Iraq: Brit Soldiers Dressed As Arabs In car Packed With Explosives Captured

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

LOL, what BS. I wasn't aware US secret police arrested citizens in Australia.

Whats your point? I didn’t say Syria’s presence was one big party. I said right or wrong, the Lebanese government requested Syria’s presence.
Your point is superfluous, Syrian government does that to it’s own citizens, not just Lebanon. It changes nothing.

You said Syria's presence in Lebanon was like the US presence in Australia. Now what's wrong with that statement ? How about it is about as far from the truth as you could get. I was just pointing out a few of the differences as an example to you.
Another being that Americans don't run around killing Australian citizens in Australia. Now we can't say the same about the Syrians in Lebanon can we.

PS. I like how you justify Syria's appalling treatment of the Lebanese by saying they aren't treated any worse than the Syrian people :LOL: So you're saying the Syrian people are repressed in Syria - I agree

[edit on 26-9-2005 by rogue1]

You said Syria's presence in Lebanon was like the US presence in Australia

Yes, because the US didn’t declare war on Australia inorder to enter it, just as Syria didn’t declare war on Lebanon inorder to enter it.

I hope you are beginning to understand rogue

Sure, the Syrian government kills desentors in both Lebanon and Syria, no one has denied that. The US soldiers rape Japanese girls in japan, one time they even ran two school girls over, do you remember that story? So what is your point? Is the point just to make the other country look bad? We where talking about legitimacy, when it comes to international law, and the fact is the similarity between Lebanon and Syria, is that there governments where allies, even before Syrian Presence.


Going back to the topic.

Surprise Surprise, Many days later, and there is still no picture of any “Safe House”.

Could it be, that the British government lied yet AGAIN??? *gasp* !!!

Could it be, that they where also lying about what these two spies where up to?
Could it be that the controlled media tried to cover up the fact that there where explosivses, by omitting that in their description of the photograpsh?

Someone wrote at the beginning of the thread.
“I hope we can move past this and act like it never happened”.

It looks as though this is what the Brits have chosen to do. For obvious reasons, they don’t want people to think rationally about what happen. If so, the truth would be obvious.

And so, I’d bet the farm that no photos of such a “safe house” will come ever come out, since not only do they not exists. They won’t even bring out any holiwood fake ones. They just want it all to die, they want you all to forget.

But you know. I’m never going to let this die, and even if I do, the game is already over for them in iraq.

This marks the turning point of the war, and my intuition tells me, we will slowely see the violent end of this occupation, in the next year or so. It is, the inevitable.

Lazarusthelong.

Syrian sister... I feel for you... I see most of your points...

Thankyou my friend.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
It was ILLEGAL. There was no UN resolution authorizing the use of force.

The UN isnt a world government, they did not go in as the UN so it did not break ANY laws.

The invasion of Iraq, and overthrow of the Iraqi government was a coup...

Yes you are correct it was a coup sorry, oh but one thing BTW, coups are not illegal and the iraqis themselves have done it 2 times before

The constitution ratified by the people, and leaders elected by the people make the government legitimate.
[/quoye]
Says who?

The government that was overthrown was NOT legitimate.

Ah so you agree that the government was legit?

SADDAM WAS ELECTED!

Please provide a reference for your claim

Did you miss my reference above?

Did you miss mine?
His party performed a coup and thier leader decared himself a president, then he resigned and left the "vice president" in charge.

You are simply repeating the propaganda that has been driven into your mind, day and night my the mass media.

I am? Really I didnt know you knew me soo well..

The BAATH PARTY overthrew the previous government, but Saddam was not at the top of the party at the time

No he was the 2IC.

There is too an Iraqi military.

Where have you been?

Its not much, but it exists, and they are killing Iraqis, no matter the reason.

You are right, I had believed that the Coalition had removed it totally but it seems is one...but one has to ask the question...why are iraqis kiling iraqis?

PLEASE show us all these self defense laws you speak of.

No such things exist in the new Iraqi constitution, or the UN charter.

Article 51?

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

www.un.org...

Also its common law.
en.wikipedia.org...

Then we have murder more than a hundred thousand Iraqis.

Actually no we havent, we have defended ourselves and at most commited manslaughter but thats down to interpretation.

