Indeed, I hadn't read jonsimon's post. Apologies.
Well, it's kind of important. You see, if it France and Russia voted against, it couldn't have been passed in Security Council. If it was passed in General Assembly, it means nothing, it's just a suggestion. Same as the General Assembly suggests that all humans have a set of basic rights, which Guantanomo Bay violates. Therefore, the US had no right to act on that deadline.lowing wrote:
don't know or careBubbalo wrote:
Ah...........wrong thread Corithus..............General Assembly or Security Council?lowing wrote:
UN voted on it bubbalo and it passed, less france and russia
I think the point was that France and Russia suck ass. Also that the UN puts the "un" in "underwear".Bubbalo wrote:
Well, it's kind of important. You see, if it France and Russia voted against, it couldn't have been passed in Security Council. If it was passed in General Assembly, it means nothing, it's just a suggestion. Same as the General Assembly suggests that all humans have a set of basic rights, which Guantanomo Bay violates. Therefore, the US had no right to act on that deadline.lowing wrote:
don't know or careBubbalo wrote:
Ah...........wrong thread Corithus..............
General Assembly or Security Council?
ok ok how many of you have actually seen a REAL LIVE IED go off? bet not many.. when a IED goes off its less expected and it does some damage. i'm not going to get in a betch session here but how many of you have actually ever read the Code Of Conduct or the genva conventions..... another question. how many that come to these forums have actually ever been in a fire fight besides me and GunSlinger? for those of you that dont know both me and Gun where in the same company in iraq... i will cover his back any day and go thru any door any time... and thats something i cant say for alot of people....let alone how many of you have ever been in a near ambush in daylight in a urban area?
that last question all i gotta say is ask the men of Aco 2-7 Cav 1st Platoon 3rd Squad about that one....its not pretty. heck war alone isnt pretty.....
that last question all i gotta say is ask the men of Aco 2-7 Cav 1st Platoon 3rd Squad about that one....its not pretty. heck war alone isnt pretty.....
Oh, yes. How horrible of them to argue that it is more important to ensure Iraq complies than to go in and foster unrest and instability.Major_Spittle wrote:
I think the point was that France and Russia suck ass. Also that the UN puts the "un" in "underwear".
Seriously outnumbered on this subject, yet you try to answer to all of us. Brave thing, lowing, I'll give you that.lowing wrote:
How nice that you are free to go on the internet and talk all the shit you want about your country ( or anyone elses) I bet not everyone can do that. And for your attitude of "fuck my country", you wouldn't be saying that if your past countrymen had not died for your freedom to do so. You are basically a fucking leech, that will stand tall and talk all the shit you want but not recognize that someone sacrificed so you can. You ARE a pathetic fuckin' apologist and appeaser. Bottom line.........the world tried and "talked" to Hitler as well, dumb ass.
As far as Israel goes, they have made their good will jestures only to be continued victims of terrorism. They pulled completely out of Gaza for example, did the violence agains tthem stop??, nope. Who exactly is the one threatening grnpcide and wiping an entire country off the face of the earth?/ Oh yeah........the peace loving muslims that surround Israel.
Yet I too must answer back. You see, my country was part of the Ottoman Empire for 400 years until in 1821 my countrymen decided to revolt and shake the Turks off Greece. Thousands died so that my country could be free again.
Know also that my parents are from Cyprus, which was invaded by the Turks in 1974, making them refugees. Some Turk is living in my mother's house as we speak.
So. The difference between the war you are trying to defend and the wars I spoke of above is that your war is of commercial value. It's got nothing to do with nations and their land or their right to live 'n all that bullshit. It has to do with which Corporation will ultimately dominate an oil-rich land.
Israel is not merely defending its own! And certainly the US are not defending their own either. They are expanding their domination all over the Middle East, using terrorists as an excuse. BTW since terrorists are on the verge of extinction, they have come up with the ingenious plan of preemptive wars!
