Too bad the democratic us spent so much effort in bringing new arguments into the discussion (not that bad though since the show by collin powell before the un assembly was a+++)
It was probably too simple to say that iraq was not respecting the un resolution and that nothing was done. Oh things were done to compell iraq to follow the resolution... So there were reasons to try that story of wmds and stuff...Ummmm.
Too bad people are not that often allowed democratic behaviour on an individual level. Would for sure come handy everytime one needs to reject the common definition of a law. 'Hey miss judge, you can bitch, you can moan, you can lament, you can make threats, sling insults, I'm telling you that it is not because I did not respect the word of the law that what I did is illegal. Understood?' Another sign of the collective prevailing over the individual in democracy...

Afaik Iraq was in compliance with UN. Or would you like to enlighten me how it wasnt?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html
I wonder why...
UN has a huge flaw which US and other big countries wanted it.
Its meant to be insulting but not arogant... Why should i respect em if they are nothing but pawns?
Bush was/is bullshitting about spreading democracy, freedom,... while gathering coalition of countries that ignored their own population. Got to love US values...
Its trying to be. Look at above comment.
Cant think of a single one...
rofl
Good to see you still think others envy you... Tho its beyond me what exactly that is they envy.
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.
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.
Actually there is a law (that US helped make) about that. There is no law/treaty preventing EU and others to build a reactor.

LOL
Exactly how US/UK acted.

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.
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.
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.
Really? Turkey wants to be a democracy? Since when?
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?
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.
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.
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.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

lol...Then you should be glad it's built in France, correct? Anyway, ITER started as a french project, then a EU project, and now I don't even know...
The reactor is a working prototype of a fusion power plant. It is a step up in size over existing plasma chambers, of which there are a few. Its purpose is to learn more about fusion, AND to iron out problems in future fusion power plants (making sure they won't go bang). And, overall, we don't know shit about fusion. We're not talking about fusion bombs here, at least hopefully...

You realize that offering a link to the isg report isn't proof for this theory, right?
I'm feeling really lazy today, so I will shamelessly ask you to provide some references to those various claims.. and, I want to see some text that explains what the grounds for the claims made by the isg are - hopefully this'll be something other than guesswork and careful analysis of Saddam's brain(like the isg often seems to rely upon almost exclusively). You know, this is a perfect opportunity to suprise all of us, because I know for a fact that Blix and Ekeus never used the kind of analysis that the isg uses to determine whether the disarmament mission was successful or not, when reporting to the UN. That doesn't mean they did not know of the different claims or that they did not suspect the intent of the regime in some general manner. Actually it is very likely, if you carefully check the sources for the isg specially regarding the defectors and the chemical programmes, that there is very few examples of new factual or semi- factual information (like inside information with at least some kind of supporting data) since 1998. Why is that? To me this means that the isg report is primarily a rehash of old factual sources augmented by rejected or insubstantiated sources fitted together in a new set of clothing? Old interviews taken out of context? See, every paragraph I've read of the report rests upon facts from the 90's we do know of, and then claims that there were something still going on in the research and development area. It claims such things as "..was destroyed.... would then later resurface when the unmovic regime was no longer in place". This becomes a fact due to their apparently clairvoyant view of how the Saddam regime and Saddam's brain worked. They even know which particular programmes that were continued. But it seems that there is nothing besides that which might substantiate the claims. This strikes me as odd, since the wording suggests that the claims are proven beyond doubt.

Great one, really - "thoughts and intents, clearly proven beyond doubt". How?
Which would sanction an act of war, fatboy? I'm sure you know that unless Iraq was an imminent threat, an action of war must be sanctioned by the security council to be legitimate.

I like this. You laugh at me, then admit you don't know what will happen. That's funny.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Evidently you're too lazy to read the entire report.

Force was authorized by UNSCR 678; UNSCR 687 suspended, but did not terminate the authority to use force; in UNSCR 1441, it was unanimously agreed that Iraq was in material breach of 687. The UN had the authority, and responsibility to hold Iraq accountable - it just lacked the desire.

No matter how many times you say this was an illegal war, it won't make it an illegal war. If you're so sure of your case, take the US to court.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Absolutely. It was interesting for a while until I realized that it is impossible to see what sources they were referring to. And then simply irritating when I reckognized some of it. For instance, the much quoted interview from '95 with the iraqi general who later were assassinated when he returned home to Iraq. They conviniently left out all the things he said about how Iraq lacked the capabilities to produce anything, as well as what he said about how most of the projects dealing with the illegal weapons had simply been discontinued. The only interesting part of that for the isg seems to have been the documented attempts to covertly start various programs during the aftermath of desert storm. The isg does not mention the timeframe, however, and apparently(because of the lack of clear language and references, I cannot say) refers to this particular bit of proof when claiming that "this programme was covertly conducted/revitalized/reaffirmed or whatever when the inspection regime was not in place".. or something similar. Believe me, I had higher hopes for that report. Luckily, I seem to share that opinion with at least some representatives in Washington.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
"grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons,"(illegal weapons according to the 1925 geneva protocol, it says.)
I cannot seem to find any other justification for the use of force in this resolution, so do please explain how this can be applied to the illegal weapons. Perhaps also which part of the resolution you are referring to.
Given that 1441 did sanction force to rid the country of wmds, they still were not yet found, now were they? Of course, "we know where they are, they're north, south, west and east of Bagdad" as Rumsfeld said.
I'm just saying that as per definition, this particular war had not been sanctioned by the security council. The member states did not agree with the action taken. That makes the invasion as illegal as Saddam's invation of Kuwait, even if there were all kinds of justifications for it. Actually, an interpretation of what you're saying, which would look very much like what the heads in washington is saying, is that you do not see the authority of the UN as an important one, and not as a legitimate one either. That this seems to be conviniently forgotten when a creative interpretation of the security council's rulings might serve the cause, really doesn't look very good. Unless we're all agreed that one country should be the authority of the UN, of course.

About going to court. It seems that no amount of recommendations in the UN, that is, from the different representatives of the member states, will change the current administration's minds, so I don't know about that. Do you think an american court rule would be heeded? It's actually an interesting prospect now that I've come to think about it. It could be made a case based upon that international treaties which are ratified by Congress - eg. the UN charter - should be treated as law, and then it could easily be proven that the administration had actually broken american law. Ha. That almost made me laugh, you know.

One of the main reproachs democratic people addressed to the king was that, not his justice was arbitrary but he was out of its reach. The king's law couldnt affect the king the same way it affected the others.

Of course one could notice that bringing the democratic us before the democratic court of justice is exactly the same case with the same expected result.
So apparently democracy has the same limit as the king.
The king, as an originator of his law, couldnt trial himself on the same basis as the others.
A democratic people, as the originator of its law, cant trial itself on the same basis as the others.