29-04-2003 02:32									#61
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap Well, did you think the US was acting in bad faith seeking a seocnd resolution while it was telling folks like the French that war was inevitable, no matter what? And so what if the French told the Iraqis: hey, war is inevitable? I am sorry, but it was obvious, and the Iraqis seem to have made very little preparation otherwise.

Seperate issue from Chiraq sharing confidences.

	29-04-2003 03:56									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

**** Chirac

Though I am glad that Spiffor totally condemns this duplicitous action. As said before the US backing Iraq against Iran is obviously totally different than France backing Iraq against the US. In the later, France was supposed to be our ally.

	29-04-2003 04:34									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 Yes, it was in bad faith. Surprised?

No, you aren't fez or Sloww.

quote: Had Saddam et al thought there was a slight chance that the U.S. wouldn't invade, they might have complied with the inspections regime. If you were convinced 100% that the Americans were going to attack no matter what, would you destroy your weapons? Only to fight an inevitable war anyway, but without them?

The question is, how do you know he didn't? as of today, the US and UK can't account for any of their claims about what the Iraqis had, none. They have no missiles, chem. shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, mobile bio labs, so forth and so on. As of right now, you can't claim they didn't coopertate as far as disarming went. And to this the fact that no one cares about disarming anymore..everyone now gloats about liberation: would you have denied the People of Iraq their freedom if Saddam had shown the Us and Uk what they wanted (which we know from what you say was irrelevant)?

I still fail to understand how it was duplicitous for the French to state to the Iraqis the obvious. Plus, I again question why the US would have told this to the french at all: it would have made more political sense for the French to reveal it openly, to show the world the US was acting in bath faith and score big points before any war. They didn't.

We could even specualte that by telling the Iraqis it was inevitable, the Baath party begun to pack its bags and thus they were ready to skip town and make the war shorter.... as far fetched, but not any more far fetched,. than your other notion.

	29-04-2003 04:58									#64
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse When are you people going to grow up? The United States also helped Saddam. US companies sold him chemical and biological agents. The US government gave him satellite imagery to help him defeat Iran. And so on and so on. There are no clean hands here.

AH: We never at any time gave anyone nor did the government authorize privite companies to transfer any part Saddam's Bio or Chemical programs. All of his chemical weapons (VX, Mustard gas, Sarin, etc) can be made from information free;y availible over the internet or in any good library. The sole item which Saddam did steal from a U.S. university was his original Anthrex culutre; which an Iraqi Scientist who worked at the State owned University in Baghdad convinced a privite citizen/scientist into giving him for reseach purposes. Notice this was never the government which did this it was a University proffessor who was just following normal scientific protical of assisting the research of a supposed fellow acedemic. Sad but true.

P.S. I know people have filled you in on this fact several times before but you have elected to continue spreading lies and half truths. You should stop doing it.

	29-04-2003 05:00									#65
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The Jingos are out in force today. One question. Who gave Saddam the ingredients to create his chemical stockpile? Okay thank you.

	29-04-2003 05:01									#66
	Increase Your PM Length

Germans?

	29-04-2003 05:08									#67
	Tired of ads?

I'll give you a hint. He's now a feeble Alzheimer's patient.

	29-04-2003 05:08									#68
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

No-one had to give them to him, any moderately industrialised country can produce chemicals. And anthrax can be found wherever there's cattle. The question is who gave him the capability to make them.

Note that I still disagree with the confounded idiocy of proclaiming gases and germs 'weapons of mass destruction.'

	29-04-2003 05:09									#69
	Got spare money?

Sandman

As if guns, bullets, bombs, and missiles created minor destruction.

	29-04-2003 05:13									#70
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Sava, I don't know what you mean. All I know is that German company helped Hussein a LOT and operated on their soil, making chemical weapons. Iraqis have admitted this. Germans have admitted that it's very possible, since they tried to stop the company from operating there, only leading to failure at the time.
Hussein bidded with companies around the world, and German company was lucky enough to win it. German gov however doesn't have so much to do with it, or at least there is no good evidence about it. They tried to stop them actually, but it was too late.

French helped Hussein with nuclear power and even with French's experts were very against it, telling what it will be used for, Chirac himself as prime minister at the time went along and saw himself that it will be done, against wishes of experts and what not.

So, about that alzhaimer, I don't know what you are talking about.