It WAS legal for Saddam because of Iraq law 101.

Can you post this law that allows murder?

They were killing insurgents, which were in violation of Iraqi patriot laws.

In mass graves?
With women and children?
Yes that 5 year old makes a damm good insurgent.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

You said Syria's presence in Lebanon was like the US presence in Australia

Yes, because the US didn’t declare war on Australia in order to enter it, just as Syria didn’t declare war on Lebanon inorder to enter it.

I hope you are beginning to understand rogue

LOL, well obviously that is the only thing in common, nothing else. You made it sound like America's presence in Australia is the same as Syria's in Lebanon. The AMericans are here as guests subject to Australian Laws. The Syrians on the other hand saw Lebanon as part of Syria and acted accordingly

Sure, the Syrian government kills desentors in both Lebanon and Syria, no one has denied that. The US soldiers rape Japanese girls in japan, one time they even ran two school girls over, do you remember that story? So what is your point? Is the point just to make the other country look bad?

LOL, those incidents you talk about are isolated, unlike in Syria where it is the norm or worse yet government sponsored

No, the UN isnt a world government, its a world body for PEACE.

The UN said Iraq had NOTHING and wasnt a threat.
america said they did, went AGAINST the UN ... and holy crap turned out they were wrong, and the UN were right.

and now, the US like a soreloser has come up with reasons to accuse the UN of being curropt.


The UN Was created after ww2, the bloodiest and most telling event in our history.. the USA managed to destroy all that this body had created and accomplished over a bunch of lies.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Going back to the topic.

Surprise Surprise, Many days later, and there is still no picture of any “Safe House”.

So what? At the end of the day they could take a picture of any old place and make out it's the safe house anyhow, if they really lied about everything else manufacturing a little piece of evidence like that would be nothing would it?
And if it was a spur of the moment decision based on immediate intelligence, which it was, then they arn't going to cart a camera crew along with them, it's hardly a priority and not exactly very helpful during a covert mission.

Could it be, that they where also lying about what these two spies where up to?
Could it be that the controlled media tried to cover up the fact that there where explosivses, by omitting that in their description of the photograpsh?

Where were all these explosives? Did I miss something? Even if they have a small amount of explosives as has been said before it's standard issue for Special Forces, hell if you select 'Special Forces' in a computer game you always get some explosives as part of your equipment.

Surely commen sense would dictate to anyone as well that if they were up to deeds such as you keep suggesting, they wouldn't carry so much damn equipment around with them like that machine gun and the bloody great US army radio. Not the sort of thing you want to cart around with you by hand or leave in a vehicle to be identified from the wreckage, if you were to blow it up. If they were up to what you're suggesting, they would carry minimum equipment and at the most carry a couple of handheld radios, not a great big set like they had there.

It looks as though this is what the Brits have chosen to do. For obvious reasons, they don’t want people to think rationally about what happen. If so, the truth would be obvious.

You mean what you perceive as the truth don't you? There is often a distinction between the actual truth and someone's opinon you know.

Your obviously so bitter, and I don't for one minute doubt that it's not necessarily justified to an extent, that you will try and find something bad in anything we the English, the Americans or any of our allies do.
But to insist and put ideas forward as fact when they are unsubstantiated or very unclear is wrong, and so is refusal to acknowledge facts, common sense and other people's experience that help to prove things one way or another.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by AgentSmith]

Here is an Interesting Article from the Independant:

Blame Iran

What we were actually doing in Basra was to turn a blind eye on abuse, murder and anarchy

America is preparing to receive its 2,000th dead soldier back from Iraq. No bodies, please--let's not dishonour the dead of New Orleans by taking photographs of them. Nor the American dead of Iraq by taking pictures of their coffins en route home. Death, as usual, is what happens to other people.

But the photographs of British soldiers, cowled in fire, hurling themselves from the top of their Warrior fighting vehicle in Basra this week, were the final iconic images of our uniquely British folly in Iraq. Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara's henchmen have concocted another monstrous lie about all this, of course. The Iraqi policemen who protested at Britain's destruction of their prison--and the crowds who set fire to the Warrior (and its crew) -- were only a few hundred people. Who were we to suggest they represented the millions of Shia Muslim voters who solemnly went to the polls last January? Ho, ho, ho. Yes, and who were we to suggest that the "few hundred" Saddam "remnants" identified as troublemakers in mid-2003 represented a Sunni insurgency? And who were we, back in 1971, to suggest that a few hundred stone-throwers in the Falls Road and Short Strand in Belfast represented "the vast majority of ordinary peace- loving Catholics" in Northern Ireland?

