The resolution didn't explicitly state military action was an option. Hence the reason the US and UK pushed really hard for a new resolution. Without the new resolution they risked the war being seen as illegal in the eyes of the international community.lowing wrote:
Yes they did, the agreement was we would suspend operations if they complied with certain terms. They did, we stopped.....they started to violate those terms we started again.CameronPoe wrote:
OK I take your point of view on the 'not invading' bit - I assume you believe you were 'carrying out the provisions' of a UN regulation, which itself is open to debate given how the document can be interpreted in various ways. It's an 'agree to disagree' situation with the resolution because you either believe one interpretation of the resolution to be correct or the other.lowing wrote:
Once again my position is, we did not invade Iraq. Iraq's refusal to comply with the cease fire agreement is the reason the shooting started again. If there is antone to blame it is Iraq.
However I would ask - what 'cease fire agreement'? If there was a 'ceasefire agreement' then Iraq didn't violate it - they didn't fire the first bullet in the most recent conflict.
The resolutions isn't the bible........What interpretation are you suggesting is open for debate?
Watch that movie, or find interviews of those released Brits. If you think of them being animals, there must be something seriously wrong with you. And how can you assume that rest of them held at Guantanamo aren't innocent? Or those who committed suicide? Few years of torture would propably make even uber-mench like you kill yourself.lowing wrote:
If they are considered LOWER than POW's then I feel even better. Next time, they might wanna reconsider supporting attacks on our country.PekkaA wrote:
Getting over things makes life a lot easier... There are no POW's in guantanamo. That is what US government says. That's because by denying their rights as POW you can do almost anything you like to them. Or you think you can.
You offer nothing that is going to convince me that I need to feel sorry for anything that has happened at Gitmo, including those 3 animals killing themselves.
Security CouncilCameronPoe wrote:
The resolution didn't explicitly state military action was an option. Hence the reason the US and UK pushed really hard for a new resolution. Without the new resolution they risked the war being seen as illegal in the eyes of the international community.lowing wrote:
Yes they did, the agreement was we would suspend operations if they complied with certain terms. They did, we stopped.....they started to violate those terms we started again.CameronPoe wrote:
OK I take your point of view on the 'not invading' bit - I assume you believe you were 'carrying out the provisions' of a UN regulation, which itself is open to debate given how the document can be interpreted in various ways. It's an 'agree to disagree' situation with the resolution because you either believe one interpretation of the resolution to be correct or the other.
However I would ask - what 'cease fire agreement'? If there was a 'ceasefire agreement' then Iraq didn't violate it - they didn't fire the first bullet in the most recent conflict.
The resolutions isn't the bible........What interpretation are you suggesting is open for debate?
4644th Meeting (AM)
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)
Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations
"Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).
By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" as a result of continued violations."
Well I think this says it right here.
Hell, they might be.......My country is at war with them and that means I don't care. We are being cautious about their release and or captivity for the safety of our citizens.PekkaA wrote:
Watch that movie, or find interviews of those released Brits. If you think of them being animals, there must be something seriously wrong with you. And how can you assume that rest of them held at Guantanamo aren't innocent? Or those who committed suicide? Few years of torture would propably make even uber-mench like you kill yourself.lowing wrote:
If they are considered LOWER than POW's then I feel even better. Next time, they might wanna reconsider supporting attacks on our country.PekkaA wrote:
Getting over things makes life a lot easier... There are no POW's in guantanamo. That is what US government says. That's because by denying their rights as POW you can do almost anything you like to them. Or you think you can.
You offer nothing that is going to convince me that I need to feel sorry for anything that has happened at Gitmo, including those 3 animals killing themselves.
No, it doesn't. There are "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" for breaking rules on the forums, but that doesn't mean that the mods will tie you up and let HorseManBearPig do his pig thing on you...lowing wrote:
Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)
Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations
"Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).
By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" as a result of continued violations."
Well I think this says it right here.
Ahhh so you might say that a serious consequence is what..................yet another resolution??UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
No, it doesn't. There are "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" for breaking rules on the forums, but that doesn't mean that the mods will tie you up and let HorseManBearPig do his pig thing on you...lowing wrote:
Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)
Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations
"Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).
By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" as a result of continued violations."
Well I think this says it right here.
Last edited by lowing (2006-06-14 17:02:42)
So they are troops now? earlier they were innocent people held without charge or evidence.Bubbalo wrote:
Fair enough, when your troops have been held for four years under barely livable conditions and you have a choice between freeing them and freeing your enemies, you can go ahead and choose your troops. They aren't atm. Right now, the issue is the people you're holding WHO YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW ARE ENEMIES!!!!
When it comes down to the nitty gritty you have to protect your own country whether that be English, US, Aussie or whatever.
Most of your agument has been stating rules about what you can and cannot do to people, unfortunately the types of people that are incarcerated there do not play by rules they simply kill or attempt to kill. Whether they be the instigators, planners, financiers or the actual cannon fodder that carry out these attacks, they are all equally guilty of sacrificing innocent people to make the point that they hate the western world, even though the majority of them spend half their lives trying to get here then sponge off our liberal benefits system.
Also this Human Rights law is nothing more than a lawyers dream lottery ticket. I served in Bosnia and saw first hand the utter devastation that a certain Mr Milosevic caused when he decided he didn't like a certain 'way of life' and he had the bare faced cheek to claim his detention on charges of genocide infringed his human rights (delayed the trial and millions of taxpayers money was payed to lawyers). The point I'm trying to make is once one human being commits or plans to commit an act that infringes anothers human rights that person should automatically forfeit all rights they had previously.
Maybe then this would put a stop to the massive PC brigade jumping to the defence of all these 'poor' terrorists who did nothing more than be involved in a murderous terrorist organisation.