US Troops Kill Seven Women and Children at Checkpoint: EDIT 10 Killed Conflicting Accounts of Event

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Iraq claimed to have destroyed the WMDs a long time ago and presented reams and reams of (mostly BS) evidence that was still being waded through. We have NO legal grounds (whatsoever) to be there as this action IS NOT sanctioned by the UN - EXCEPT as a UNILATERAL PREEMPTIVE STRIKE by the US/Britain.

This is certainly going to the World Court. The verdict may go against the coalition.

The evidence Iraq provided did not satisfy the terms of their agreement.

The US has tons of lawyers working for them and I'm sure they have a pretty strong legal justification to take action. They will have found some loophole that justified their attack. I doubt that this will go to the world court, and even if it does the case will not go very far.

Only time will tell for sure.

Besides, suing the US in the world court would be counter-productive. The US donates more food and money to foreign countries than anyone else on Earth. If you successfully sued the US there's a good chance that we'd simply terminate aid to those who accuse us in court. There's a lot more politics to this than you see on the surface.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You can blame the UN for not following up on their responsibilities and empowering Hussien because of their indecisiveness.

Yes but the US is a duplicitous member of the UN as well. We beotched and moaned about effective sanctions in the past but the truth is WE decided not to continue on to Baghdad. The UN and all its member states are at least 1/4 responsible for Saddam's sustained reign. Isn't it Rumsfeld pictured shaking Saddam's hand back in the 80s?

You could blame the US administration for mishandling the UN politics and alienating our allies. You could blame GW for rushing into a war without adequate preparation.

I agree with this as well. The problem is we've already starting swimmin' in shyte so it's too late to dream of being clean. Iraq is every American's problem now.

 

[render]

still looking for a reason? liberating Iraqi ? hell no. (you WANT to belive it. don't you?)

"America is pretending as if they want to liberate the "Iraqi" people. The american media is reporting this as if the US is there to bring democracy. They are almost pretending like this is a frigging 21st century crusade. Let me point out a few things. I hope we can agree on one thing. France is acting to protect its interests. The USA are in the gulf for the same thing and geopolitical reasons. This is not a "human rights" issue. The west is spending billions and sending 200.000+ troops to the region for one thing. Influence in the most strategical important region in the world. I don't see american troops in Rwanda, Nigeria, ... to restore democracy. People who are saying that oil has nothing to do with it needs brain surgery and is naive like hell (note: I don't say that oil is the sole reason but it is an important one -- there are also reasons such as the influence that the euro is gaining in the OPEC kartel and the US-Saudi-Arabia relations). France is fighting for influence just like the US and they are using the means that are the most suited to them (the veto, etc..) . Don't be hypocrits about that. The USA does not like the influence that France has in Iraq. They rather see a pro-US govt and not a pro-france govt."

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDog
The inspections were keeping Saddam at bay

You anti war dolts do realise that 1441 was put in place for Saddam to SHOW the destroyed WMD to the inspectors, not lead them around on a wild goose chase offering no proof of such thing. We most certainly DO have legal grounds to be there...He was not complying with said resolution.

Inspectors driving around HUNTING was not the deal, Hussein was supposed to put the proof in their lap, which he obviously could not do.

Iraq claimed to have destroyed the WMDs a long time ago and presented reams and reams of (mostly BS) evidence that was still being waded through. We have NO legal grounds (whatsoever) to be there as this action IS NOT sanctioned by the UN - EXCEPT as a UNILATERAL PREEMPTIVE STRIKE by the US/Britain.

This is certainly going to the World Court. The verdict may go against the coalition.

Sorry to wake you from your wet dream but this isn't going anywhere. It's clear that there is legal justification for this war. Forget 1441. The original cease fire agreement is enough to justify this war. Saddam continued to break the cease fire agreement and his violation voided said agreement. I'm just shocked it to a U.S. administration this long to do something about it.

Oh....I forgot....you won't reply to my threads because I have "no debating skills." Please disregard and go back to your dreams where the whole world just hugs and dances around with flowers in their hair.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDog
The inspections were keeping Saddam at bay

We have NO legal grounds (whatsoever) to be there as this action IS NOT sanctioned by the UN - EXCEPT as a UNILATERAL PREEMPTIVE STRIKE by the US/Britain.

This is certainly going to the World Court. The verdict may go against the coalition.

And if it goes to the world court, what will be the punishment if the US/UK is found guilty? Who will enforce the punishment? HEck the world could not even enforce the rules on Iraq, what can it exect to do with the US/UK?

No idea. The world has issued many judgementS that are never enforced. If Iraq wins (they would be the ones to sue) they would probably only get a moral victory (obviously Saddam would never be returned to power . . . ).


