a war - a war

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 19:25:41

soph, have you read 1441? Quote the exact statement that says war is the result.

My brother is most likely in the ground troops which entered Iraq after nightfall last night (Iraq time). He's in one of the engineering battalions, and they are the guys who have to go in and bust down the man made ?sand dunes.? (I think they're called berms.)

PaganToris · 2003-03-20 19:25:41

well were gonna win i now we are i give it like 3 weeks and saddams gonna egt a bullet in the eye LOL

soph · 2003-03-20 19:28:01

The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council?s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,
Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,
Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq?s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,
Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC?s or the IAEA?s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;
7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:
? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;
? All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;
? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);
? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq?s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;
? Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;
? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;
? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;
? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and
? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Yes, I have read it. Nowhere does it say war is prohibited, and serious consequences is very easily extrapolated to mean war.

The resolution is still valid.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 19:41:41

Nowhere does it say war is prohibited [...]

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

It certainly reaffirms Iraqi sovereignty.

[...] and serious consequences is very easily extrapolated to mean war.

Russia, China, France, Germany, Belgium, and a whole slew of Security Council members (a majority of them, in fact) extrapolate otherwise.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 19:43:16

US Exaggerates Relative Size of Iraq Alliance

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. leaders say they are proud of the alliance they have assembled against Iraq, even in comparison with the broad alliance the United States assembled for the war to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in 1991.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a news conference on Thursday: "The coalition in this activity is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991."

But the facts put out by the administration itself suggest otherwise.

In 1991 at least 33 countries sent forces to the campaign against Iraq and 16 of those provided combat ground forces, including a large number of Arab countries.

In 2003 the only fighting forces are from the United States, Britain and Australia. Ten other countries are known to have offered small numbers of noncombat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination, making a comparable alliance of about 13 countries.

More: http://reuters.com/newsArt....2418860

soph · 2003-03-20 20:02:53

It certainly reaffirms Iraqi sovereignty.

Ok, but that has nothing to do with it. If we violate a treaty we sign, say, the nuclear non-proliferation, are we invulnerable to punishment because we are a sovereign nation?

Are treaties meaningless?

Russia, China, France, Germany, Belgium, and a whole slew of Security Council members (a majority of them, in fact) extrapolate otherwise.

Which is hypocritical, because they intepreted it as being tantamount to war in '91-'92. It's the same resolution. Maybe the 30% of Iraq's oil going to France has something to do with it. And Russia's own oil sales.

Bill White · 2003-03-20 20:11:08

Soph, 1441 was passed by the Security Council after the US led the French and the Russians and the Syrians to believe that a 2nd resolution would be needed to authorize force. *THAT* was precisely the compromise made in November of 2002 to get 15 votes. Read the press from November 2002 and it is crystal clear that 1441 was passed in contemplation of a 2 resolution process for war.

"France, Russia and others interpret the word change to mean that only the weapons inspectors can report to the council that Iraq has not lived up to its obligations to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, and only the Security Council can assess whether it is a breach serious enough to justify military action." Full article

Anyway - water under the bridge now.

So what so you all think about Turkey moving forces into northern Iraq NOT under US supervision or control? What can or should the US do?

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 20:35:54

Bill is exactly right. ?Violation of the treaty? means ?the UN takes another look and makes a decision.? At least that's the signers feeling about it. (I would argue the treaty itself says that, just look at part 11-14, especially 14, for example.)

If we violate a treaty we sign, say, the nuclear non-proliferation, are we invulnerable to punishment because we are a sovereign nation?

Nope, you adhere to the treaty. See above. If the nuclear non-proliferation treaty says at the end that you go to the Security Council and so on to make your decisions, then you do it. You don't circumvent the Security Council because you know you won't get your way. This is exactly what the US did, though.

Are treaties meaningless?

To the US, it seems, otherwise the US would have went back to the UN. The US wanted to get their way.

Which is hypocritical, because they intepreted it as being tantamount to war in '91-'92. It's the same resolution.

Are you sure about that? Iraq was freaking invading Kuwait for crying out loud. Indeed, I recall explicit mention of wartime efforts in those resolutions back in the early 90s.

Maybe the 30% of Iraq's oil going to France has something to do with it.

Heh, did you read the thing dickbill linked on the first page of this thread? Or did you just pass it off since it was about the French?

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 20:37:58

Oops, Bill, I meant to respond to your Turkey comment. The US should obviously get involved, we're on a peace keeping mission, aren't we?

