit by a possible threat. This is, what Bush is saying, that this is a preventive attack.
The problem is, Bush strikes first. Without any *hard* evidence as far as I can see (it was discussed many times between the governments if there is evidence or not, the public has never had any proof). Following this comes the fear of everyone, who Bush could attack next, just to remove evil dictators/governments/whoever. This is now speculation, but chances are he could strive forward towards Iran as next target, since he counted them also towards the "axis of evil". Everybody fears for the peace of the whole region, maybe even the world, if the "world sheriff" is gone mad and becomes law, court and executioner in one institution. This is how I see it. There is no one who controls Bushīs actions.

If only he was bound by any global law, or was given the agreement by the majority of the states, Iīd say, okay, go in and get him. But now he is out there on his own, and states like Turkey already were confident that they could do what they want, too, moving into northern Iraq. They pulled back. Why? Because they are military dependent on others. America isnīt.

So... let the game for global domination begin.
(*Pulls out the Amiga to play a game of "Nuclear War"*)

P.S.: Did anyone hear from the planned formation of a "world court" against war crimes? I donīt have any details right now, but... Bush was against it. Massively. It would have been a possibility to control him.

skunk
Mar 24, 2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
What's a "pacifest"?

Sounds like Woodstock, or some such...;)

Yep, it's just us bunch of liberals :)
And your Patriots are obviously of the Paul Revere type... :mad: (Sorry, that's OT, too, but I couldn't resist)

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Stike

P.S.: Did anyone hear from the planned formation of a "world court" against war crimes? I donīt have any details right now, but... Bush was against it. Massively. It would have been a possibility to control him.

See, this is real intelligent. Sorry, but this is just wrong! We opposed the world court becuase it would not afford those accused the same rights as the Constitution thus, violating their rights.

conrtol him.

FLAMEBAIT!

skunk
Mar 24, 2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
See, this is real intelligent. Sorry, but this is just wrong! We opposed the world court becuase it would not afford those accused the same rights as the Constitution thus, violating their rights.

conrtol him.

FLAMEBAIT!

OT OT OT OT:rolleyes:

Stike
Mar 24, 2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
See, this is real intelligent. Sorry, but this is just wrong! We opposed the world court becuase it would not afford those accused the same rights as the Constitution thus, violating their rights.

conrtol him.

FLAMEBAIT!

Huh?? Seems like I didnīt get your sentence. I believe that I am intelligent though :D If you could explain it once more, please...?
"We opposed.." It looks like you are taking many things personally very fast.

And this is not a flamebait. Are you trying to flamebait me with that? I am only dicussing. BTW, look at my sig, I am no flamer :rolleyes:

Stike
Mar 24, 2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by skunk
OT OT OT OT:rolleyes:

If you say it. I didnīt want to get involved into that discussion in the first place, anyway. Bye...

skunk
Mar 24, 2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Stike
BTW, look at my sig, I am no flamer :rolleyes:

You're obviously one of those undercover flamers .... have you no shame, you Old European, you? :)

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Stike
Huh?? Seems like I didnīt get your sentence. I believe that I am intelligent though :D If you could explain it once more, please...?
"We opposed.." It looks like you are taking many things personally very fast.

And this is not a flamebait. Are you trying to flamebait me with that? I am only dicussing. BTW, look at my sig, I am no flamer :rolleyes:

We, yes, we refers to America. I am an American, so yes, we. Claiming that the world court could have "controled" Bush is ludicrous. You should look at what the world court was being designed for. Not that. Furthermore, you post implies that my President is a criminal. That I take offense to, and consider flamebait, as you know that many of us here support the President. Desent if you much, that is your right, but again, do so with class. Saying the President is a criminal is just pure flamebait. Sorry, I did not read your signature. If you are just being that way, that is one thing, but look, you have to understand that tentions are high, as are emotions. Don't forget that. Be considerate.

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 04:07 PM
Actually, he is a convicted criminal and a drunk. He's been arrested and booked at least three times. So no one is being rude or flaming by saying such; it's fact.