I speculated some weeks ago as to when the bubble will burst. With the insurgent capture (and massacre) of a US base in Iraq? With the overrunning of the Green Zone in Baghdad? Every day now brings Vietnam-style evidence of our collapse. The Americans batter their way into Tal Afar and kill, so they say, "142 insurgents". Get that? US forces manage to kill 142 of their enemies, not a single innocent man, woman or child among them! (I guess American Soldiers Use SMART Bullets also....)

Indeed, much of the war in Northern Ireland appeared to revolve around the use of covert killings and SAS undercover operatives who blew away IRA men in ambushes. Which does raise the question, doesn't it, as to just what our two SAS lads were doing cruising around Basra in Arab dress with itsy-bitsy moustaches and guns? Why did no one ask? How many SAS men are in southern Iraq? Why are they there? What are their duties? What weapons do they carry? Whoops! No one asked. (GREAT Questions! - Anyone care to Answer them?!?)

What we were actually doing to "keep the peace" in Basra was to turn a Nelsonian "blind eye" on the abuse, murder and anarchy of Basra since 2003 (including, it turns out, quite a bit of abuse by our very own squaddies). When Christian alcohol sellers were murdered, we remained silent. When ex-Baathists were slaughtered in the streets--including women and their children, a civil war if ever there was one--our British officers somehow forgot to tell the press. Anything to keep our boys out of harm's way.

And a familiar bleat is rising from the sheep pen. "Outside powers" are interfering in southern Iraq. Thirty-five years ago, it was the Irish Republic that was assisting Britain's IRA enemies. Now it is Iran that is supposedly urging the Shia of Basra to revolt. In other words, it's not our fault--yet again, it's the bloody foreigners what's to blame.

And this Article, related to the Events in this Thread, from The Observer:

Britain to pull troops from Iraq as Blair says 'don't force me out'

Defence Secretary confident withdrawal will start in May

British troops will start a major withdrawal from Iraq next May under detailed plans on military disengagement to be published next month, The Observer can reveal.

The document being drawn up by the British government and the US will be presented to the Iraqi parliament in October and will spark fresh controversy over how long British troops will stay in the country. Tony Blair hopes that, despite continuing and widespread violence in Iraq, the move will show that there is progress following the conflict of 2003.

Britain has already privately informed Japan - which also has troops in Iraq - of its plans to begin withdrawing from southern Iraq in May, a move that officials in Tokyo say would make it impossible for their own 550 soldiers to remain.

The increasingly rapid pace of planning for British military disengagement has been revealed on the eve of the Labour Party conference, which will see renewed demands for a deadline for withdrawal. It is hoped that a clearer strategy on Iraq will quieten critics who say that the government will not be able to 'move on' until Blair quits. Yesterday, about 10,000 people demonstrated against the army's continued presence in the country.

PLEASE show us all these self defense laws you speak of.

No such things exist in the new Iraqi constitution, or the UN charter.
____________________
Article 51?
quote:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

An armed attack against a MEMEBER.

States[governments of nations] are members of the UN.

The Iraqi partisans did not attack the American State.

If anything what this shows is that Iraq has the right to defend itself since it was attacked, and invaded.

It amazes me how people can read legal documents and see what they want, but not whats really there.

If you would care for a long debate on this, and cut deep into the issues I think you will find that almost everything you believe to be true about international law is actually false.

The No-Fly-Zones were NOT Authorized by the UN.

Resolution 1441 did NOT give America the right to invade Iraq.

Something to chew on.....

Originally posted by ArchAngel

The No-Fly-Zones were NOT Authorized by the UN.

there is a resolution 688 that condems the opression on Shiites and Kurds but nothing more. the UN is pretty much just ignoring its duties. it says condems but nothing else. that really helps the Kurds and the Shiites very well.