US involvement is actually more necessary since the northern oil fields would be at stake. Peace keeping be damned, if it happens the US will make themselves involved.

soph · 2003-03-20 20:44:55

I haven't been reading much of this thread until the past couple of hours. So, no, I didn't read the dickbill linked threads.

If the UN doesn't have what it takes to enforce their own resolutions, then it is our right to enforce them. There is no law that I know of that says the UN must be consulted prior to any war. If that was the case, what is China doing in Tibet, Russia in Chechnya, and any number of other actions?

Nope, you adhere to the treaty.

And if they don't adhere to the treaty? It can't be enforced?

Bill White · 2003-03-20 21:03:21

If the UN doesn't have what it takes to enforce their own resolutions, then it is our right to enforce them. There is no law that I know of that says the UN must be consulted prior to any war. If that was the case, what is China doing in Tibet, Russia in Chechnya, and any number of other actions?

Fair enough - just don't say the US isn't creating new standards of international law and ignoring 50 years of established precedent.

My nightmare is that the Russians decide they do not like these new standards of international law and seek to remove a few US carrier battle groups to better balance the world's militaries. Read this

While even skeptics think Iraq is too weak to do much harm to the Navy at this time, the general who sucker-punched the fleet in simulation worries that warning of Millennium Challenge may be going unheeded.

If the friggin' Iranians could win a war game against the US Navy, what if you added a few regiments of those nasty Backfire bombers and the entire Saudi air force?

Both Russia and Saudi Arabia are very unhappy with our war on Iraq. I will sleep much better once Saddam is gone and our carriers are back in deep water in the Indian Ocean, out of harm's way. The risk of a world wide WW-3 will then be way less.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 21:08:16

If the UN doesn't have what it takes to enforce their own resolutions, then it is our right to enforce them.

Well, you've been sufficiently propagandized, it seems. I mean, the whole Bush admin's mantra is that the UN is ineffective at enforcing its own resolution, when the truth of the matter is that the US is interpreting the resolution wrong, against a majority of the international community, even!

The UN has exactly what it takes. Diplomacy is always the much harder route. The UN was doing pretty damn well, if you ask me.

There is no law that I know of that says the UN must be consulted prior to any war.

Well, international law basically says, ?States can't blow each other up.? And I think the Security Council exists explicitly so that war can be declared, manage resources, make sure nation states are in compliance with Security Council resolutions, etc.

Blowing up Iraq without a resolution is breaking that whole, ?States can't blow each other up,? rule. You can only blow up another state if its in defense of yourself. The US attacked first. Without a resolution.

The war is illegal.

soph · 2003-03-20 21:10:00

No, no, no. Van Ripers won a war game against the American Navy, using simulated Iranian weapons. That's assuming they use their weapons-but if we used our weapons, the world could go up in flames.

My nightmare is that the Russians decide they do not like these new standards of international law and seek to remove a few US carrier battle groups to better balance the world's militaries.

Won't happen. We have too many. No country in the world could stand up to our training, tactics, and arsenal. Russia doesn't have the Navy, funding, or overall military. China doesn't have the training or navy.

Any Russian attack on our carrier groups would be a virtual death sentence.

soph · 2003-03-20 21:11:58

Well, you've been sufficiently propagandized, it seems.

Because I don't agree? I could make the same argument about you. Go ahead, throw the Guardian at me!

Without a resolution.
The war is illegal.

Do I really have to go back and quote 1441 again?

We are not obligated to have a resoultion, and certainly not a second one. Yet we made the effort.

1441 is sufficient. The war is legal.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 21:20:27

Because I don't agree? I could make the same argument about you. Go ahead, throw the Guardian at me!

So you're saying that you disagree that the UN being unable to enforce its own resolutions is the Bush admins mantra? If you agree that this is the Bush admins mantra, then being sufficiently propagandized would indeed fit the bill. Should I find some quote from the Bush admin that matches what you said basically word for word?

Do I really have to go back and quote 1441 again?

Quoting the whole thing wasn't necessary, but maybe actually refuting what I said would help. Perhaps quoting a particular part of the resolution could help make your little case.

We are not obligated to have a resoultion, and certainly not a second one.

No, we certainly weren't. We screwed up. We were still ?offically at war? with Iraq. When we went back to the UN, we brought inspections back in, the resolution says nothing about war, so to go to war, without violating international law, we would require a second resolution.

1441 is sufficient. The war is legal.

Of course, you've failed to show out. So... we'll take your word for it. I guess France, Germany, Russia, and China are stupid, and they don't know how to interpret international law.

soph · 2003-03-20 21:26:42

I actually refuted you quite well.