EDIT: The US has NO legal justification BECAUSE they are NOT acting according to the WILL of the UN. IF the UN APPROVED more then "serious consequences" THEN there WOULD be justification. It's for the world courts to make clear.

 

[render]

The US donates more food and money to foreign countries than anyone else on Earth.

Not a percentage wise

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: render

The US donates more food and money to foreign countries than anyone else on Earth.

Not a percentage wise

Oh....so our billions of dollars means less becuase as a percentage it isn't as much as the 15 cents that Belize gives????

 

[ManSnake]

You have to realize that people in Iraq are not very well informed. It's a 3rd world country after all. Those people might not even know that Americans are there to liberate them.

One possible scenario: They thought that the soldiers that fired warning shots at them were trying to kill them, so they got afraid and tried to drive past the checkpoint.

Regardless of what their intentions were, the event is very unfortunate...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Besides, suing the US in the world court would be counter-productive. The US donates more food and money to foreign countries than anyone else on Earth. If you successfully sued the US there's a good chance that we'd simply terminate aid to those who accuse us in court. There's a lot more politics to this than you see on the surface.

Do you have any clue about the internal conflict of your argument. You laud the US (justifiably so) for the tremendous food and monetary aid we provide to countries in need . . . and then turn around and say we would cut it off on a whim?! Our problem has been we've always wanted to get something in return for doing the right thing . . . but always claim our motives are based entirely on benevolence.

The Peace Corps is one of the greatest vehicles for spreading US goodwill around the world unemcumbered by BS politics. So what did George "never given a minute of volunteer time in my life" Bush do? Put the Peace Corps under his BS propaganda Freedom Corps.

We feed North Koreans b/c they are hungry and their government sux. You can't spin that truth. And MOST Iraqi are getting less food today than they did two weeks ago b/c the US invaded their country; you can't spin that truth, either.

 

[PIMPBOT5000]

I personally believe that we should kill as many Iraqi soldiers as possible! With the most terrible means we have to do so I might add. By doing this we scare the **** out of everyone else and just maybe they will give up.

I say **** the Geneva Convention... They torture and execute our soldiers I think we should do the same, but make it public so as to set an example for the rest. That would send the message that either you give up or you will be caught and tortured until we think we have everything you know and then you will be shot.

I'm glad the tree hugging liberals don't run this country 'cause if they did we would be a bunch of facist nazis!!! :|

War is War, no matter how you put it... either you or me is gonna die, and I don't feel like dying today!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ManSnake
You have to realize that people in Iraq are not very well informed. It's a 3rd world country after all. Those people might not even know that Americans are there to liberate them.

One possible scenario: They thought that the soldiers that fired warning shots at them were trying to kill them, so they got afraid and tried to drive past the checkpoint.

Regardless of what their intentions were, the event is very unfortunate...

You're kidding right? They have been the subjects of a deliberate, comntinual and effective propaganda campaign at ALL LEVELS - Religious and Political.

Remember when the people of Iraq were encouraged to revolt against Saddam last time and believed the US would help them? Well, some did rise up - they weren't helped - and they were SLAUGHTERED. They think the US did this ON PURPOSE. They do NOT trust us at BEST.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: PIMPBOT5000
I personally believe that we should kill as many Iraqi soldiers as possible! With the most terrible means we have to do so I might add. By doing this we scare the **** out of everyone else and just maybe they will give up.

I say **** the Geneva Convention... They torture and execute our soldiers I think we should do the same, but make it public so as to set an example for the rest. That would send the message that either you give up or you will be caught and tortured until we think we have everything you know and then you will be shot.

I'm glad the tree hugging liberals don't run this country 'cause if they did we would be a bunch of facist nazis!!! :|

War is War, no matter how you put it... either you or me is gonna die, and I don't feel like dying today!

You're a bit extreme. There are rules to warfare and they need to be followed. Doing what you propose would have us looked upon about as highly as...ohhh.....Nazi Germany.

 

[PIMPBOT5000]

It sure would get our point across though wouldn't it?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: PIMPBOT5000
I personally believe that we should kill as many Iraqi soldiers as possible! With the most terrible means we have to do so I might add. By doing this we scare the **** out of everyone else and just maybe they will give up.

I say **** the Geneva Convention... They torture and execute our soldiers I think we should do the same, but make it public so as to set an example for the rest. That would send the message that either you give up or you will be caught and tortured until we think we have everything you know and then you will be shot.

I'm glad the tree hugging liberals don't run this country 'cause if they did we would be a bunch of facist nazis!!! :|

War is War, no matter how you put it... either you or me is gonna die, and I don't feel like dying today!

That is EXACTLY the ATTIUDE of the ROMAN EMPIRE, 2000 years ago. They RULED the world and had superior technology, education and just about everything. They were rich and decadent. Yet in a very short time (relatively) after their civilization peaked, Rome was INVADED and SACKED by the "inferior and ignorant" Goths and Vandals.