The UN is a paper tiger incapable of enforcing its own resolutions. Hell lets face there are only 5 countries which make the important decisions in the UN and they are the permanent security council members. Every other country is there for show nothing else. And people wonder why the UN is so inept

Originally posted by rogue1
The UN is a paper tiger incapable of enforcing its own resolutions. Hell lets face there are only 5 countries which make the important decisions in the UN and they are the permanent security council members. Every other country is there for show nothing else. And people wonder why the UN is so inept

Name one UN Resolution that has not been enforced.

I suspect you meant to say that the UN will not give America a blank check for invading nations.

The UN was set in place after WW2, to provide peace around the world.
being nothing like ww2 has happened SINCE i think its a brilliant community.

The UN is only curropt and pathetic because it chose to go against America.

how can a branch whom fights for world peace be considered a failure?...


Damn tho peace seekers, those weak mungrels.. bombs and force is the only way to show the world

Originally posted by ArchAngel
An armed attack against a MEMEBER.

States[governments of nations] are members of the UN.

Last time I checked every citizen who's country is in the UN IS a member.

The Iraqi partisans did not attack the American State.

No they attacked Coalition soldiers.

If anything what this shows is that Iraq has the right to defend itself since it was attacked, and invaded.

Yeah we are not disputing the fact it had a right to defend itself but it doesnt have the right to break UN law.

It amazes me how people can read legal documents and see what they want, but not whats really there.

Legal documents are interpretations..dont belive me look up the UK self defence law.

If you would care for a long debate on this, and cut deep into the issues I think you will find that almost everything you believe to be true about international law is actually false.

Oh really? And your the authority that I would believe?
There is no truth there is only interpretation and opinion.

The No-Fly-Zones were NOT Authorized by the UN.

Was it authorised by the UN for them to slaughter hundreds of thier own people? I think not..

Resolution 1441 did NOT give America the right to invade Iraq.

For the love of..
I really wish people didnt get stuck on the "anti US bandwaggon" its relaly aparant in thier posts if they are.
The Coalition attacked iraq, not just the US not just the UK but the coalition.

DEvilwasp you seem to pop up everywhere shooting down anyone throwing there opinion that they too have come to terms with the fact their government WRONGLY went against the UN, and WORLD opinion and illegially invaded and OCCUPIED IRAQ.

The yanks are so quick to denounce the UN as being curropt because they didnt back them, yet they are also quick to refer to there rules, guidelines and previous hapenings if it helps there argument.

the Iraqis didnt attack america, yet america attacked Iraq. That is WRONG!
No matter what spin you put on it to make you feel patriotic, do you go into the school yard, belt up a 5yr old because he MIGHT be having bullying tendancies in 10 yrs time?
NO.


Iraq slaughtering its own people isnt a matter the US needs to INVADE and OCCUPY. If It was , the US would have FAR worse scenario's to deal with BEFORE IRAQ.

So your telling me ,because people use the Internatioanl body for PEaces guidelines, by explaining USA didnt have a right to wage war, there anti american?
Its hard NOT TO BE ANTIAMERICA lately, you should work for the whitehouse... You'd be a star when u evict all the protestors from the streeet because there being ANTIAMERICAN!

Jsut because you dont like people letting out there opinions TOUGH, DEAL WITH IT. We have to listen to you blinded FOOLS go on about the same BS your president fed us, for the iraqi's, for democracy, UN curroption UNAMERICAN.. ITS BS. If we have to put up with that Bollux, you should be strong enough to handle our personal and JUSTIFIED opinions regarding this UNJUST WAR.

yes that precious coalition.. How many of them have come to terms with the US lies and unjust cause for war that have LEFT that coalition?.... I lost count.
And What is the percentage of this coalition breakdowns?.....
Can you find me a country that didnt come along without the economic Bribes?.. the forced hardship if htey didnt come?...
This coalition is just a list of countries that are willing to sacrifice their citizens for money... for Blood money.

You only follow a country to war if its in your BEST interests or your at extreme danger.
Because IRaq wasnt a danger, It must be the ecnomic side.
Coalition what a joke.
I cant wait for the day the coalition ahs left, and its dumb americans like you whom are conscripted fighting in baghdad.
Ill ask you then when your scraping up your friends brains from the sidewalk if this war was nessecary!


[edit on 27-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
DEvilwasp you seem to pop up everywhere shooting down anyone throwing there opinion that they too have come to terms with the fact their government WRONGLY went against the UN, and WORLD opinion and illegially invaded and OCCUPIED IRAQ.

