First off:
Ron Davies - 17 Nov 05 - 10:59 PM

"The US did not have UN authority to invade Iraq."

FACT - The President of the United States of America does NOT need the sanction of ANYBODY to act in, what he and his administration believe to be, the best interests of the United States of America - End of story.

Secondly - GUEST (Arne Langsetmo) 17 Nov 05 - 10:12 PM

The point you were trying to make was that the *no-fly* zones applied to helicopters - they didn't (No red-herring Arne just another example of your absolutely deplorable comprehension).

This next Arne excerpt I found hilarious:

"Care to explain why you think that techincal violations (if even that) are sufficient reason for a war of choice? Care to explain why the U.S. (or rather more precisely, Dubya and his PNAC cronies) get to decide against the wishes of a majority of the U.N. Security Council that their will is best exoressed by a war of aggression? Hoep you aren't married, Teribus, because they'd have to send out the CSI team if your toast was ever burnt...."

I can almost see the poor little sod stamping his feet - Complete and utter drivel, Arne my little American Viking, complete and utter drivel.

More balderdash from Arne - war ought to be the "last resort" Unfortunately in life what ought to be ain't. Particularly if you want to get something done - High time the UN realised that, too late for Rwanda and Darfur of course. What have you read about Darfur in Aljazeera Arne?

Arne I realise that you have never served in the military and have no idea what constitutes 'acts of aggression' in a militarily sensitive environment, but - With regard to aircraft patrolling the 'no-fly'zones, turning on radars and lighting up aircraft is considered a hostile act, and proportionate response is justified. Believe me it is not c*** when, as a pilot you hear the audio warning that your aircraft has just been acquired by a surface to air missile battery radar. You respond immediately, or you die - FACT.

Arne, I see would have it that, irrespective of evaluated threat, we should:

- take into account not only the seriousness of violation.
- take into account the price we pay, morally, politically, economically, and in human lives of our response.

Just as well you were not around making decisions in 1939, some rather nasty pieces of work would have got away with it Scot free, and the world as a whole would have been a far nastier place than it is today. Well done Arne.

By the way Arne what is going on at present in Iraq has got SFA to do with Saddam Hussein, WMD, or UN Resolutions so don't try linking them. What you are seeing is pure opportunism in the wake of Saddam's departure, nothing more.

Oh Arne.... Just go back and read what the man said with regard to the extent of the threat posed, it did not singularly address a threat to the U.S. did it!!

No Arne, with regard to the Al Samoud missiles UNMOVIC provided their specification to two independent review bodies, both of whom found them to be in breach of UNSC Resolutions and reported so to both UNMOVIC and the Iraqi Government - That is why they were scrapped.

Oh and Arne, I believe the point BB was making about the 384 rocket motors was that they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Cheers,