Bottom line: Once upon a time it was ok to defend your country because that country was just the people of one nation trying to survive. Now it doesn't work that way anymore. Your country for example consists of nearly every nation in the world. Your government is not defending your traditions, language and way of life. They are defending the Corporations and their interests.
PS I never said there was no place for war in this world... you put that in my mouth.
ƒ³
Oh, how brave to argue with people he'll never meet in a situation in which he can disappear at any time!
If Israel is not defending itself, where exactly did these people come from? South Dakota? They have every right to exist as anyone else. Whether you like it or not, they are as much a part of the Middle East culture as any muslim. But, due to religious intolerance they have been persecuted for their entire history. I say persecuted for religious intolerance and NOT FOR OIL since they have been treated as a lower life form by the muslims before anyone even knew what oil was and I might add, before George Bush or America for that matter were even born. Now, who is the one looking for excuses to commit genocide, the muslims or the Israelis ? Feel free of course to support the muslim terrorists with any excuse you can come up with that puts America, Israel, or Bush in as bad a light as possible. You are after all, free to do so.oug wrote:
Seriously outnumbered on this subject, yet you try to answer to all of us. Brave thing, lowing, I'll give you that.lowing wrote:
How nice that you are free to go on the internet and talk all the shit you want about your country ( or anyone elses) I bet not everyone can do that. And for your attitude of "fuck my country", you wouldn't be saying that if your past countrymen had not died for your freedom to do so. You are basically a fucking leech, that will stand tall and talk all the shit you want but not recognize that someone sacrificed so you can. You ARE a pathetic fuckin' apologist and appeaser. Bottom line.........the world tried and "talked" to Hitler as well, dumb ass.
As far as Israel goes, they have made their good will gestures only to be continued victims of terrorism. They pulled completely out of Gaza for example, did the violence against them stop??, nope. Who exactly is the one threatening genocide and wiping an entire country off the face of the earth?/ Oh yeah........the peace loving muslims that surround Israel.
Yet I too must answer back. You see, my country was part of the Ottoman Empire for 400 years until in 1821 my countrymen decided to revolt and shake the Turks off Greece. Thousands died so that my country could be free again.
Know also that my parents are from Cyprus, which was invaded by the Turks in 1974, making them refugees. Some Turk is living in my mother's house as we speak.
So. The difference between the war you are trying to defend and the wars I spoke of above is that your war is of commercial value. It's got nothing to do with nations and their land or their right to live 'n all that bullshit. It has to do with which Corporation will ultimately dominate an oil-rich land.
Israel is not merely defending its own! And certainly the US are not defending their own either. They are expanding their domination all over the Middle East, using terrorists as an excuse. BTW since terrorists are on the verge of extinction, they have come up with the ingenious plan of preemptive wars!
Bottom line: Once upon a time it was ok to defend your country because that country was just the people of one nation trying to survive. Now it doesn't work that way anymore. Your country for example consists of nearly every nation in the world. Your government is not defending your traditions, language and way of life. They are defending the Corporations and their interests.
PS I never said there was no place for war in this world... you put that in my mouth.
Last edited by lowing (2006-07-22 13:57:21)
lowing:
Bubbalo wrote:
Well, it's kind of important. You see, if it France and Russia voted against, it couldn't have been passed in Security Council. If it was passed in General Assembly, it means nothing, it's just a suggestion. Same as the General Assembly suggests that all humans have a set of basic rights, which Guantanomo Bay violates. Therefore, the US had no right to act on that deadline.lowing wrote:
don't know or careBubbalo wrote:
Ah...........wrong thread Corithus..............
General Assembly or Security Council?
