Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bond369
Afaik Iraq was in compliance with UN. Or would you like to enlighten me how it wasnt?...Can you show me the source it wasnt?
US/UK specificaly claimed Iraq had wmd and it should be attacked because of it. All evidence was refuted and no wmd has been found till now.
|
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you wouldn't have this information.
First, let's look at it from a logical perspective. If Iraq was in compliance with the UNSCRs would sanctions still have been in place? In fact, there was a great deal of opposition from Europe AFTER the war when the US wanted sanctions lifted. Europe said, "No. Iraq has still not proven she has no WMD."
Now, let's take in the evidence. Hans Blix reported to the UNSC a week before the invasion. Here's how he summed up his report:
"Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively” with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002)....
It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution
cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance."
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
Later, the Iraqi Survey Group (of David Kay fame) was able to go through the Iraqi documents that Blix was never allowed to see and interview people UNSCOM was never allowed to interview. The final ISG report details how Iraq hid plans and proscribed imports. It details improved production methods in the chemicals industry, a covert network of laboratories for testing chemicals and poisons. Hidden stores of biological "starter kits" and a covert uranium enrichment programme. All of these, and more, constitute violations of at least one of the 17 UNSCRs on Iraq.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...-final-report/
Because you don't have a case. It was a legal war. It was a continuation of hostilities due to Iraq's non-compliance with the cease-fire. If you want to contest that, then I suggest you have your representatives press the matter. I'm sure you could find a court that will at least give you verdict you want. Then you can have it on the record. Go ahead, Bond369. Here's your chance to show that you're not just one of the complainers, that you're willing to actually do something.
Quote:
|
Its meant to be insulting but not arogant... Why should i respect em if they are nothing but pawns?
|
So, because your government stood up to the evil US, they're not pawns? But when another country believes contrary to yours, they're pawns? Like I said, you're arrogant and insulting.
I guess I can be painted with the same brush, though. Since I think Europe and it's leaders are greedy, spineless jack-offs who, though recognizing a threat, are too scared, or making too much money to do anything about it.
Quote:
|
Bush was/is bullshitting about spreading democracy, freedom,... while gathering coalition of countries that ignored their own population. Got to love US values...
|
Let's track where the word "democracy" first came into play. You said, "Meant it as having support of their goverment wile[sic] population was mostly against war. Long live democracy!" The "their" in your statement referred to countries in the coalition. I asked which of them were democracies, and which national votes these governments had discarded in favor of being "pawns" of the US. Then you start talking about Bush wanting to spread democracy. WTF does one have to do with the other?
If you're going to claim that the US doesn't value democracy, and offer up non-democratic governments as proof, then stick with the analogy. Show me a democratic government, that had a national vote (as you must have in a democracy), yet went against the citizenry's wishes.
Quote:
|
Its trying to be. Look at above comment.
|
Really? Turkey wants to be a democracy? Since when?
Quote:
|
Good to see you still think others envy you... Tho its beyond me what exactly that is they envy.
|
Then give me another explanation. Why is it that changes to the Kyoto Protocal were verbotten when the US was at the negotiating table, but accepted without question when Europe realized they wouldn't get the desired pound of flesh from the US?
Quote:
|
Fusion reactor exploding at worst imaginable case would destroy reactor only (rest of the playnt would stay mostly intact). Even radiation from it would be almost nonexistant. That is the beauty of fusion.
|
So the science is already figured out, eh? I thought lulu said it was "very much NOT figured out."
And what effects of our pollution are you feeling? What world-wide destruction has the US wreaked? Please, be specific and bring proof.
Quote:
|
US/UK specificaly claimed Iraq had wmd and it should be attacked because of it. All evidence was refuted and no wmd has been found till now.
|
Yep, the US did specifically claim that Iraq had WMD. So did France, Germany, Russia, China - all members of the UNSC. They voted unanimously to have Iraq prove she did not. (Which makes me wonder, if my leaders knew there was a threat and chose not to act, what would that make them?)
The ISG report proves that Iraq was what the US claimed all along - a growing threat that was in violation of UN resolutions and needed to be dealt with.
Quote:
|
Actually there is a law (that US helped make) about that. There is no law/treaty preventing EU and others to build a reactor.
|
Two sides of the same coin. I think I've made it explicitly clear that the EU is breaking no law, that they are doing nothing wrong, that are fully within their rights. The point at which you realize this will precipitate much shorter posts.