Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

[padraic]

Perfectly justifiable under the Nuremburg and Geneva Conventions.

Not my perception,nor of that of experts in international law. I guess we will need to agree to differ.


Below is a link to an interview with Geoffrey Robertson QC, judge and expert in International law on a review of the UK's involvement on the Iraq war.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxX9OZlVUjI

In brief: the international consensus is that the invasion of Iraq was indeed illegal under international law. However,international law is not the same as national law;it has no police force. That means the war criminals involved in the Iraq war will never be prosecuted. I invite you to watch the video (10 minutes)

[Thumpalumpacus]

When do you think we should invade Russia?

After all, they possess WMDs. They kill dissidents. They have oil. They sell weapons technology to other nations.

Can we do a ten-thirty next Wednesday? How does that fit your schedule?

I vote N. Korea. They have WMDs AND nukes, but since they don't have oil, it'll never happen.

Sorry. North Korea has a 12:20 on 27 Feb 2013, and we can't move it up.

[FBM]

When do you think we should invade Russia?

After all, they possess WMDs. They kill dissidents. They have oil. They sell weapons technology to other nations.

Can we do a ten-thirty next Wednesday? How does that fit your schedule?

I vote N. Korea. They have WMDs AND nukes, but since they don't have oil, it'll never happen.

Sorry. North Korea has a 12:20 on 27 Feb 2013, and we can't move it up.

Fair enough. I'll go ahead an pencil it in, then. But don't blame me if a red and white ICBM comes cruising over your neighborhood before then.

[Cormac]

Which means, among other things, that our invasion of Iraq on the basis that Saddam was holding undeclared WMD's after the Gulf War cease fire was perfectly correct and legitimate.

As military analysts and anyone living in Israel can tell you, Syria has had large stockpiles of declared chemical weapons for decades.

So, if (and it's still an if, sorry Seth) the existence of chemical munitions in Iraq justified the invasion, why hasn't anyone invaded Syria yet?

Because Syria hasn't invaded Kuwait, been defeated, signed a cease-fire agreement, violated that agreement immediately, violated 14 UN agreements, and refused to stop being belligerent and supporting international terrorism for a dozen years.

I was in favor of invading Syria way back when based on the same criteria.

But that's not the point, the point is that Saddam's WMD's exist, and have existed since the early 80's, it's just that they were moved to Syria before we got to Baghdad the second time and found that fuck living in a hole in the ground.

I'm just kicking the shit out of the "unjustified war" claim that all the liberals have been trumpeting all this time.

Where'd he get those WMDs by the way?

Probably got them from Syria in the first place, but could have manufactured them himself back in the 80s, when he used them on the Kurds to kill 100,000+ people.

He got them because France, the UK, and the USA conspired to provide him with industrial components to build biological and chemical weapons production facilities. They also supplied him with the raw materials. This is how they know how much he could have produced.

[JimC]

The world is paralysed in the sense of any real ability to intervene in Syrian bloodshed.

Simply an observation, as if from a Martian sociologist, not a call for military intervention...

[Seth]

Perfectly justifiable under the Nuremburg and Geneva Conventions.

Not my perception,nor of that of experts in international law. I guess we will need to agree to differ.


Below is a link to an interview with Geoffrey Robertson QC, judge and expert in International law on a review of the UK's involvement on the Iraq war.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxX9OZlVUjI

In brief: the international consensus is that the invasion of Iraq was indeed illegal under international law. However,international law is not the same as national law;it has no police force. That means the war criminals involved in the Iraq war will never be prosecuted. I invite you to watch the video (10 minutes)

Meh. Judges can be liberal twits too, and there is no "international consensus" there's just a bunch of leftist and pacifist wankers who are looking for a reason to bash the US and other members of the Coalition because they have freedom of speech...something that Saddam's people didn't have.

But I'm all for the US going isolationist and letting the rest of you stew in your own radical Muslim juices. Maybe we'll sit the next big one out and you can all speak German or Farsi or something from now on.