Arrogance is never justified.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: PIMPBOT5000
It sure would get our point across though wouldn't it?

You need to lay off the Counterstrike ok? Just go lay down and get some sleep tonight. Maybe tomorrow your head will be clear and you won't be on here making such dumbass statements

 

[Michael]

apoppin - "serious consequences" means war.

The US and its allies (this is not even close to a "unilateral" strike have all the justification they want. In addition, in both the US and the UK, the democratically elected representatives voted and gave Bush and Blair their backing as well.

Of course, the winners usually get to write history, but 1441 and the resolutions before gave the colalition more than enough international "legal" cover. In the end, however, it is the individual countries determination of national security that makes the difference. The US is blessed with the ability to act if it so desires.

Michael

ps - why was I not surprised that justint started this thread. Whenever he finds a headline negative to the US, he seems to leap to post it. However, I respect his right to do so as he appears to be abiding by the rules set out for the forum. I dislike the message he is trying to put out, but I can't see any reason why he has to stop (or others that share his views).

 

[PIMPBOT5000]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: PIMPBOT5000
I personally believe that we should kill as many Iraqi soldiers as possible! With the most terrible means we have to do so I might add. By doing this we scare the **** out of everyone else and just maybe they will give up.

I say **** the Geneva Convention... They torture and execute our soldiers I think we should do the same, but make it public so as to set an example for the rest. That would send the message that either you give up or you will be caught and tortured until we think we have everything you know and then you will be shot.

I'm glad the tree hugging liberals don't run this country 'cause if they did we would be a bunch of facist nazis!!! :|

War is War, no matter how you put it... either you or me is gonna die, and I don't feel like dying today!

That is EXACTLY the ATTIUDE of the ROMAN EMPIRE, 2000 years ago. They RULED the world and had superior technology, education and just about everything. They were rich and decadent. Yet in a very short time (relatively) after their civilization peaked, Rome was INVADED and SACKED by the Goths and Vandals.



Arrogance is never justified.

However, the Romans didn't have the level of military power we have today. If the Romans had nukes and were willing to use them then they would still be ruling today.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Michael
apoppin - "serious consequences" means war.

The US and its allies (this is not even close to a "unilateral" strike have all the justification they want. In addition, in both the US and the UK, the democratically elected representatives voted and gave Bush and Blair their backing as well.

Of course, the winners usually get to write history, but 1441 and the resolutions before gave the colalition more than enough international "legal" cover. In the end, however, it is the individual countries determination of national security that makes the difference. The US is blessed with the ability to act if it so desires.

Michael

ps - why was I not surprised that justint started this thread. Whenever he finds a headline negative to the US, he seems to leap to post it. However, I respect his right to do so as he appears to be abiding by the rules set out for the forum. I dislike the message he is trying to put out, but I can't see any reason why he has to stop (or others that share his views).

You're right on the money about justint. I have never seen anyone on here so unabashedly anti-U.S.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Michael
apoppin - "serious consequences" means war.

Your's and Bush's Opinion. Ask the German and Russian - I won't mention the French or the Chinese - lawyers for example.

The US and its allies (this is not even close to a "unilateral" strike have all the justification they want. In addition, in both the US and the UK, the democratically elected representatives voted and gave Bush and Blair their backing as well.

Of course, the winners usually get to write history, but 1441 and the resolutions before gave the colalition more than enough international "legal" cover. In the end, however, it is the individual countries determination of national security that makes the difference. The US is blessed with the ability to act if it so desires.

Japan felt that way but the world court and war crimes trials didn't agree with Perl Harbor as fitting their definition of a PREEMPTIVE STRIKE.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: render
still looking for a reason? liberating Iraqi ? hell no. (you WANT to belive it. don't you?)

"America is pretending as if they want to liberate the "Iraqi" people. The american media is reporting this as if the US is there to bring democracy. They are almost pretending like this is a frigging 21st century crusade. Let me point out a few things. I hope we can agree on one thing. France is acting to protect its interests. The USA are in the gulf for the same thing and geopolitical reasons. This is not a "human rights" issue. The west is spending billions and sending 200.000+ troops to the region for one thing. Influence in the most strategical important region in the world. I don't see american troops in Rwanda, Nigeria, ... to restore democracy. People who are saying that oil has nothing to do with it needs brain surgery and is naive like hell (note: I don't say that oil is the sole reason but it is an important one -- there are also reasons such as the influence that the euro is gaining in the OPEC kartel and the US-Saudi-Arabia relations). France is fighting for influence just like the US and they are using the means that are the most suited to them (the veto, etc..) . Don't be hypocrits about that. The USA does not like the influence that France has in Iraq. They rather see a pro-US govt and not a pro-france govt."