	29-04-2003 05:14									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If gases and germs are considered as WMD's, then every single country has them.

	29-04-2003 07:48									#72
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by GePap The question is, how do you know he didn't? as of today, the US and UK can't account for any of their claims about what the Iraqis had, none. They have no missiles, chem. shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, mobile bio labs, so forth and so on. As of right now, you can't claim they didn't coopertate as far as disarming went.

My bet is that they destroyed the weapons literally days before the war began and was already inevitable, so that the U.S. wouldn't find anything and would be humiliated before the world. Why? Because captured Iraqi scientists, after fears of reprisal were gone, told us Iraq did exactly that. Considering that, and the fact that Saddam would love to make such a dramatic statement to the world before going down, it's the more likely possibility if no WMD are 'found'.

If Iraq didn't comply throughout the inspections, hoping the U.S. would back down, and then destroyed the weapons right after Bush delivered his 48-hour ultimatum, then the U.S. would be able to say that Saddam did indeed have the WMD, and had no intention of complying. If there were no WMD in the first place, and consequently none are found, the U.S. would make this claim anyway just to save face. Since such a claim couldn't be empirically proven right nor wrong, the U.S. could consider itself right whether the WMD are found or not.

quote: Originally posted by GePap And to this the fact that no one cares about disarming anymore..everyone now gloats about liberation

...and such talk is utter bullshit. If certain people just 'forget' about the original justifications for this war after seeing people cheer our troops, they don't deserve to have brain cells.

quote: Originally posted by GePap I still fail to understand how it was duplicitous for the French to state to the Iraqis the obvious.

I still fail to understand how you can't see the difference between unfounded speculation by media commentators and willing confirmation by a national government based on private conversations.

quote: Originally posted by GePap it would have made more political sense for the French to reveal it openly, to show the world the US was acting in bad faith and score big points before any war. They didn't.

...because they are a bunch of scheming bastards with ulterior motives just like the Bush Administration is. Welcome to international politics. They probably had something to gain from keeping this discreet. Also, they probably knew that if they revealed it publicly, the U.S. could simply deny it, and it would be France's word against America's. A lot of people would tend to believe France, but the fact still remains that their claims would not be proven.

Or perhaps they thought releasing it publicly could bring about numerous punishments from the world's hegemon, while if they simply slipped it to Iraq, there was a chance that said communications wouldn't be discovered by coalition forces. Perhaps they incorrectly predicted that Iraq could create a quagmire of Islamic vengeance and win the war, or incorrectly predicted that should the war be lost, the Iraqis would bother to burn all records of said communications with France. Maybe all of the above, maybe none of the above.

quote: Originally posted by GePap We could even specualte that by telling the Iraqis it was inevitable, the Baath party begun to pack its bags and thus they were ready to skip town and make the war shorter.... as far fetched, but not any more far fetched,. than your other notion.

Very possible. For all we know France was acting in our benefit all along. Maybe not. I don't know jackshit about what's really going on behind closed doors in Washington, Paris, and Baghdad. Don't be so foolish as to think you do either.

	29-04-2003 09:45									#73
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Serb Two can play that game. I don't smoke American sigaretes since March 23.

Good, I don't smoke them either.
Wait a minute, I don't smoke.

	29-04-2003 10:55									#74
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 It doesn't surprise me in the least, but a lot of naive people (apparently not you two nor I) thought France and Russia were against this war for mostly moral and humanitarian reasons.

WE WERE AGAINST THIS WAR, BECAUSE THIS WAR IS AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW. When the hell you will understand that USA acted alike Nazi Germany (Poland) or Imperial Japan (Pearl Harbor) or Soviet Union (Winter war)? YOU acted illegaly. YOU broke international laws that humanity created to prevent such bloodbaths as both World wars were. You are agressors. Shame on you.

quote: Now wait a sec, I thought the traditional line was 'Saddam is a son of a *****, but I don't think war is the answer.'

Unprovoced war isn't the answer in any situation.

quote: Now you are saying that you're proud of your country actively supporting him, and being a party to his oppression? Which is it gonna be?

I said that I proud that my country tried to force Saddam to continue cooperation with UN, tried to prevent this war, tried to saved thousands that you killed and tried to protect international laws that you've broken.

quote: It was a DIRECT QUOTE of the London Sunday Times. I merely used a different source's reference to the LST because you can't read the original copy without a subscription. The London Sunday Times were the source, not Fox, grow up.

