AP Photographer Held By The US Military, Insurgent or Victim?

Buffalo Roam said:
Genji, you are stating your opinion, the War was legal under (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284),and 1441, Iraq violated the Cease fire agreement, and was in material breach , of the Agreement, and it just wasn't the inspector's that was the problem, they were violating the food for oil to buy weapons, and they had failed to reimburse Kuwait for the damage to them for the invasion, and they were constantly violating the cease fire by Firing on flight over the no fly zone, a cease fire means a cease fire, if you start shooting then that means you don't want the cease fire to continue?

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Now this is Legal Proof, not my opinion, these are Legal Reasons passed by the United Nations, and the Congress of the United States of America, now show me your legal facts, your opinion is for shit in court.


Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to WMDs, but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.

2) That 1441, and its deadline, represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.

3) 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".
Click to expand...
Hello buffalo,

thank you for this..... I think it is all debatable

i was wondering has any other country violated UN resolutions
 
Zakariya, it was debated, and the U.N. found Iraq in violation of the Cease Fire, this was done according to the laws of the United Nations, in the Security Counsel, and could have been vetoed by the Russian, French, or the Chinese, so this was done in a legal manner as proscribed by International Law, Treaty, and negociated Cease Fire.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
Zakariya, it was debated, and the U.N. found Iraq in violation of the Cease Fire, this was done according to the laws of the United Nations, in the Security Counsel, and could have been vetoed by the Russian, French, or the Chinese, so this was done in a legal manner as proscribed by International Law, Treaty, and negociated Cease Fire.
Click to expand...
Hi Buffalo,

Thank you for your post

I was only asking whetehr any other country has violated UN resolutions
 
1441 does not stipulate military action as an appropriate sanction. The UN did not actually decide that Iraq was in continued breach of 1441, nor did the inspectors finish their inspections, nor was any evidence of WMD production found. If you'll remember, the US itself sought a 2nd resolution authorizing military force, but couldn't muster the votes even for a majority. It is only after the fact that anyone claimed was a legal basis for war.

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Iraq was not involved in 911.
 
Because it gave the administration the legal go ahead to go to war with Iraq, and that means the President is covered and under the protection of The Laws of the U.S. in that he requested and was granted a Use of Force Resolution, to prosecute a war against Iraq, read the Resolution and it spells out the reasons for our actions, no were does it say we went to war because Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack, The stated reasons we went to war are enumerated in the AUMF, passed by the Joint session of Congress and approved in a bipartisan manner.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
 
That's another completely different resolution.
And how would a war be made legal by the aggressor authorizing their aggression?
 
Voodoo Child said:
That's another completely different resolution.
And how would a war be made legal by the aggressor authorizing their aggression?
Click to expand...
EXACTLY. If the US SAYS so it BE so :rolleyes: This arrogance has costed us deeply and the Chimp in Charge, making his own rules along the way, has done more damage to US credibility than any other president since Nixon.
 
Dear Buffalo,

i hope all si well with you.

Ok then, how do you think the US and Uk have done so far in Iraq, are they doing a good job??
 
Zakariya04 said:
Ok then, how do you think the US and Uk have done so far in Iraq, are they doing a good job??
Click to expand...

They're doin' pretty well, actually.

But the Muslim terrorists are killing a lot of their own countrymen and other Muslims. I can only take that to mean that Muslim terrorist are so fuckin' stupid that they don't even know who the real enemy is! ...LOL!

Baron Max
 
Zakariya, They are doing it the hard way, but they are making progress, in the end if we don't change our government, to the liberals, in the elections we will eventually do what we set out to do, our major problem is that we have become a instant gratification society, and we want everything done now, war is not a done now situation, and we are making a mistake, in that we expect that while the war on terrorism is on going, that we expect Iraq rebuilding it self with our assistance, to be accomplished smoothly, it took almost 5 years after the end of WWII before the last of the Nazi diehard Werwolf were finally eradicated, and we have been their ever since, In my opinion we should have left in the 60tys, and let Europe take over the responsibility of their own defense, it would have saved us billions of dollars.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
In my opinion we should have left in the 60tys, and let Europe take over the responsibility of their own defense, it would have saved us billions of dollars.
Click to expand...

Didn't we do that right after World War I? ...and then had to go back in a few years to do it all over again? Save money? How?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max, We still have troops based in Germany, Army and Air Force, we have Air Force and Navel Bases in England, we have Army and Air Force, bases in Italy, we were the majority force in NATO through out the cold war, we would have saved money by not having to pay the Europeans to base our troops over there, we would not have had to pay for maneuver damage every time we ran a practice exercise, if a tank ran over a chicken the U.S. had to pay for that chicken, all the eggs that chicken would lay for a year, and all the chickens that would have resulted from those eggs, if a tank company crossed a stream they had a formula that was assessed for damage to that stream and we paid the German Government, we paid rental on the bases that we built to protect the Germans, and every other country in Europe, and by our presence we allowed the Europeans to get by on the cheep for their defense budgets, most of the plan for Europe called for the hold out till the U.S. main force arrived from the States, the European knew that they could count on use to protect them, so instead of spending the money on defense they spent it to compete with the U.S. in the global market.
 
Buffalo, that's got to be one of the longest sentences that I've ever read! How did you do that? Do you talk like that, too?

The problem with you statement, howest long it was, is not entirely accurate. For one thing, if the US military had not been in Europe, we'd have been somewhere else, so much of that money would have been spent anyway. The other thing to remember is that most of that time, we were in the Cold War and waiting for Russia to attack across the border ...we'd never have been able to deploy in time to save Europe.

I agree that a lot of money was spent, but to say that we could have saved it all is simply poor knowledge and even poorer economics.

Baron Max
 
Yes I'm a realist and I know we were in a cold war, spent a lot of time in the Fulda Gap, 11 ACR, communicating with the WARSAW PACT, usually by shooting the moon at them, or giving them the French Salute. ..!. what I was trying to point out is that Europe, for all their worry about the Soviets, scrimped on their Military budgets and then let the U.S. carry the load and then charged us to be over there to protect them, now don't get me wrong I have many good friends in Europe and had a great time over there, but their attitude, ie: most Europeans is condescending at best and down right insulting at the worst. We Backwoods, Rustic Colonials,helped bring in the longest period of peace in Europe ever, by how we influenced Europe after WWII, we were the industry and arsenal for the allies, and we were the impetus for the rebuilding of Europe with the Marshall Plan that reestablished viable economies, and democratic governments in Germany, Italy, and Japan. I know we wouldn't have saved much as the Government would have spent the money some were else, but if that money was spent here were might we be?
 
Yeah, I agree, Buffalo .....and I had an idea that's what you meant, but wasn't sure. I've often wondered what Europe would have been like had the US pulled out and went home after World War II? Not just Germany, but all of Europe?

Baron Max
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top