Yes I do pop up everywhere, I'm like a thistle; prickly, anoying, impossible to get rid of and just frankly mean and green.
A) We went in legally, I never seen any UN law that defines what a country can or cannot do on her own or in a group.
B) World opinion? Yeah how much of the "world" you going to include?
C) Lastly but not leastly WE are the UN too so dont even try and say "We went against the UN" cause frankly we're the UN too so we cant go against ourselves now can we?

The yanks are so quick to denounce the UN as being curropt because they didnt back them, yet they are also quick to refer to there rules, guidelines and previous hapenings if it helps there argument.

With respect mate, you cant just say "the yanks" , the USA has a right to distrust the UN. They dont agree and they dislike the idea of being "restrained" by rules and regs IMO that is..

the Iraqis didnt attack america, yet america attacked Iraq. That is WRONG!

Says who?
If a man holds a gun in a public space and makes threats to the peopel around him, do you as an adult go in and stop him or do you defend his right to own a gun and the right to wave it around in a public area?

No matter what spin you put on it to make you feel patriotic, do you go into the school yard, belt up a 5yr old because he MIGHT be having bullying tendancies in 10 yrs time?
NO.

Pot calling kettle black?
What was that little bit at the bottom here? Wow I'm dizzy from all this spinning..I wouldnt beat up anyone thank you very much and please dont try and say what I will or will not do.

Iraq slaughtering its own people isnt a matter the US needs to INVADE and OCCUPY. If It was , the US would have FAR worse scenario's to deal with BEFORE IRAQ.

Yes that reason alone isnt enough to go in...but its just one reason among many...mabye you could tell me if you would have preffered the slaughter to continue?

So your telling me ,because people use the Internatioanl body for PEaces guidelines, by explaining USA didnt have a right to wage war, there anti american?

Me? What?

Its hard NOT TO BE ANTIAMERICA lately, you should work for the whitehouse... You'd be a star when u evict all the protestors from the streeet because there being ANTIAMERICAN!

Huh?

Jsut because you dont like people letting out there opinions TOUGH, DEAL WITH IT. We have to listen to you blinded FOOLS go on about the same BS your president fed us, for the iraqi's, for democracy, UN curroption UNAMERICAN.. ITS BS. If we have to put up with that Bollux, you should be strong enough to handle our personal and JUSTIFIED opinions regarding this UNJUST WAR.

My president? What?
The UN has some curruption just like everything else in the world.

yes that precious coalition.. How many of them have come to terms with the US lies and unjust cause for war that have LEFT that coalition?.... I lost count.

US lies?
You might want to look up the butler report or even mabye what spins MY country's press made of the situation before saying "america said this!"....oh and one other thing...you relise that many intelligence services AND the UN weapons inspectors said there was weapons BUT not the correct levels?

And What is the percentage of this coalition breakdowns?.....

Breakdowns?
What are we a car?

Can you find me a country that didnt come along without the economic Bribes?.. the forced hardship if htey didnt come?...
This coalition is just a list of countries that are willing to sacrifice their citizens for money... for Blood money.

EH?
Mate you need to SERIOSLY think before posting...
My country did not go to iraq for money, if it did so then why are the soldiers there helping iraqis?

You only follow a country to war if its in your BEST interests or your at extreme danger.

Your now defining the reasons I should go to war?

Because IRaq wasnt a danger, It must be the ecnomic side.
Coalition what a joke.

A danger to whoom? Acording to the info we had from quite a lot of sources it could have hit UK forces which BTW is against the agreed UN laws.
I dont think the Coalition is joke, I think the iraqi resistance is but not the Coalition.

I cant wait for the day the coalition ahs left, and its dumb americans like you whom are conscripted fighting in baghdad.

American?
Not yet mate, try in a months time when I get my visa..
Oh and BTW there is no conscripted fighting in baghdad...well on the coalition side that is..

Ill ask you then when your scraping up your friends brains from the sidewalk if this war was nessecary!
[edit on 27-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

Fine then , just wait 4 or 6 years until I join up then.
Oh and BTW, its a pavement ..

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by ArchAngel
An armed attack against a MEMEBER.