LethalWolfe
Mar 24, 2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
FYI: The British thought that Ghandi and the Indians would retaliate, but they didn't. Non-violence is a very effective technique.


I agree 100%. Non-violence should definetly be used if at all possible.


Lethal

skunk
Mar 24, 2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
We, yes, we refers to America. I am an American, so yes, we. Claiming that the world court could have "controled" Bush is ludicrous. You should look at what the world court was being designed for. Not that. Furthermore, you post implies that my President is a criminal. That I take offense to, and consider flamebait, as you know that many of us here support the President. Desent if you much, that is your right, but again, do so with class. Saying the President is a criminal is just pure flamebait. Sorry, I did not read your signature. If you are just being that way, that is one thing, but look, you have to understand that tentions are high, as are emotions. Don't forget that. Be considerate.

Why should it be unacceptable to consider that your head of state may be a criminal? Many heads of state are regarded as criminals. The actions of yours (and mine) are questionable at least. Accept the possibility of other points of view. Be braver.

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Actually, he is a convicted criminal and a drunk. He's been arrested and booked at least three times. So no one is being rude or flaming by saying such; it's fact.

Genius, shear genius. He was arrested in his youth. Never convicted. He has not had a drink since 1981. Can you say that? Does that mean you are a drunk? That is absurd man. Come one. my wife has been arrested before, she was not charged, does that mean she is criminal?

That is weak. Real weak.

Stike
Mar 24, 2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by skunk
You're obviously one of those undercover flamers .... have you no shame, you Old European, you? :)

Ahhh!! I am uncovered! *dodges and runs* :D

Stike
Mar 24, 2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Genius, shear genius. He was arrested in his youth. Never convicted. He has not had a drink since 1981. Can you say that? [...]

That is weak. Real weak.

I have to agree that this is no argument, otherwise I have to say that I never accused Bush to be guilty or calling him a criminal. I just think it is suspicious if someone is against a superior control institution that could hold him responsible for specific actions.

If this is not (roughly outlined, as I say again, I am not well informed about this topic) the case, then please tell me why you and Mr. Bush are against it.

Edit: Sorry for offtopic, I hope we can stop this ASAP.

skunk
Mar 24, 2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Genius, shear genius. He was arrested in his youth. Never convicted. He has not had a drink since 1981. Can you say that? Does that mean you are a drunk? That is absurd man. Come one. my wife has been arrested before, she was not charged, does that mean she is criminal?

That is weak. Real weak.
Apart from being SHOCKED that you should shop your wife like that, we are talking "criminal acts", not "criminal convictions". Many heads of state never get prosecuted for their criminal acts because they are heads of state. They never USED to get assassinated for the same reason.

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
He has not had a drink since 1981. Can you say that? Does that mean you are a drunk?

I am not nor have I ever been an alcoholic. He was and is. That makes him a drunk.

leprechaunG4
Mar 24, 2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Stike
[B]This is a problematic comparison, since you are only hitting one person. For no reason of course. You probably want to show with that, that one should strike BEFORE he gets hit by a possible threat.
Actually no not what I was saying, I wasn't even saying much, just a funny little thing I remembered reading that I felt like sharing. The moral of the story is that at some point you need to stand up for yourself or you are going to keep getting punched in the face. Of course you could say spitting in your face for oh say 12 years, then we have the current situation with Saddam.

Rower_CPU
Mar 24, 2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Actually no not what I was saying, I wasn't even saying much, just a funny little thing I remembered reading that I felt like sharing. The moral of the story is that at some point you need to stand up for yourself or you are going to keep getting punched in the face. Of course you could say spitting in your face for oh say 12 years, then we have the current situation with Saddam.

And then you pull out a gun and shoot him in the head, and you have the current situation with Bush.:rolleyes:

jelloshotsrule
Mar 24, 2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I am not nor have I ever been an alcoholic. He was and is. That makes him a drunk.

while i agree with you in theory, i think the drinking thing has always been the weakest attack of bush... i mean, he made a mistake. and he moved on. i for one can forgive him for that.... there are plenty of other things i find fault with him for though. however, i also think that a very high % of america's leaders have just as bad if not worse track records... so i choose not to attack bush specfically, as much as the war and america's actions in general.