1441=war in 1991-1992.

1441=war in 2003.

1441=1441.

I guess only people who go against Bush are capable of interpreting law? Blair supports Bush, so now he's slandered by anti-Bushes as some kind of lapdog. It's funny the double standard that so many possess.

Even if that is the Bush administrations mantra, me agreeing with it doesn't mean I'm propogandized. It simply means that I agree with it.

I don't like Bush, but too many people are blinded by their resentment of Bush.

So, as I was saying, you really haven't offered anything that shows that the war is illegal.

And you haven't addressed Tibet or Chechnya. Interesting.

Or the French in Vietnam. Yes, they were there first, and we came to help them (among other things). Funny how the French seem to be made of Teflon.

dickbill · 2003-03-20 21:32:15

I haven't been reading much of this thread until the past couple of hours. So, no, I didn't read the dickbill linked threads.

No big deal, I copied a small part of it below. Ms Amanpour was interviewing Chirac about some rumors that have been repeated over and over in the american media, and you know that repeating any wrong information make it a true information. I personnaly watched an History Channel show last week about the nuclear Osirak reactor, and I read the French connection 2 from the New York Times (the French connetion 1 is not available for free online, but I've heard about it). This is without to mention the "crossfire" and other Information show. Globally the message delivered is that the french are linked, if not corrupted, by their interest in the iraki's oil and weapons sales, that J Chirak is a personnal friend of S Hussein etc.

I asked a colleague of my work, why he thinks the french are against the war, he just repeated the ambiant message delivered by the media: interests in oil, interests in weapons sales and he also added fear of attacks from muslim groups in france.
I am very sensitive about the way the facts are presented, because I think that there is a real anti-french campaign propaganda in the US.
But here is what said Chirac about that, all the interview was from cnn. com news:

".....CHIRAC: (laughter) That's myth, so to speak. Or controversy, if you will. I did indeed meet President Saddam Hussein when he was vice president in 1974 and '75, or '75 and '76. Never since. But in those days everybody had excellent relations with Saddam Hussein and with the Baath party. In those days it was seen as a modern party. Everybody had contacts with them.
I have not had any contacts ever since, and that is not something that everybody can say. Some important figures of the current U.S. administration had contacts with Saddam Hussein as late as 1983. I haven't. So we should not delve into controversy.
As for our interests, let us be clear about it. The trade of France with Iraq accounts for 0.2 percent of total French trade. So basically we have no economic interests in Iraq. Iraq isn't even in the list of the 60 largest trading partners of France. Not even the 60 largest.
As for oil import, they only account for 8 percent of Iraqi exports. The U.S. is importing five or six times more Iraqi petrol and Iraqi oil than we are importing. So these alleged motivations are clearly not serious motivations...."

It's not that J Chirac is 100% trustable. He 's not. He can be easily abused. He is a "grand dadet" not very smart. I guess his councilors just told him to say that. But It might be true, since it comes from the mouth of an elected president (strangely elected but whatever).

However, at this point, does the truth matter anymore ?
The US and probably british public opinion have been shaped forever now: The french are responsible for the crisis, they sold weapons of mass destruction 3 months ago to the Iraki, Hussein has financed Chirac campain, the frenchs are anti-american since they dare to critic the USA...

I'm gonna add this one: OBL is refugied in France, hiden with a false name, under protection of the secret french police.

pityful.

soph · 2003-03-20 21:41:50

Oh, I saw that, as I said before.

I agreed, Bush was too quick to war, but Chirac was full of it on some points, as well.

The perception, now, is that Chirac will do whatever we don't want. He is getting petty. I mean, at least let the planes fly over France-even if he doesn't like the war, why make it harder, more costly, and longer? He is going against his own stated desire for minimal casualties.

OBL is captured, I'm pretty convinced of it.

if not corrupted, by their interest in the iraki's oil

and I probably think this is true, Chirac does want his share of the oil.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 21:50:18

No soph, you lied.

441=war in 1991-1992.

660, 661, 665, 668, 687 (among many many others) = war in 1991-1992

Source: http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/index.html

Look at all those resolutions. That is what war looks like, many resolutions, each being quite specific as to how things should be done. Why were there so many resolutions? Because there was an actual threat. Iraq had freaking invaded, people were getting killed.

When 1441 occured, there was peace. Sure, Saddam was still being oppressive and so on. But there was international peace.

1441=war in 2003.

No. 1441 = inspections in 2002 and further advisery by the Security Council.

1441 != 1991-1992

By a long shot. Do not be delusional here.