States[governments of nations] are members of the UN.

Last time I checked every citizen who's country is in the UN IS a member.

You must not ever have checked.....

www.un.org...
Article 3
The original Members of the United Nations shall be the states which, having participated in the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, or having previously signed the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, sign the present Charter and ratify it in accordance with Article 110.
Article 4
1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

Only STATES can be UN Members.

Yeah we are not disputing the fact it had a right to defend itself but it doesnt have the right to break UN law.

AMERICA broke UN Law when it Invaded, not Iraq.

It amazes me how people can read legal documents and see what they want, but not whats really there.

Legal documents are interpretations..dont belive me look up the UK self defence law.

Why don't you show it to us. I'm sure it only applies to within the UK, not other nations....

The No-Fly-Zones were NOT Authorized by the UN.

Was it authorised by the UN for them to slaughter hundreds of thier own people? I think not..

The UN does not govern within nations. International relations is their arena. Nothing Saddam did inside Iraq to his civilians was a violation of UN Law, for good, or bad.

Resolution 1441 did NOT give America the right to invade Iraq.

For the love of..
I really wish people didnt get stuck on the "anti US bandwaggon" its relaly aparant in thier posts if they are.

I am an American, and I love my country at least as much as you do.

How does admitting the truth make you anti-American?

I am not so blind, nor in such denial that I refuse to tell what is the obvious truth. Facts are facts, and you seem to ignore them when it does not serve your agenda. the UN did not authorize the invasion of Iraq. That is the TRUTH!

The Coalition attacked iraq, not just the US not just the UK but the coalition.

The US, and the other members of the 'Coalition of the bought and paid for' all violated UN Law when they invaded Iraq.

Article 2
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

This was what Saddam violated when he invaded Kuwait.

The US Constitution says that all treaties, and international agreements that are ratified are US Law.

America is bound by the UN Charter through Constitution LAW.

You liking it, or not notwithstanding.....

[edit on 27-9-2005 by ArchAngel]

A) We went in legally, I never seen any UN law that defines what a country can or cannot do on her own or in a group.

Look at my previous post, and you will see it for the first time.

Article two of the UN Charter denies states that right to do what America did, and the UN Charter was ratified making it SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

US CONSTITUTION
Article VI
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;....

B) World opinion? Yeah how much of the "world" you going to include?
C) Lastly but not leastly WE are the UN too so dont even try and say "We went against the UN" cause frankly we're the UN too so we cant go against ourselves now can we?

America is but a single member of the UN among five that have Security Council Vetoes.

The Security Council Alone may authorize the use of force.

Article 53
1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.
2. The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

judicial-inc.biz...

Two Undercover Agents Rescued by British May Have Been Israelis

Perish the thought....

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The UN was set in place after WW2, to provide peace around the world.
being nothing like ww2 has happened SINCE i think its a brilliant community.

LOL, the UN didn't stop WWIII from breaking out. It was nuclear weapons and the MAD doctrine.

The UN is only curropt and pathetic because it chose to go against America.

how can a branch whom fights for world peace be considered a failure?...

the UN has failed many many times. There are too many nations with their own agendas. We know the main reason the French and Russians voted against going into Iraq, it wasn't for moral purposes either. It mioght have had something to do with the $100 billion+ debt Saddmas regime owed to these 2 countries. A debt which would be nullified after Saddam lost power

LOL, the UN didn't stop WWIII from breaking out. It was nuclear weapons and the MAD doctrine.

uhh....WWIII did not break out.

the UN has failed many many times. There are too many nations with their own agendas. We know the main reason the French and Russians voted against going into Iraq, it wasn't for moral purposes either. It mioght have had something to do with the $100 billion+ debt Saddmas regime owed to these 2 countries. A debt which would be nullified after Saddam lost power

The UN is composed of the entire Earth minus the Vatican, and yes everyone has their own agenda.

No one voted against the invasion of Iraq because Bush did not bother going back and trying for a resolution authorizing force.

The debt owed to these nations was against the STATE, not Saddam so it still exists no matter who was leading.

While its true that America tried to get these nations to forgive the debt, it was not an automatic result of the invasion.

They were against it because the vast majority of their people were against it.

Unlike America, and England they were not getting 'bad intelligence' in all of the media, around the clock.