Grow up yourself. You don't have sense of humor.

	29-04-2003 10:57									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Joseph Good, I don't smoke them either. Wait a minute, I don't smoke.

Good for you.

	29-04-2003 21:16									#76
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Serb WE WERE AGAINST THIS WAR, BECAUSE THIS WAR IS AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW.

This war may very well be 'unjust', but I defy you to explain how it is 'illegal'. Iraq openly violated the 1991 ceasefire years ago, and hence the U.S. was always 'legally' allowed to go to war. It was just a matter of whether it was willing. The Bush Administration was stupid for not stressing this point to the world.

'Just' and 'legal' are two VERY different things.

If I'm wrong I'd love to be corrected: please explain to me in explicit legal terms (NOT moral or logical arguments) how this war is illegal, without mentioning the United Nations in any way, shape, or form, since the UN has no true legal authority.

	29-04-2003 21:41									#77
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Serb When the hell you will understand that USA acted alike Nazi Germany (Poland)

Your kidding right? I suppose you think the Nazi's moved in Humanitarian relief trucks right behind the troops. The Nazis immediately began a systematic plan to empty Poland of the Poles Jews Gypsy's and everyone else not German so they could populate the country side with Germans.

I hardly see the validity in this comparison.

A lot of people in Iraq are happy to be liberated, not all but a bunch of them are.

I think your just pissed off because you were wrong and your taking it out on the people who were right, like Darius and I.

If anyone needs to grow up here I believe its you.

And Im glad your not smoking USA cigarettes anymore. We dont want to do business with you. There are plenty of people in the world who still do however so there!

	29-04-2003 22:07									#78
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 This war may very well be 'unjust', but I defy you to explain how it is 'illegal'. Iraq openly violated the 1991 ceasefire years ago, and hence the U.S. was always 'legally' allowed to go to war. It was just a matter of whether it was willing. The Bush Administration was stupid for not stressing this point. 'Just' and 'legal' are two VERY different things. If I'm wrong I'd love to be corrected: please explain to me in explicit legal terms (NOT moral or logical arguments) how this war is illegal.

Someone like Roland would make the argument that only the SC can choose to go to war. And would say that the cease-fire was with the SC. It is a bit clouded though since independant cease-fires were signed. One with the US and one with the UN.

	29-04-2003 22:09									#79
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Serb is watching too much Russian TV, me thing.

	29-04-2003 22:11									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Disclaimer added to my post.

	29-04-2003 22:13									#81
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Sava The Jingos are out in force today. One question. Who gave Saddam the ingredients to create his chemical stockpile? Okay thank you.

You trolls get worse and worse! Can't you come up with a troll that is atleast semi-believable?

	29-04-2003 22:26									#82
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui **** Chirac Though I am glad that Spiffor totally condemns this duplicitous action. As said before the US backing Iraq against Iran is obviously totally different than France backing Iraq against the US. In the later, France was supposed to be our ally.

Don't get me wrong. Had Saddam been a decent ruler, I would have seen nothing wrong with France's support to him. It is normal that France, as an independant country, looks for its interests and defends them even when they are opposed to the US. At least, when France and US aren't able to smoothen the disagreement.
France and USA share a defensive alliance. It would be a disgrace for any of those countries not to honor it should one of them be attacked. But I don't see any problem in having one country hindering the initatives of the other if the interests are opposite.

I just cannot condone the support of this despot, by anyone. To me, the support to Saddam should shame our country the same way the US support to Pinochet should ashame yours.

	04-05-2003 09:36									#83
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 If I'm wrong I'd love to be corrected: please explain to me in explicit legal terms (NOT moral or logical arguments) how this war is illegal, without mentioning the United Nations in any way, shape, or form, since the UN has no true legal authority.

Excuse me, are you nuts?
How the hell I can explain to you that this war is illegal, if you think that "UN has no true legal authority"? UN charter is a backbone of international laws. You really should read the introduction to UN charter to understand why humanity created such organisation as United Nations in 1945.