Been down this road with you before bubbalo, the US is not in a position or obligated to answer to the UN when it conflicts with our own security. The UN is the one who failed by issuing empty threat after empty threat. The reason why is because the UN had its own agenda and certain members who were in bed with Iraq figured war was not in the best interest for that relationship, not considering anything else.Bubbalo wrote:
lowing:Bubbalo wrote:
Well, it's kind of important. You see, if it France and Russia voted against, it couldn't have been passed in Security Council. If it was passed in General Assembly, it means nothing, it's just a suggestion. Same as the General Assembly suggests that all humans have a set of basic rights, which Guantanomo Bay violates. Therefore, the US had no right to act on that deadline.lowing wrote:
don't know or care
The UN deemed Iraq a threat and refused to act on it, so the US did. Understandable, given 911 and the new US policy not to sit around and wait to be attacked again. Yeah yeah, I know they did not find any WMD's, that is irrelevant. The fact that Iraq took a posture that it was hiding something by kicking out UN inspectors (breaking the cease fire) was cause enough to act. Maybe the solution to all of this was to NOT break the cease fire and let the UN inspectors do their jobs with 10 years of interference.If you are looking for apologies their are plenty of peace at any price appeasers on here reading these threads, go see one of them.
I've been down this road with you. prove it. Redderick. This uncooperative bullshit is exactly why people criticize, you expect everyone to work around you and if they want a global justification you'll just act anyway. You (USA foreign policy) are not condusive to a working and peaceful world govt.lowing wrote:
Been down this road with you before bubbalo, the US is not in a position or obligated to answer to the UN when it conflicts with our own security. The UN is the one who failed by issuing empty threat after empty threat. The reason why is because the UN had its own agenda and certain members who were in bed with Iraq figured war was not in the best interest for that relationship, not considering anything else.
so your own evidence was irrelevant. Continue to act on and convey posturing and guaranteed you're going to get criticized (USA foreign policy). World govt is not for lonewolves.lowing wrote:
The UN deemed Iraq a threat and refused to act on it, so the US did. Understandable, given 911 and the new US policy not to sit around and wait to be attacked again. Yeah yeah, I know they did not find any WMD's, that is irrelevant. The fact that Iraq took a posture that it was hiding something by kicking out UN inspectors (breaking the cease fire) was cause enough to act. Maybe the solution to all of this was to NOT break the cease fire and let the UN inspectors do their jobs with 10 years of interference.If you are looking for apologies their are plenty of peace at any price appeasers on here reading these threads, go see one of them.
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-22 14:03:09)
1. Well history has proven it, the UN didn't act, the US did. As for the UN members in bed with Iraq....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/decision_makers_and_diplomacy/58568.stmSpumantiii wrote:
I've been down this road with you. prove it. Redderick. This uncooperative bullshit is exactly why people criticize, you expect everyone to work around you and if they want a global justification you'll just act anyway. You (USA foreign policy) are not condusive to a working and peaceful world govt.lowing wrote:
Been down this road with you before bubbalo, the US is not in a position or obligated to answer to the UN when it conflicts with our own security. The UN is the one who failed by issuing empty threat after empty threat. The reason why is because the UN had its own agenda and certain members who were in bed with Iraq figured war was not in the best interest for that relationship, not considering anything else.so your own evidence was irrelevant. Continue to act on and convey posturing and guaranteed you're going to get criticized (USA foreign policy). World govt is not for lonewolves.lowing wrote:
The UN deemed Iraq a threat and refused to act on it, so the US did. Understandable, given 911 and the new US policy not to sit around and wait to be attacked again. Yeah yeah, I know they did not find any WMD's, that is irrelevant. The fact that Iraq took a posture that it was hiding something by kicking out UN inspectors (breaking the cease fire) was cause enough to act. Maybe the solution to all of this was to NOT break the cease fire and let the UN inspectors do their jobs with 10 years of interference.If you are looking for apologies their are plenty of peace at any price appeasers on here reading these threads, go see one of them.