I agree with this. I support the war, but that is because I'm American and I'd like to see my country gain a favorable position. If I was Iraqi I would not feel the same way. I don't believe for a minute that this has anything to do with human rights. If the Iraqi's are liberated, it will simply be a side effect of our main goal, which is removing a regime that strives to be a thorn in our side in the region.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: PIMPBOT5000

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: PIMPBOT5000
I personally believe that we should kill as many Iraqi soldiers as possible! With the most terrible means we have to do so I might add. By doing this we scare the **** out of everyone else and just maybe they will give up.

I say **** the Geneva Convention... They torture and execute our soldiers I think we should do the same, but make it public so as to set an example for the rest. That would send the message that either you give up or you will be caught and tortured until we think we have everything you know and then you will be shot.

I'm glad the tree hugging liberals don't run this country 'cause if they did we would be a bunch of facist nazis!!! :|

War is War, no matter how you put it... either you or me is gonna die, and I don't feel like dying today!

That is EXACTLY the ATTIUDE of the ROMAN EMPIRE, 2000 years ago. They RULED the world and had superior technology, education and just about everything. They were rich and decadent. Yet in a very short time (relatively) after their civilization peaked, Rome was INVADED and SACKED by the Goths and Vandals.



Arrogance is never justified.

However, the Romans didn't have the level of military power we have today. If the Romans had nukes and were willing to use them then they would still be ruling today.

You are clearly wrong according to history . . . For their times, THEY DID have UNMATCHED technology and warfare science. After Rome weakened, I'd say "guerrilla fighting" ultimately broke Rome.

And if they did have Nukes, the dark ages would have lasted at least 100 times longer . . .

 

[PIMPBOT5000]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: PIMPBOT5000
It sure would get our point across though wouldn't it?

You need to lay off the Counterstrike ok? Just go lay down and get some sleep tonight. Maybe tomorrow your head will be clear and you won't be on here making such dumbass statements

Im not bieng totally serious, but I do think we should set an example for everyone else. Like with the killing of the women and children that were to stupid to stop... I think that was a good example that should be followed. REALLY... what did they think would happen if they were repeatedly told to stop and shot at, but didn't stop?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Michael
apoppin - "serious consequences" means war.

Your's and Bush's Opinion. Ask the German and Russian - I won't mention the French or the Chinese - lawyers for example.

The US and its allies (this is not even close to a "unilateral" strike have all the justification they want. In addition, in both the US and the UK, the democratically elected representatives voted and gave Bush and Blair their backing as well.

Of course, the winners usually get to write history, but 1441 and the resolutions before gave the colalition more than enough international "legal" cover. In the end, however, it is the individual countries determination of national security that makes the difference. The US is blessed with the ability to act if it so desires.

Japan felt that way but the world court and war crimes trials didn't agree with Perl Harbor as fitting their definition of a PREEMPTIVE STRIKE.

So now you're trying to compare the war in Iraq to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Nice little reach you've got there. Ever consider going into boxing? The two issues are not anywhere close to being the same, how you can even try to relate them is....well it's comical.

As for "serious consequences" everyone who voted for it knew what that meant. They just didn't have the balls to back it up when it became apparent that 1441 had been violated. Heck forget 1441.....Iraq has over and over again violated the cease fire agreement that ended the Gulf War and that alone is more than enough justification for the current action.

I honestly believe that if Saddam Hussein was found driving a truck full of barrels of chemical weapons, running over Iraqi civilians, anal raping a U.S. serviceman, and dragging a dog tied to the bumper of the truck you would still find a way to be apologetic for him. I can hear it now.... "Oh he was just driving that truck to turn it over to inspectors, he wasn't trying to run down those people...he was just trying to push them along so they could get to the border faster, he stopped and decided to give Sgt. Bob a ride because he saw him stranded in the desert, then Sgt. Bob sat on something and had it lodged in his rectum and Saddam was just trying to help him find it, and it's obvious he was taking the dog to the vet to get dipped for fleas."

 

[Coolone]

IMHO, i think the soldiers did the right thing. however, if I could, I wouldve tried to put bullets into the tires or the engine block (and hope it doesnt go up in flames)

 

[BunLengthHotDog]

I honestly believe that if Saddam Hussein was found driving a truck full of barrels of chemical weapons, running over Iraqi civilians, anal raping a U.S. serviceman, and dragging a dog tied to the bumper of the truck you would still find a way to be apologetic for him. I can hear it now.... "Oh he was just driving that truck to turn it over to inspectors, he wasn't trying to run down those people...he was just trying to push them along so they could get to the border faster, he stopped and decided to give Sgt. Bob a ride because he saw him stranded in the desert, then Sgt. Bob sat on something and had it lodged in his rectum and Saddam was just trying to help him find it, and it's obvious he was taking the dog to the vet to get dipped for fleas."

Damn you for making that statement too big for a sig...hehe