United States of America is member of United Nations, futhermore, USA is permanent member of Security Concil. It means that United States of American should respect international laws and first of all UN charter. As permanent member of SC, USA should be an example for other members of UN. An example of respect to UN charter and UN resolutions, instead of this USA making an examples how international laws could be violated.

quote: This war may very well be 'unjust', but I defy you to explain how it is 'illegal'. Iraq openly violated the 1991 ceasefire years ago, and hence the U.S. was always 'legally' allowed to go to war. It was just a matter of whether it was willing. The Bush Administration was stupid for not stressing this point to the world.

Blah...blah...blah...
Your atempt to portray this as showdowns between USA and Iraq only is worthless. First you have to prove that Iraq violated SC resolution 1441, as far as I know no evidences that Iraq had NBC weapons were found. Next, it was the agreement between UN and Iraq, a Security Concil resolution, not agreement between USA and Iraq. If you didn't notice all members of United Nations put embargo against Iraq, not only USA and memebers of 1991 anti-Iraq coalition. Next, United States of America openly violated UN charter. The UN charter which it should respect and obey as member of United Nations.
Article 25 of UN charter says that:The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
The SC resolution 1441 don't gave the right for USA to use military force against Iraq. NO ONE gave you the right to be a world policeman. You are self-proclaimed world cop. Only one organisation on this planet could be considered as world policeman, this organisation is UN Security Concil. You acted without UN SC resolution, without permision of UN, you broke UN charter, you thrown humanity to pre-WW2 era when strong country could invade/pillage/destroy weak countries, you thrown humanity to era when strong is always right, when there is no other law except the law of the strongest. That's why this war illegal.


You know, I am the citizen of country which can easily eradicte your entire continent within 20 minutes, so I should be a last man who have to warry about those new rules. So I guess we should follow your example and start to re-conquer former Soviet republics. Who cares about UN and international laws when you can conquer so many valuable resourses and free so many people in those republics from tyranny of their local evil rulers.

	04-05-2003 09:57									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by GP Someone like Roland would make the argument that only the SC can choose to go to war. And would say that the cease-fire was with the SC. It is a bit clouded though since independant cease-fires were signed. One with the US and one with the UN.

Could you post a text of this independant cease-fire?
Anyhow, USA should decide want it be a memeber of United Nations or it wan't. Because if you are a member of UN, it means that you should obey UN charter.

Article 103 of UN charter says:

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.

If USA is a member of UN, then its obligations under the present Charter (resolution 1441) shall prevail over any other independent cease-fire agreements with Iraq.
Any questions?

	04-05-2003 10:05									#85
	Put an end to popups!

Russia sucks.

	04-05-2003 10:12									#86
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by conmcb25 Your kidding right? I suppose you think the Nazi's moved in Humanitarian relief trucks right behind the troops. The Nazis immediately began a systematic plan to empty Poland of the Poles Jews Gypsy's and everyone else not German so they could populate the country side with Germans. I hardly see the validity in this comparison. A lot of people in Iraq are happy to be liberated, not all but a bunch of them are.

In accordance with your logic it will be OK for Russia to invade the Baltic States if Russians will move "in Humanitarian relief trucks right behind the troops", because I can assure you that "a lot of people in Baltic States will be happy to be liberated, not all but a bunch of them will."

Your previous avatar was much better.

	04-05-2003 10:13									#87
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Russia sucks.

FY too.

	04-05-2003 18:03									#88
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Serb In accordance with your logic it will be OK for Russia to invade the Baltic States if Russians will move "in Humanitarian relief trucks right behind the troops", because I can assure you that "a lot of people in Baltic States will be happy to be liberated, not all but a bunch of them will." Your previous avatar was much better.

First of all no it wouldn't because the Russians have a tendency to STAY! And who is the current dictator in the Baltic States that is gasing his own people and trying like heck to acquire weapons of mass destruction, violating numerous UN Resolutions,etc?

I really think you need to find a different comparison or perhaps actually STUDY some History and Political Science. Maybe then you would know what you are talking about.

Im glad you dont like my current avatar. In that case Ill keep it for a while!

	05-05-2003 08:49									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Serb FY too.

Serb you forgot to add the "I", as in FYI=For your Information.

	05-05-2003 09:04									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

So does no one notice the real issue here? Here is evidence that the US government lied to its own people and was planning to attack Iraq from the very begining, instead of it's story that it only made the decision to attack in March.


Oh, right, the US government lying to the American people is no big deal.