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
PULEEEZEE! Ok, I can't wait to read this one. What bold faced (not bald) lies, and half truths are there?

It's bald faced. Make sure you know your grammar before you go off and correct mine.

Plus, check your netiquette. I really want to call you bad things now, but won't...

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 11:29 PM
And, to answer the question, the only reason you can justify war legally is if you've been attacked or are just about to be.

So the USA made the case that Iraq could give WMD to terrorists today and they could hit us tomorrow, hence the immediate threat.

Of course, we also shopped around a bunch of other half-@&$ed stories mainly for domestic consumption that, while they make Saddam look really, really bad, won't stand up to international reasons for going to war.

Rower_CPU
Mar 25, 2003, 12:23 AM
Anyone got a confirmation yet on the alleged chemical weapons facility?

It's been awfully quiet...

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Anyone got a confirmation yet on the alleged chemical weapons facility?

It's been awfully quiet...

I was wondering the same thing. You'd think if this were a weapons facility they would have been able to verify it and would be trumpeting it around right now.

LethalWolfe
Mar 25, 2003, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
It's bald faced. Make sure you know your grammar before you go off and correct mine.

Plus, check your netiquette. I really want to call you bad things now, but won't...


From dictionary.com

bold-faced (bldfst)
adj.
Impudent; brazen: a bold-faced lie.

and

bald-faced (bôldfst)
adj.
Brash; undisguised: a bald-faced lie.

So you both are wrong in that you both are right.

Well, this is a sure sign of a dead thread when grammar becomes a point of conflict.


Lethal

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
So you both are wrong in that you both are right.


I was not "wrong." I never accused him of being wrong, just of improperly correcting my grammar.

So... any sign of the news on that chem weapons plant yet?

toontra
Mar 25, 2003, 02:08 AM
I'm also curious as to the sudden silence about the chemical weapons factory - almost deafening!
As was mentioned earlier in this thread, if the US media start reporting stuff like this and it proves to be wrong they are soon going to lose credibility with the public.
Interestingly, Laurence Eagleburger said on UK TV on Sunday that if no WOMD are found in Iraq then Bush is finished - perhaps this is such a serious issue that it shouldn't be left to chance!!
BTW, Eagleburger also threw a massive temper tantrum and threatened to walk off the show when some of the other guests questioned the US motives - he started spluttering, going red and ranting on about saving our asses back in '45 - not a pretty sight!

Backtothemac
Mar 25, 2003, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
And, to answer the question, the only reason you can justify war legally is if you've been attacked or are just about to be.

So the USA made the case that Iraq could give WMD to terrorists today and they could hit us tomorrow, hence the immediate threat.

Of course, we also shopped around a bunch of other half-@&$ed stories mainly for domestic consumption that, while they make Saddam look really, really bad, won't stand up to international reasons for going to war.

No, war can be justified and LEGAL if the PROCESS that leads to war, follows all LEGAL requirements of your country. Thus, 91 invasion of Kuwait was legal in Iraq, but not the rest of the world. That is whay I have been saying. This was is LEGAL because it meets the requirements of our constitution. Thus, it is legal.


Skunk
Look, he called him a criminal. That means found guilty of a crime. Remember this is America. Being arrested doesn't mean you did it. Remember the Security Guard that was arrested for the bombing during the Summer Games in Atlanta a few years back. He was arrested, and yet it came out that he did not do it. Thus, is he a criminal? Secondly, Bush wasn't a head of state when he was arrested. He was the son of a head of state.

Orbit
Man, you have a lot of sensitivity when it come to other people don't you. Class man, way to insult someone because of a DISEASE! Do you make fun of people with AIDS as well, or is it just alcoholics?

As for bold faced / bald faced, I think that is nothing more than a geographical difference in dialect. I am Southern, and we have never said Baled faced. Here it is bold faced. You want to insult me? PM me, that way we keep it out of the thread, and don't get banned.

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, war can be justified and LEGAL if the PROCESS that leads to war, follows all LEGAL requirements of your country. Thus, 91 invasion of Kuwait was legal in Iraq, but not the rest of the world. That is whay I have been saying. This was is LEGAL because it meets the requirements of our constitution. Thus, it is legal.
Since war by definition transcends national boundaries, we must talk in terms of INTERNATIONAL LAW here.

Look, he called him a criminal. That means found guilty of a crime. Remember this is America. Being arrested doesn't mean you did it. Remember the Security Guard that was arrested for the bombing during the Summer Games in Atlanta a few years back. He was arrested, and yet it came out that he did not do it. Thus, is he a criminal? Secondly, Bush wasn't a head of state when he was arrested. He was the son of a head of state.

I'm talking about criminal behaviour while in office, such as acts of war authorised without due process, killing of foreign cilvilians, invasion, etc.

Backtothemac
Mar 25, 2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by skunk
Since war by definition transcends national boundaries, we must talk in terms of INTERNATIONAL LAW here.

[B]
I'm talking about criminal behaviour while in office, such as acts of war authorised without due process, killing of foreign cilvilians, invasion, etc.

You have to understand that International Law is not valid when it comes to the Constitution of the US. The Constitution is the only legal authority that is valid in deciding if we declare war. NOTHING ELSE!

As for criminal behavior. That is rich. So, you think Bush should be tried as a war criminal or something?

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 11:58 AM
My point is that many heads of state, including GW, Tony Blair, Clinton, Reagan, Putin, etc, etc, are acting or have acted not only in breach of International Law, but also, probably, in breach of their own national laws, when they indulge in military adventurism. Of course nobody will be able to bring most of them to trial, but arguing that your precious constitution allows you to trample over every other country on earth just because you can is a pretty lousy standpoint. You can of course enforce your "right", but don't please confuse this with morality or legality.

Backtothemac
Mar 25, 2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by skunk
My point is that many heads of state, including GW, Tony Blair, Clinton, Reagan, Putin, etc, etc, are acting or have acted not only in breach of International Law, but also, probably, in breach of their own national laws, when they indulge in military adventurism. Of course nobody will be able to bring most of them to trial, but arguing that your precious constitution allows you to trample over every other country on earth just because you can is a pretty lousy standpoint. You can of course enforce your "right", but don't please confuse this with morality or legality.

So are you anti war, or anti US? Look, when have we been justified in war? Do you think ever? I am sure you did not mind when we came to YOUR country's aid during World War II. I am sure that in 40 years the people of Iraq will have the same view of this war, as your country does WWII.

As for my precious Constitution. Your damn right it is precious. It gives me the freedoms that I have, and has aided your country in many, many occasions. So, just which International law have we violated by this war. Were is this law tried? Who enforces it?

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
So are you anti war, or anti US?
I'm anti BS.:rolleyes:

Backtothemac
Mar 25, 2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by skunk
I'm anti BS.:rolleyes:

What, so that is what I am giving you? Why can't you answer the question? Why the insult?

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
As for my precious Constitution. Your damn right it is precious. It gives me the freedoms that I have, and has aided your country in many, many occasions.

The Constitution doesn't really give you freedoms; that's not what the founders were after. Rather, they recognize the freedoms listed as unalienable and God-given for every man.

And besides, this same administration showing contempt for international democracy has shown equal contempt for our own democracy.

Ashcroft tinkles on the Constitution every day.

Backtothemac
Mar 25, 2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
The Constitution doesn't really give you freedoms; that's not what the founders were after. Rather, they recognize the freedoms listed as unalienable and God-given for every man.

And besides, this same administration showing contempt for international democracy has shown equal contempt for our own democracy.

Ashcroft tinkles on the Constitution every day.

WHAT! You need to reread the Constitution. It protects the Freedoms that we as Americans have. It forbids the government from infringing on those rights. The listing of the rights as you speak is not the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence. So, which "international democracy" are we showing contempt for. And you know what, just how is Ashcroft tinkling with the Constitution.

Back on topic. I am stunned by the silence about the chemical plant. I think that the longer there is silence, the more they are finding there.

