|
 Vvellum
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
 Re: Did the President Lie about Iraq?  [Re: lonestar2004]
#4331260 - 06/24/05 02:24 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
how old are you?
|
Vvellum
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: Did the President Lie about Iraq? [Re: Phred]
#4331288 - 06/24/05 02:39 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
But I have maintained all along that the primary reason for resuming hostilities was the continuing and blatant violation of the properly-signed agreement...
I'm sure the 2000 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis are glad that some legalistic document was enforced and maintained. I am glad my hard-earned tax dollars are being wasted away for a country that I will never set foot into and whose affairs do not affect a vast number of our citizens.
Funny you call yourself a libertarian but yet support such massive government endeavors all for for some legal document.
I only support my nation's military engaging in warfare out of self-defense and for the protection of our nation - not to just set some example for the unknown boogey man in the future. Setting examples? Fuck that.
Besides arguing strangers on the internet, what have you done to support this cause of yours? Why havent you shut down your bar and become a contractor? Oh wait, you want the massive American government to save the world.
|
 Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Did the President Lie about Iraq? [Re: Vvellum]
#4333433 - 06/24/05 05:38 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
biO writes:
Quote:
I'm sure the 2000 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis are glad that some legalistic document was enforced and maintained.
And I'm sure you'll be happy indeed when your employment contract is violated and no court will force your employer to abide by it. Or when someone on probation violates the terms of his probation by carrying a gun and kills your mother accidently in a drive-by shooting.
It never ceases to amaze me how little Libbies care for the rule of law until it affects them directly. To paraphrase a hoary old clich?, "A Conservative is a Liberal who got mugged. A Liberal is a Conservative who got arrested."
Is your position then that ceasefire agreements are meaningless? That signatories may ignore them at will with no consequences? Because of course if that's your position then you would have had no objection to the coalition forces back in 1991 marching straight to Baghdad and lining up the entire Iraq government against a wall and gunning them down. You would also have no objection to making every battle a fight literally to the death -- the winning side kills every last man on the losing side because there is no such thing as surrender: Surrender agreements are worthless, remember?
Well, your solution would certainly mean there'd be no more bad press about "torture" in Guantanamo, since there would be no Guantanamos in your world. If there's no such thing as a surrender there's certainly no need for a place to keep those who have surrendered.
Quote:
I am glad my hard-earned tax dollars are being wasted away for a country that I will never set foot into and whose affairs do not affect a vast number of our citizens.
Ah! An isolationist! We have more in common than you might think, since I too believe that other people's problems, while unfortunate, are theirs to resolve, not mine. Your argument was echoed by hundreds of thousands of Americans in World War I and even in World War II. It was also echoed by the whole world concerning Rwanda in the Eighties and Darfur today. You are of course correct that the problems of a bunch of brown-skinned folks in a faraway land normally have little impact on the lives of Americans. Not our fault they had the bad luck to be born in a country where a murderous thug clawed his way to supreme power. Sure hope that whole genocide dealie works out for them eventually, but hey... I've got my X-Box and my MP3 player and my kind bud -- I'm doing fine.
For the hundred and fifty-first time in this forum, I repeat that I remain to this day unconvinced it was correct for Portugal, Spain, Italy, Australia, England, Poland, the United States and others to have deposed Hussein by force at the time they chose to do it. It was quite simply more the problem of Iraqis (and their immediate neighbors) than the problem of any of the above.
However, I also realize that almost every member of the coalition which resumed hostilities in Iraq was also a member of the coalition that forced the signing of the document which suspended hostilities in Iraq in 1991. I can understand their disappointment (to use as mild a word as I can think of at the moment) at the futility of their original effort. I have also considered the consequences of inaction. Since the consequences of action are known (almost 2000 US dead, tens of thousands of others dead) while the consequences of inaction can only be guessed at, it is not unusual for reasonable people to disagree over which option might have worked out to be better in the long run. See the essay by Robert Kagan in the thread titled "Whether This War Was Worth It".