I guess only people who go against Bush are capable of interpreting law?

Well, I don't know if that's true or not, but you've clearly shown an inablity to interpret law here. I mean, you laughably think 1441 and the Gulf War resolutions are in any way similar, this is just a downright lie.

So, as I was saying, you really haven't offered anything that shows that the war is illegal.

How's that for a refutation? At least I didn't lie. I even said, ?I recall explicit mention of wartime efforts in those resolutions back in the early 90s? which would go with the resolutions I named.

dickbill · 2003-03-20 21:51:10

we should make a contest, what's the biggest anti french lie which might look true ?
We could spread it through internet and have the pleasure to read that in a serious newspaper later on.

Mine is pretty good: Osama Bin ladden is refugied in France, under protection of the french secret services. He escaped from Afgahnistan as a patient of Medecins sans frontieres, because of his kidney problems, just before the war. After a short time in an hospital the french put him in a secret residency, because he has sensitive informations about the CIA (OBL former allied) that the frenchs want.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 21:52:49

Any Russian attack on our carrier groups would be a virtual death sentence.

= nuclear war...

soph · 2003-03-20 21:55:32

Josh, you've really done nothing but spout leftist propogandizing. Yes, there is a such thing as being propogandized and not supporting Bush!

1441-->"Serious consequences"-->WAR

Well, I don't know if that's true or not, but you've clearly shown an inablity to interpret law here. I mean, you laughably think 1441 and the Gulf War resolutions are in any way similar, this is just a downright lie.

No, I've shown a failure to interpret it in the way you wish it was written.

I only stated what is actually written, there is no lie when it's written in plain text.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 21:55:35

we should make a contest, what's the biggest anti french lie which might look true ?
We could spread it through internet and have the pleasure to read that in a serious newspaper later on.
Mine is pretty good: Osama Bin ladden is refugied in France, under protection of the french secret services. He escaped from Afgahnistan as a patient of Medecins sans frontieres, because of his kidney problems, just before the war. After a short time in an hospital the french put him in a secret residency, because he has sensitive informations about the CIA (OBL former allied) that the frenchs want.

Hahaha!

This is why everyone should eat Freedom Fries. Those bastard French.

In all seriousness, I think the easiest propaganda for the US was probably the whole OBL/Iraq connection. The Iraqi's are Arab, so clearly the connection exists!

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 21:59:48

soph, if ?Serious consequences? meant war, then why did and do a majority of the Security Council not see it that way? And why did you outright lie by saying that 1441 and Gulf War resolutions were the same?

dickbill · 2003-03-20 22:05:48

we should make a contest, what's the biggest anti french lie which might look true ?
We could spread it through internet and have the pleasure to read that in a serious newspaper later on.
In all seriousness, I think the easiest propaganda for the US was probably the whole OBL/Iraq connection. The Iraqi's are Arab, so clearly the connection exists!

No Josh, you need to make a story. Try to elaborate a little bit on that OBL/Iraq connection, and you have to include the french, otherwise you lost the contest.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-03-20 19:25:41

Re: a war - a war

#27 2003-03-20 19:25:41

Re: a war - a war

#28 2003-03-20 19:28:01

Re: a war - a war

#29 2003-03-20 19:41:41

Re: a war - a war

#30 2003-03-20 19:43:16

Re: a war - a war

#31 2003-03-20 20:02:53

Re: a war - a war

#32 2003-03-20 20:11:08

Re: a war - a war

#33 2003-03-20 20:35:54

Re: a war - a war

#34 2003-03-20 20:37:58

Re: a war - a war

#35 2003-03-20 20:44:55

Re: a war - a war

#36 2003-03-20 21:03:21

Re: a war - a war

#37 2003-03-20 21:08:16

Re: a war - a war

#38 2003-03-20 21:10:00

Re: a war - a war

#39 2003-03-20 21:11:58

Re: a war - a war

#40 2003-03-20 21:20:27

Re: a war - a war

#41 2003-03-20 21:26:42

Re: a war - a war

#42 2003-03-20 21:32:15

Re: a war - a war

#43 2003-03-20 21:41:50

Re: a war - a war

#44 2003-03-20 21:50:18

Re: a war - a war

#45 2003-03-20 21:51:10

Re: a war - a war

#46 2003-03-20 21:52:49

Re: a war - a war

#47 2003-03-20 21:55:32

Re: a war - a war

#48 2003-03-20 21:55:35

Re: a war - a war

#49 2003-03-20 21:59:48

Re: a war - a war

#50 2003-03-20 22:05:48

Re: a war - a war

Board footer