[Seth]

The world is paralysed in the sense of any real ability to intervene in Syrian bloodshed.

Simply an observation, as if from a Martian sociologist, not a call for military intervention...

People have to win their freedom from tyranny with their own blood. It's not properly valued if it's gifted to them. Witness Iraq. Still fractioned, still ununified, still barbaric. If the Syrian people want freedom, they need to fight for it until they become one people under a new leadership that they choose. Otherwise it's just imposed liberty that they aren't prepared or capable of dealing with and another tyrant will rise up and take the place of the old one.

[Seth]

He got them because France, the UK, and the USA conspired to provide him with industrial components to build biological and chemical weapons production facilities. They also supplied him with the raw materials. This is how they know how much he could have produced.

Actually it was Germany and France. The US was trying to keep him from getting the stuff.

[Cormac]

Perfectly justifiable under the Nuremburg and Geneva Conventions.

Not my perception,nor of that of experts in international law. I guess we will need to agree to differ.


Below is a link to an interview with Geoffrey Robertson QC, judge and expert in International law on a review of the UK's involvement on the Iraq war.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxX9OZlVUjI

In brief: the international consensus is that the invasion of Iraq was indeed illegal under international law. However,international law is not the same as national law;it has no police force. That means the war criminals involved in the Iraq war will never be prosecuted. I invite you to watch the video (10 minutes)

because none of the countries that opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq have freedom of speech...
Meh. Judges can be liberal twits too, and there is no "international consensus" there's just a bunch of leftist and pacifist wankers who are looking for a reason to bash the US and other members of the Coalition because they have freedom of speech...something that Saddam's people didn't have.

But I'm all for the US going isolationist and letting the rest of you stew in your own radical Muslim juices. Maybe we'll sit the next big one out and you can all speak German or Farsi or something from now on.

[Cormac]

He got them because France, the UK, and the USA conspired to provide him with industrial components to build biological and chemical weapons production facilities. They also supplied him with the raw materials. This is how they know how much he could have produced.

Actually it was Germany and France. The US was trying to keep him from getting the stuff.

...

Orchestrated by the USA, France, and the UK, many countries took part in the supply to Iraq, including:

The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce Department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program. The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.[3] Austria also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales (wiki).

During the Iran-Iraq war, the USA supplied support and weaponry to Iraq. Iraq was engaging in widespread usage of biochem weapons in that war, with full knowledge and approval of the USA.

[Seth]

He got them because France, the UK, and the USA conspired to provide him with industrial components to build biological and chemical weapons production facilities. They also supplied him with the raw materials. This is how they know how much he could have produced.

Actually it was Germany and France. The US was trying to keep him from getting the stuff.

...

Orchestrated by the USA, France, and the UK, many countries took part in the supply to Iraq, including:

The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce Department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program. The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.[3] Austria also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales (wiki).

During the Iran-Iraq war, the USA supplied support and weaponry to Iraq. Iraq was engaging in widespread usage of biochem weapons in that war, with full knowledge and approval of the USA.

I'd have to see your proof for this allegation I'm afraid.

Anyway, when Saddam started supporting international terrorism and invaded Kuwait, that all changed and he became our enemy. That's how international relations go. You're our friend while you're fighting our enemies, but when you turn on us, we fuck you up and kill you. So don't turn on us.

[padraic]

AH ,NOW I undertstand.


Using 'liberal' and "leftist" as a criticism" says I need to know.


Bored now.

[tantamount]

Seth is so silly. We don't need WMDs in Syria (or Iraq) to have justified the invasion.

Saddam initiated 9-11 and harbored Al-Quaida. That's all we need.

[padraic]

Seth is so silly. We don't need WMDs in Syria (or Iraq) to have justified the invasion.

Saddam initiated 9-11 and harbored Al-Quaida. That's all we need.

Oh, well that's OK then.

On a totally unrelated topic; have I told you about Trevor,my pet dragon?

[Tero]

Zilla, how much oil is no oil?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria