Thread: Dutch inquiry says Iraq war had no mandate

Look, we could come up with a video of Bush and Cheney eating roasted Iraqi babies in the White House and the cons would say it was sanctioned by the UN and besides, Saddam was worse because he oppressed women. The entire Republican administration for 2000-2008 should be hauled off to prison for war crimes and anybody who still supports them in any way should be hauled off to a mental facility for incurable stupidity, but they were Republicans, so what else is new.

Originally Posted by John Drake

Look, we could come up with a video of Bush and Cheney eating roasted Iraqi babies in the White House and the cons would say it was sanctioned by the UN and besides, Saddam was worse because he oppressed women. The entire Republican administration for 2000-2008 should be hauled off to prison for war crimes and anybody who still supports them in any way should be hauled off to a mental facility for incurable stupidity, but they were Republicans, so what else is new.

read this: Resolution 1483

Tell me where the U.S. and U.K. are not recognized as the authority for occupation under U.N. guidelines.

Not a Republican by the way and I was never dim enough to vote for the up-jumped fratboy son of the former chief of the secret police.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

read this: Resolution 1483

Tell me where the U.S. and U.K. are not recognized as the authority for occupation under U.N. guidelines.

Not a Republican by the way and I was never dim enough to vote for the up-jumped fratboy son of the former chief of the secret police.

Good for you

Well, the justifying paras start out by talking about infamously nonexistent WMD, but we'll let that pass for now.

Show me where it recognized the legitimacy of the occupying forces to BE occupying the country in the first place, sure, they were there already so they might as well sanction them. Considering how Bush had already acted they were probably afraid he would withdraw American forces and leave everyone to starve after he'd just blown the country up

I don't suppose the Dutch bothered to look at the conditions of the cease fire in this little charade.

We can argue about this Res. and that Res. all we want, if it was legal or not. It makes no diff.
The simple fact that people are forgetting is that Bush let the country down.
It was the AlQ, supported by and protected by the Taliban that attacked the US. not Iraq. If Bush had put his full attention on Afgan. as he should have. They could have possibly had a more stable Gov and Country by now and we could have brought our troops home long ago.
But, instead of dealing on those that attacked us, he pulled troops and resourses to invade Iraq for reasons that we may never know.

Originally Posted by John Drake

Show me where it recognized the legitimacy of the occupying forces to BE occupying the country in the first place, sure, they were there already so they might as well sanction them. Considering how Bush had already acted they were probably afraid he would withdraw American forces and leave everyone to starve after he'd just blown the country up

I'm sure the U.N. didn't want Bush to withdraw after pushing over the Iraqi apple cart. There is a long list of responsibilities the U.S. and U.K. were given in the resolution, it's not often that an offender is assigned privilege and authority over all of the member nations of the U.N.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

No, that which I posted established who is considered "the authority" in the remainder of resolution 1483.

The resolution recognizes the invaders as the legitimate authority that all other U.N. nations should support until such a time as Iraq can be secure and self governing.

How much more legitimate could it be made to be?

Yea, that's a very logical explanation...

The coalition starts a war to find WMD's. Most of the security counsel members were against the war and wouldn't give the coalition a mandate to invade Iraq.
Eventually, it turns out that there were no WMD's at all.

But although all those countries in the security counsil were firmly against the war, and the casus belli turned out to be phony, they just happened to change their mind out of the blue, to agree that the invasion was legitimate???

Think again.

Originally Posted by wooyarn

We can argue about this Res. and that Res. all we want, if it was legal or not. It makes no diff.
The simple fact that people are forgetting is that Bush let the country down.
It was the AlQ, supported by and protected by the Taliban that attacked the US. not Iraq. If Bush had put his full attention on Afgan. as he should have. They could have possibly had a more stable Gov and Country by now and we could have brought our troops home long ago.
But, instead of dealing on those that attacked us, he pulled troops and resourses to invade Iraq for reasons that we may never know.

No one from Afghanistan attacked America.

The attackers on 9/11 died on 9/11. That's the beauty of the way things work for terrorists; they aren't an army waiting to go to war with you in one specific country.

It's an ideology that has fomented because of our support for Israel, our support for dictators in the ME, and us being on their holy land.

It was mostly Saudis that attacked us. And it wasn't because they ever went to Afghanistan and did push ups or played around on swing sets.

The attacks were organized primarily in Germany and Spain.

And we went rushing into Afghanistan and Iraq using emotion instead of stopping, thinking, and planning.

And now American generals pat themselves on the back for chasing Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, while all they did was flee to Yemen and Pakistan, where the terrorists bomb their own people and citizens think it is our doing.

It doesn't take a Dutch inquiry to tell you that we're most definitely playing on the stupid team over here, to my dismay, since we are bright and capable people over here. Crafty, too.

Too bad we just can't get our heads out of our asses and see things for what they really are.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

..if it "sucks for the Dutch", then it "sucks" more for the United States.

While the Dutch did give political support to the invasion, they (according to the article) did not have a military role. They (the Dutch) would bear no direct responsibility for any war crimes committed in Iraq pertaining to the invasion.

The United States' war in Iraq is recognized as an illegal war by this inquiry.

And the Dutch Committee on Inquiry carries what weight?

Originally Posted by jviehe

And the Dutch Committee on Inquiry carries what weight?

Here is one potential example:

Middle East Online

Dutch inquiry seen as important benchmark for international inquiries into 'unlawful' Iraq war.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Here is one potential example:

Middle East Online

How? Thats an article from a Dutch radio program. That site also has such gems as

Christian fundamentalism seeps through US military
Avatar linked to Gaza, Iraq, Af-Pak
Only Shrinks Can Explain Israel's Behavior

Its your opinion that the Dutch Inquiry only carries weight with likeminded crackpots?

Originally Posted by jviehe

How? Thats an article from a Dutch radio program. That site also has such gems as

Christian fundamentalism seeps through US military
Avatar linked to Gaza, Iraq, Af-Pak
Only Shrinks Can Explain Israel's Behavior

Its your opinion that the Dutch Inquiry only carries weight with likeminded crackpots?

What "crackpots?"

Originally Posted by Steerpike

What "crackpots?"

The ones that run that website.