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
What, so that is what I am giving you? Why can't you answer the question? Why the insult?

If you would dismount for long enough to read my post, I'm not insulting you, nor am I singling out the US. I'm just tired of our language being mangled in the attempt to establish moral superiority. Most countries do what they can get away with, and to ascribe moral purpose to their self-interest is fundamentally dishonest.

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I am stunned by the silence about the chemical plant. I think that the longer there is silence, the more they are finding there.
Or perhaps the LESS they are finding.......

mcrain
Mar 25, 2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
You have to understand that International Law is not valid when it comes to the Constitution of the US. The Constitution is the only legal authority that is valid in deciding if we declare war. NOTHING ELSE!

As for criminal behavior. That is rich. So, you think Bush should be tried as a war criminal or something?

ACTUALLY, that's not quite true. The Constitution says, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

It SPECIFICALLY says that treaties we enter into are the supreme law of the land. In other words, so long as it is not unconstitutional, a treaty can restrict when we may declare war. This doesn't change the constitution as to who can declare war, but it does change the requirements to do so.

I have no idea if there are any treaties like this, or if there has ever been a test of this before, so this is likely just an exercise in hypotheticals.

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
WHAT! You need to reread the Constitution. It protects the Freedoms that we as Americans have. It forbids the government from infringing on those rights. The listing of the rights as you speak is not the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence. So, which "international democracy" are we showing contempt for. And you know what, just how is Ashcroft tinkling with the Constitution.

The Constitution says in most parts of the Bill of Rights something like this: The right to the people of _____ shall not be violated/denied. It does not establish those rights but recognizes them.

Read it, quote it and prove me wrong.

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
ACTUALLY, that's not quite true. The Constitution says, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Yes, yes, yes.

Constitution + Laws + Treaties = supreme law of the land.

Backtothemac
Mar 25, 2003, 01:31 PM
Yes mcrain, treaties are part of the Constitution upon ratification by the Congress. Now that being said, they can be broken, or so to speak, removed.

National organizations are not treaties, thus the UN stipulation of offensive war is Unconstitution, because it superseeds the power of the executive, and the Congress.

As for all the other stuff. My questions are still not being answered. I asked very, very specific questions, and I get silence.

So, that being the case, I guess I give up. As for the notion of moral supremacy. Yea, I would have to say that compared to Iraq, the US and Britain have a very, very high moral advantage.

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yes mcrain, treaties are part of the Constitution upon ratification by the Congress. Now that being said, they can be broken, or so to speak, removed.

National organizations are not treaties, thus the UN stipulation of offensive war is Unconstitution, because it superseeds the power of the executive, and the Congress.

The UN is more than an organisation -- the UN Charter is a TREATY that the US signed. It's also a TREATY that stipulates that when a nation becomes part to it, it supercedes and overrules all other treaties.

So, the UN is the supreme law of the land.

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
The UN is more than an organisation -- the UN Charter is a TREATY that the US signed. It's also a TREATY that stipulates that when a nation becomes part to it, it supercedes and overrules all other treaties.

So, the UN is the supreme law of the land.
You're REALLY going to pi$$ someone off with that kind of stuff! Talk about bait! :)

leprechaunG4
Mar 25, 2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
The UN is more than an organisation -- the UN Charter is a TREATY that the US signed. It's also a TREATY that stipulates that when a nation becomes part to it, it supercedes and overrules all other treaties.

So, the UN is the supreme law of the land.
A charter is not a treaty actually, there is a reason they are two sperate words.

The UN is the supreme law of no land. It is not, never was, and never will be an international government.

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
A charter is not a treaty actually, there is a reason they are two sperate words.

The UN is the supreme law of no land. It is not, never was, and never will be an international government.

The UN Charter is not the same as the Treaty, it is the statement of the terms of reference and aims of the organization. You are bound by the treaty, not by the charter.

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
A charter is not a treaty actually, there is a reason they are two sperate words.

The UN is the supreme law of no land. It is not, never was, and never will be an international government.


----
ARTICLE 103:

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

----

From the UN site:

"When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty that sets out basic principles of international relations."

"The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws."

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 07:21 PM
Oh, all right then...:rolleyes: ;)

leprechaunG4
Mar 25, 2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
----
ARTICLE 103:

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

----

From the UN site:

"When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty that sets out basic principles of international relations."

"The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws."
Did you even read your own source? "and their obligations under any other international agreement." Doesn't say national constitution, says "international agreement" You do understand the difference don't you? Maybe not. Let me explain for you. NATO is an international organization as is the UN, neither are governments niether are constitutions. The UN charter is written so that it has more power than NATO, or for another example the Warsaw Pact. This article does not apply to national governments.

Hey skunk wanna still say oh alright?

peterjhill
Mar 25, 2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by iJon
its all over the news, go turn on fox news.

iJon

no thanks

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Hey skunk wanna still say oh alright?
Sure, although I'll stick with "all right". I'm cool with what it says. I agree. The Members ARE the national governments. Obviously...

vniow
Mar 25, 2003, 07:35 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030325/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_chemical_plant_2

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 07:39 PM
You'd have thought someone could've planted SOMETHING, wouldn't you? :cool:

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by skunk
You'd have thought someone could've planted SOMETHING, wouldn't you? :cool:

The shipment got delayed in New York...

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Did you even read your own source? "and their obligations under any other international agreement." Doesn't say national constitution, says "international agreement"

1) The Consititution says that it and the laws and the treaties the US signs are the supreme law of the land. I thought we'd established that, but I'll reiterate.

2) Therefore the UN Charter, being a treaty, is part of the supreme law of the land.

3) The UN charter is the treaty above all other treaties, so it preempts all other treaties of the US.

4) It most certainly does apply to the national government of the US specifially because of our Constitution, not in spite of it. We are more bound to the UN than other nations specifically because of that clause in the US Constitution.

leprechaunG4
Mar 25, 2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
1) The Consititution says that it and the laws and the treaties the US signs are the supreme law of the land. I thought we'd established that, but I'll reiterate.

2) Therefore the UN Charter, being a treaty, is part of the supreme law of the land.

3) The UN charter is the treaty above all other treaties, so it preempts all other treaties of the US.

4) It most certainly does apply to the national government of the US specifially because of our Constitution, not in spite of it. We are more bound to the UN than other nations specifically because of that clause in the US Constitution.
Being that a charter is NOT a treaty you still fall completely wrong. Treaties are agremeents between two or more countries pertaining to a specific issue and what is to be done about said issue. For example you sign a treaty about polution or something and each country agree to limit polution to a stated amount. Charters have to do with creating organizations, not governments. These organizations are to try to work together to benefit the nations involved. It is not a government. The stipulations of the charter place it higher than other charters as I have already described. So again, you are wrong.

Here don't belive me. Dictionary.com:
Treaty:
A formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade.

The document in which such an agreement is set down.

A contract or agreement.

Charter:
A document issued by a sovereign, legislature, or other authority, creating a public or private corporation, such as a city, college, or bank, and defining its privileges and purposes.
(there are other definitions for a charter, but this is the one that applies)

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 08:15 PM
Nobody is claiming that the UN constitutes a government, only that the UN Treaty/Charter is binding on national governments.

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 08:32 PM
I'll say it again:

the UN Charter is also TREATY that the US signed.

This Treaty sets up a UN -- an assembly of nations (not a government!) to prevent war and resolve disputes between member nations peacefully.

The Constitution of the US itself states that treaties are part of the supreme law of the land -- therefore we have a specific and unique legal obligation to observe the UN.

The UN treaty does not usurp the Constitution, but is on a level equal to it and the laws passed by Congress.

leprechaunG4
Mar 25, 2003, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I'll say it again:

the UN Charter is also TREATY that the US signed.

This Treaty sets up a UN -- an assembly of nations (not a government!) to prevent war and resolve disputes between member nations peacefully.

The Constitution of the US itself states that treaties are part of the supreme law of the land -- therefore we have a specific and unique legal obligation to observe the UN.

The UN treaty does not usurp the Constitution, but is on a level equal to it and the laws passed by Congress.
And I'll say it again: A CHARTER IS NOT A TREATY. Sorry for the caps and all hbut you apparently miss that point. You are going to argue for against the dictionary now? A treaty is a contract in which there is a clear subject and how that subject is to be dealt with. A charter is the forming of an orginization. Now let me explain for you why this is so important to understand. A treaty is ratified by congress, therefore it is voted in as something to be followed by our government. The government is saying by ratifying that treaty we will comply with these terms and you will comply with the terms stipulated for you. Each subject is explicitly and seperately addressed and accepted or denied by the government. Now a charter says we will try to work with these countries for the good of all involved. There is no specific subject addressed, merely a statement that cooperation will be attempted. Now as a situation is brought to said orginization the orginization votes on it, that is not the same as America signing a treaty. In your view of the UN it has the ability to force a country into a treaty, but it does not. The constitution accepts treaties as part of the law of the land as they are individually and explictly ratified by the US government. Charters do not explicitly and individualy ratify and decisions. Can you wrap your mind around that?

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 09:24 PM
US Senate ratifies UN Charter: 1945

UN Charter becomes part of the "supreme law of the land"

Check your facts

Backtothemac
Mar 26, 2003, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
US Senate ratifies UN Charter: 1945

UN Charter becomes part of the "supreme law of the land"

Check your facts

Yes, but why can't you understand that it cannot violate the Constitution, which it does. Notice, that Congress ratifies UN CHARTER! It isn't a treaty. It has a charter, that formed membership. Period! In article 103, it even goes so far as to say it isn't a government and doesn't establish laws. Look, I am not saying that I don't want the UN to work, but, it doesn't. That is the point. I have said for over 2 years here that it is Unconstitutional. No treaty can rewrite the Constitution. The Constitutuion is very, very specific as to what has to happen for that to take place.


Oh, and can you guys please refrain from the smartass flamebait? This planting evidence stuff is flat out insulting, and for one, I am sick of it

pseudobrit
Mar 26, 2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yes, but why can't you understand that it cannot violate the Constitution, which it does. Notice, that Congress ratifies UN CHARTER! It isn't a treaty. It has a charter, that formed membership. Period! In article 103, it even goes so far as to say it isn't a government and doesn't establish laws. Look, I am not saying that I don't want the UN to work, but, it doesn't. That is the point. I have said for over 2 years here that it is Unconstitutional. No treaty can rewrite the Constitution. The Constitutuion is very, very specific as to what has to happen for that to take place.

Well, then, can you agree that the UN Charter might just be the supreme law of the land regarding matters where the Constitution and laws do not apply?

Backtothemac
Mar 26, 2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Well, then, can you agree that the UN Charter might just be the supreme law of the land regarding matters where the Constitution and laws do not apply?

Are you kidding? No. The laws of the US are clear. Very clear. What areas are you refering to? I will entertain your logic, if you explain it.

pseudobrit
Mar 26, 2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Are you kidding? No. The laws of the US are clear. Very clear. What areas are you refering to? I will entertain your logic, if you explain it.

Article VI of the Constitution.

leprechaunG4
Mar 26, 2003, 05:40 PM
psuedo were you ever taught to read. TREATY DOES NOT EQUAL CHARTER, pick up a dictionary and take a look. Heck just look back a couple posts I quoted the dictionary for you! Your stubborn ignorance makes any form of effective discussion impossible. If you cannot understand such a basic principle as treaty vs. charter, you'll never be able to understand the constitution and law.

Rower_CPU
Mar 26, 2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
psuedo were you ever taught to read. TREATY DOES NOT EQUAL CHARTER, pick up a dictionary and take a look. Heck just look back a couple posts I quoted the dictionary for you! Your stubborn ignorance makes any form of effective discussion impossible. If you cannot understand such a basic principle as treaty vs. charter, you'll never be able to understand the constitution and law.

Playing at semantics gets you nowhere.