2. Nope lone wolves and world govt. don't mix.........hence the problems with Iraq, N Korea, Iran.......on and on and on.........rouge govts. are the worlds problem and need to addressed not ignored until it is too late. I give you the Third Reich as an example. If talking, and nagotiating killed, Hitler would have been mutilated in the 30's
VDogg and Sapp. I think about em everyday...TXVeteran512 wrote:
ok ok how many of you have actually seen a REAL LIVE IED go off? bet not many.. when a IED goes off its less expected and it does some damage. i'm not going to get in a betch session here but how many of you have actually ever read the Code Of Conduct or the genva conventions..... another question. how many that come to these forums have actually ever been in a fire fight besides me and GunSlinger? for those of you that dont know both me and Gun where in the same company in iraq... i will cover his back any day and go thru any door any time... and thats something i cant say for alot of people....let alone how many of you have ever been in a near ambush in daylight in a urban area?
that last question all i gotta say is ask the men of Aco 2-7 Cav 1st Platoon 3rd Squad about that one....its not pretty. heck war alone isnt pretty.....
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-07-22 15:08:10)
Cannot say enough how much I respect you guys.
A toast to VDogg and Sapp.
And so many others.
A toast to VDogg and Sapp.
And so many others.
lowing: Your argument contradicts itself, claiming that the US had the right to invade Iraq based on UN decisions, despite the fact that those same UN decisions deemed that military force was not yet appropriate. Find an argument that doesn't contradict itself.
Good luck with that as it's a matter of perspective 
.
And, isn't about time you put the pix in your sig for awhile?
If you love me, you'll do it.
.And, isn't about time you put the pix in your sig for awhile?
If you love me, you'll do it.
well iraq wont allow UN inspectors in... wouldnt you be afraid that they might have WMD's? probably when they found the US was invading them they smuggled their WMD's to syria or iranBubbalo wrote:
lowing: Your argument contradicts itself, claiming that the US had the right to invade Iraq based on UN decisions, despite the fact that those same UN decisions deemed that military force was not yet appropriate. Find an argument that doesn't contradict itself.
You've got to be kidding me? So, what, the US managed to discover that Iraq had all these WMDs, and then, when Iraq was being more closely watched than when the US found out about it, they got them out of the country? And you people make fun of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.........................
I am not contradicting myself, the UN threatened Iraq with "serious consequences" if it did not comply. For 10 years Iraq ignored or half assed their compliance with the cease fire. The UN refused to act on it's on threats, allowing Iraq to impliment its stall tactics. Don't act guilty if you're not. I already showed a link as to why the UN members didn't want war, and it had nothing to do with Iraq needing more time.Bubbalo wrote:
lowing: Your argument contradicts itself, claiming that the US had the right to invade Iraq based on UN decisions, despite the fact that those same UN decisions deemed that military force was not yet appropriate. Find an argument that doesn't contradict itself.
Can you repeat the link, or tell me where it is? I've either missed it or forgotten it.
Regardless, however, you do contradict yourself, because you now talk about 10 years ago when the resolution we are discussing was immediately prior to the invasion. Further, it is for the UN to decide how far it's resolutions are enforced, given that it was the US who made Iraq bold enough to invade Kuwait in the first place, and then the UN who practically had to force the US to act.
Regardless, however, you do contradict yourself, because you now talk about 10 years ago when the resolution we are discussing was immediately prior to the invasion. Further, it is for the UN to decide how far it's resolutions are enforced, given that it was the US who made Iraq bold enough to invade Kuwait in the first place, and then the UN who practically had to force the US to act.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisi … /58568.stmBubbalo wrote:
Can you repeat the link, or tell me where it is? I've either missed it or forgotten it.
Regardless, however, you do contradict yourself, because you now talk about 10 years ago when the resolution we are discussing was immediately prior to the invasion. Further, it is for the UN to decide how far it's resolutions are enforced, given that it was the US who made Iraq bold enough to invade Kuwait in the first place, and then the UN who practically had to force the US to act.