I also am not as certain as you that leaving Hussein in power would have been safer in the long run for Americans than removing him. He should of course have been removed in 1991, but since we don't have a magic "Wayback Machine" that option couldn't be revisited. While my personal opinion is that Hussein couldn't have done much worse than co-operate in the mounting of a few more 9/11 type attacks which would have ended up in a mere few thousand more Americans killed -- a veritable fleabite in a nation of almost 300 million led by a government prone to interfering in the affairs of others so the Little Eichmann's deserved to die anyway -- I at least admit the possibility I might be wrong about that. Maybe Hussein could have reconstituted enough of a nuke program to build at least a couple of dirty bombs which would have made their way to American shores. But maybe not. I certainly don't pretend to know for sure. All I do know for sure is that he won't be doing any of that now.
Quote:
Besides arguing strangers on the internet, what have you done to support this cause of yours?
Never heard "the pen is mightier than the sword," I see. Oh, well. I guess it's much better for all of us who aren't actually soldiers to just keep quiet if it will keep biO happy. Sorry for disturbing your worldview, dood.
Since I am too old to have any army accept me as a recruit, and I am not a citizen or resident of any company with troops in Iraq in any case, I guess I'll just have to keep presenting my comments to strangers on internet boards. Bummer how life works out, huh? But who ever said life was fair?
Phred
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Did the President Lie about Iraq? [Re: Phred]
#4333582 - 06/24/05 06:42 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
biO writes:
Quote:
I'm sure the 2000 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis are glad that some legalistic document was enforced and maintained.
And I'm sure you'll be happy indeed when your employment contract is violated and no court will force your employer to abide by it. Or when someone on probation violates the terms of his probation by carrying a gun and kills your mother accidently in a drive-by shooting.
That has to be the most retarded argument I've ever seen you make. If my employment contract is violated and I'm unable to sue, then at least I can quit and find a new job. And as far as violating probation, last I checked, Saddam's "probation violations" did not involve violence(the violence mainly occurred while he was our ally). Also, your argument carries with it the assumption that it is America's job to police the world. Who appointed us to this position? What power are we answerable to? The function of the American military is to defend our homeland, not to be parole officers. That's not what my friends signed up for when they joined. If it's a UN resolution that Saddam violated, then let the UN deal with it. It's their problem, not ours. Leave our countrymen alone.
Quote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little Libbies care for the rule of law until it affects them directly.
I don't respect the rule of law when it wants to send me to prison for smoking a joint, or when it allows the federal government to search my library records without a warrant, so why should I respect the rule of law simply because it's the rule of law?
--------------------
|
newuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
|
Re: Did the President Lie about Iraq? [Re: Phred]
#4333592 - 06/24/05 06:46 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Not our fault they had the bad luck to be born in a country where a murderous thug clawed his way to supreme power. Sure hope that whole genocide dealie works out for them eventually, but hey... I've got my X-Box and my MP3 player and my kind bud -- I'm doing fine.
Is the ending sentence sarcasm?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 6 days
|
Re: Did the President Lie about Iraq? [Re: Silversoul]
#4333676 - 06/24/05 07:17 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Quote:
Phred said:
biO writes:
Quote:
I'm sure the 2000 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis are glad that some legalistic document was enforced and maintained.
And I'm sure you'll be happy indeed when your employment contract is violated and no court will force your employer to abide by it. Or when someone on probation violates the terms of his probation by carrying a gun and kills your mother accidently in a drive-by shooting.
That has to be the most retarded argument I've ever seen you make. If my employment contract is violated and I'm unable to sue, then at least I can quit and find a new job. And as far as violating probation, last I checked, Saddam's "probation violations" did not involve violence(the violence mainly occurred while he was our ally). Also, your argument carries with it the assumption that it is America's job to police the world. Who appointed us to this position? What power are we answerable to? The function of the American military is to defend our homeland, not to be parole officers. That's not what my friends signed up for when they joined. If it's a UN resolution that Saddam violated, then let the UN deal with it. It's their problem, not ours. Leave our countrymen alone.