A legally binding document is a legally binding document, regardless of what it is called.

macfan
Mar 26, 2003, 05:59 PM
US courts are likely to rule that the Constitution of the United States trumps any treaty when it comes to the rights of US citizens. For example, Congress might ratify a treaty that allowed for summary execution of US citizens caught smuggling cocaine, but courts would likely chunk it out because of its conflict with Constitutional rights. In that sense, a legally binding document is not a legally binding document.

Rower_CPU
Mar 26, 2003, 06:08 PM
An off-the-wall example, since Congress would never ratify such a treaty to begin with.

Does the UN "agreement" infringe on the rights of US citizens, as laid out in the Constitution? If so, how?

pseudobrit
Mar 27, 2003, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by macfan
US courts are likely to rule that the Constitution of the United States trumps any treaty when it comes to the rights of US citizens. For example, Congress might ratify a treaty that allowed for summary execution of US citizens caught smuggling cocaine, but courts would likely chunk it out because of its conflict with Constitutional rights. In that sense, a legally binding document is not a legally binding document.

That would seem to support legal precedent. Article VI says constitution+laws+treaties= supreme law of the land, but laws have been interpreted and overturned by the court system since [can't remember the first case -- Marshall though].

So part or all of the UN treaty could possibly be found unconstitutional by the court system. I just don't think that the system sees the UN as interfering with internal US operations, therefore it generally does not try to preempt the Constitution.

I don't think anyone here's a legal scholar or we would've heard the precedent already, so we're all really just shooting in the dark on this stuff... good conversation and philosophical discussion though.

pseudobrit
Mar 27, 2003, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Your stubborn ignorance makes any form of effective discussion impossible.

Ditto. Try opening your mind a little and accepting the fact that a charter can be a treaty, you know, despite the separate listings in the dictionary.

If that's the only source you can quote to tell me that the UN Charter isn't a treaty (because they're two separate words), you need to work on your persuasive argument skills.

As the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck -- it's probably a duck."

macfan
Mar 27, 2003, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
An off-the-wall example, since Congress would never ratify such a treaty to begin with.

Does the UN "agreement" infringe on the rights of US citizens, as laid out in the Constitution? If so, how?

Don't know if the UN charter does, but there are certainly actions which the UN has sought to take in the past, such as through UNESCO, that would never fly in the United States (issues of media control). Likewise, the World Court doesn't fly in the United States because it would violate the rights embodied in the Constitution.

leprechaunG4
Mar 27, 2003, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Playing at semantics gets you nowhere.

A legally binding document is a legally binding document, regardless of what it is called.
Actually Rower I'm not playing semantics. A legally binding document might be a legally binding document, but now you are discussing legally binding documents. A legally binding document would refer to a document internal of the United States that is legally binding according to the laws of the United States of America. There is a reason it is important to understand the difference between a charter and a treaty. The constitution includes treaties as part of the suprem law, but does not include charters as part of the supreme law. I have already explained why this is, but here goes again since you don't like to pay attention. A treaty is individually and explicitly ratified. Meaning that set of requirements and outcomes is explicitly understood and given a solid determined yes or no. In a charter the government says it will try to work with other governments for the benefit of all that are involved. Key word being "try." The problem comes in the fact that decisions of the chratered cooperative group are not individually and explicitly ratified by the United States government, meaning therefore they are not part of the supreme law of the land for this govenrment. You'll notice constitution=ratified by this government, laws=ratified by this government, charter to create a group of nations=ratified by this government, decisions of that international cooperation=not ratified by this government. For this reason the decisions of the international organization are not part of the supreme law of America's land.

Rower_CPU
Mar 27, 2003, 10:25 AM
leprechaung4,

It's not a matter of not paying attention, it's a matter of not agreeing with what you keep posting.

The plain truth of it is, by your definition the US can take or leave the UN as it sees fit, using it when it suits our needs and ignoring it when it gets in the way of what we want.

How would you feel if a friend used you like this?

Already there is talk in the UN of a resolution to denounce the military action in Iraq. Meanwhile the US and UK are talking about hurrying through a humanitarian aid package to deflect that resolution (my interpretation). In my view, the US and UK have lost all credibility within the UN.