Ahhhhhh I see now, the US is responsible for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Yes I am talking about 10 years ago, that is how much time Iraq had to comply with the resolutions. More time is the last thing Iraq needed. The US felt by keeping the inspectors out, that Iraq was hiding something.
Since the cease fire was ignored hostilites resumed.
The UN will never decide the security of the US, sorry. The coalition needed the UN to act on there decade of threats, and they refused.
the link didn't take scroll up and you will find it.
Last edited by lowing (2006-07-23 05:22:06)
Ah, so you believe the UN should bend to US whims?
Regardless, if Iraq had not been in violation of the last treaty, the US had no right to invade.
Link doesn't work.
Regardless, if Iraq had not been in violation of the last treaty, the US had no right to invade.
Link doesn't work.
No just the opposite I don't think the US should bend to the whims of the UN. A UN that is comprised of member that are anti-American and anti-Semitic. The US is quite capable of defending its self without UN approval. Yes I said defend its self. Taking the offense is the best defense. It is US policy now, NOT to sit and wait for the US to be attacked again. We will hunt the terrorists and fight them on their land not ours.Bubbalo wrote:
Ah, so you believe the UN should bend to US whims?
Regardless, if Iraq had not been in violation of the last treaty, the US had no right to invade.
Link doesn't work.
Again before you start:
Iraq turned into a war on terror after the removal of Saddam. If not for the terrorist efforts to keep Iraq unstable, we would have been home years ago. Unfortunatly, due to the killing and terrorizing of the Iraqi's by the such groups we are forced to stay and deal wth it.
There is a great difference between defending oneself and what the Israelis are doing in the region. You see, the time when the Jews were persecuted as you say is long gone. The tables have turned ever since, and now it is the Israeli government who is doing all the persecuting.lowing wrote:
If Israel is not defending itself, where exactly did these people come from? South Dakota? They have every right to exist as anyone else. Whether you like it or not, they are as much a part of the Middle East culture as any muslim. But, due to religious intolerance they have been persecuted for their entire history. I say persecuted for religious intolerance and NOT FOR OIL since they have been treated as a lower life form by the muslims before anyone even knew what oil was and I might add, before George Bush or America for that matter were even born. Now, who is the one looking for excuses to commit genocide, the muslims or the Israelis ? Feel free of course to support the muslim terrorists with any excuse you can come up with that puts America, Israel, or Bush in as bad a light as possible. You are after all, free to do so.
So let's stop all this whining about religious intolerance and the like. No more using the Holocaust as an excuse to mask the Israelis' expansionism. It is no more a matter of existence for Israel. The state of Israel is there to stay. They have enough firepower to make sure of that (courtesy of our friend the USA).
Israel and the United States have mutual benefits from this situation. Israel is getting all the help they need to control their neighbors and further strengthen their position in the region -and globally- and the US is using Israel as a means of control over the area where the oil is.
And last but not least, this "You are after all, free to do so" thing. What is this anyway? As if you or your country had anything to do with me being free.
Hell yes I am free. And the United States of America had nothing to do with it.
It seems lately that your country poses as the ones who have created democracy and spread it all over the world. You say that the world owes you their freedom. Well think again.
As much as I hate to categorize people according to their place of birth, you are forcing me to do this. Your country didn't even exist 300 years ago. On the other hand, 5000 years ago, my fellow countrymen were discovering the notions of democracy and freedom, while the rest of humanity were eating raw flesh and living in the caves. So enough of this patronizing please.
The world does not owe anything to the USA. Your so-called free speech is a joke, not to mention your democratic procedures. How many people vote in the USA? And even if they do... does it matter?? You only have 2 parties that are virtually the same!! What kind of democracy is that? Plus lately you have been living under a finely constructed dictatorship, which successfully exchanges your freedom for "security". And you go along with that.
Don't ever try to teach me about democracy and freedom of speech. We fucking gave it to you and you are fighting pre-emptive wars in its name.
ƒ³