Quote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little Libbies care for the rule of law until it affects them directly.
I don't respect the rule of law when it wants to send me to prison for smoking a joint, or when it allows the federal government to search my library records without a warrant, so why should I respect the rule of law simply because it's the rule of law?
Are you actually arguing against the sanctity of contracts? Remind me to get payment up front in any dealings with you. As to respect for the law and dope, Oh I bet you have a great deal of respect. When was the last time you fired up a doob at the police station? I don't think you're a lib anymore anyway. You're worried about your library records??????? They can and have been able to violate you in so many ways for so long that should be the least of your worries, if you're inclined to worry. Me, I prefer to try to track down scumbags. The invasion of library records isn't the problem. It's that they arrest people for drugs at all. It's not how they do it, it's that they do it that's the problem. Yet another bad effect of drug prohibition- Otherwise peacable people are forced to give up legal loopholes to truly predatory swine because they're afraid the loopholes will close for them when they need them.
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Did the President Lie about Iraq? [Re: Silversoul]
#4333840 - 06/24/05 08:29 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Paradigm writes:
Quote:
That has to be the most retarded argument I've ever seen you make.
*ZINGGGGG!*
Went right over your head, did it?
All right then, while we're waiting for bi0 to check in, let's hear your answer to the same question:
"Is your position then that ceasefire agreements are meaningless? That signatories may ignore them at will with no consequences?"
Before you answer that, think it through all the way. Here's a hint on where to start: read the rest of the paragraph in the post in which that question appears. Then get back to me.
Phred
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Did the President Lie about Iraq? [Re: newuser1492]
#4333911 - 06/24/05 08:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
cn9fl writes:
Quote:
Is the ending sentence sarcasm?
Not at all. I mean every word of it. Seriously.
The people who argue the coalition of countries who re-entered Iraq in 2003 had no obligation to resume hostilities are absolutely correct -- neither the US nor any of the other countries in the coalition singly or collectively had any such obligation. They were perfectly within their rights to have continued sitting on their hands and leaving the Iraqis to try to deal with Hussein alone. It's no different than the US invasion of Europe in 1944 -- Germany posed no threat whatsoever to the United States in 1944, and sending American boys to Europe to bomb innocent civilians and get themselves maimed and killed by the hundreds of thousands was completely unnecessary. It was up to the people of Europe (and the Soviet Union) to deal with their own troubles. The US had no obligation at all to help out. Same deal with Rwanda. Not our problem -- quite literally. Sucks to have been a Tutsi in that place and time, but hey... the Hutus were no threat to the US or Spain or Italy or Australia or Poland. Shit happens -- always has, always will.
But those who argue those countries had no right to resume hostilities in Iraq at the time they chose to do so are wrong -- those countries had every right to do it.
Phred
--------------------
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Did the President Lie about Iraq? [Re: Phred]
#4334113 - 06/24/05 09:37 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Don't know how you can talk in good faith about honoring law, treaties and international agreements when the USA CLEARLY violated the UN charter which it had signed and agreed to, in invading Iraq. It is one of the Prime Directives, if you will.
Can't logically and ethically argue out of both sides of your mouth. Be consistent at least.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Did the President Lie about Iraq? [Re: Swami]
#4334325 - 06/24/05 10:40 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Swami writes:
Quote:
Don't know how you can talk in good faith about honoring law, treaties and international agreements when the USA CLEARLY violated the UN charter which it had signed and agreed to, in invading Iraq.
Which part of the UN charter would that be?
Phred
--------------------
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Did the President Lie about Iraq? [Re: Phred]
#4334526 - 06/24/05 11:42 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimized by security council resolutions.
The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal".
UN CHARTER
CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article 43
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.
Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 47
There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.
The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.
The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.
Article 48
The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.
Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.
Article 50
If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.
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.
Seems the USA should invade the USA for breach of the Charter. Will most likely find WMD while there.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Xlea321
Learyfan
Lallafa
phi1618
grib
pattern