Why was I sent over there to "enforce UN resolutions" in 1998? Why do I have a National Defense ribbon yet I was never in the first gulf war?Bertster7 wrote:
I am very familliar with the case for war put by Lord Goldsmith and Ambassador Negroponte and it sounds like a strong case until you actually read the text of the resolutions, which I'm guessing you haven't done.
Because Clinton decided to send you over there because Iraq were not complying with UNSCOM inspections. He asked the UN for permission and they voted in favour of action 15-1. That's why.usmarine2007 wrote:
Why was I sent over there to "enforce UN resolutions" in 1998? Why do I have a National Defense ribbon yet I was never in the first gulf war?Bertster7 wrote:
I am very familliar with the case for war put by Lord Goldsmith and Ambassador Negroponte and it sounds like a strong case until you actually read the text of the resolutions, which I'm guessing you haven't done.
He was given permission to send troops in by the UN. Bush wasn't.
The case for war in 2003 was based mainly on the authorisation of force in resolution 678. But all references to the authorisation of force in 678 are in reference to resolution 660, which is saying Saddam had to get out of Kuwait. If Saddam had invaded Kuwait, the US would have had a legitimate case for war based on the case they made.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-22 06:45:10)
Who gave the UN permission to fuck up the oil for food program? Look, if nobody enforces UN resolutions, then they will never mean shit will they?Bertster7 wrote:
Because Clinton decided to send you over there because Iraq were not complying with UNSCOM inspections. He asked the UN for permission and they voted in favour of action 15-1. That's why.usmarine2007 wrote:
Why was I sent over there to "enforce UN resolutions" in 1998? Why do I have a National Defense ribbon yet I was never in the first gulf war?Bertster7 wrote:
I am very familliar with the case for war put by Lord Goldsmith and Ambassador Negroponte and it sounds like a strong case until you actually read the text of the resolutions, which I'm guessing you haven't done.
He was given permission to send troops in by the UN. Bush wasn't.
You're not enforcing a UN resolution if the UN tell you not to. It's very simple.usmarine2007 wrote:
Who gave the UN permission to fuck up the oil for food program? Look, if nobody enforces UN resolutions, then they will never mean shit will they?Bertster7 wrote:
Because Clinton decided to send you over there because Iraq were not complying with UNSCOM inspections. He asked the UN for permission and they voted in favour of action 15-1. That's why.usmarine2007 wrote:
Why was I sent over there to "enforce UN resolutions" in 1998? Why do I have a National Defense ribbon yet I was never in the first gulf war?
He was given permission to send troops in by the UN. Bush wasn't.
If you can produce a document showing the case for war, I'll be astonished. Because you'll have done better than the enormous legal and spin teams that the US and UK employed in the build up to war (although they seem to have you fooled).
UN did not "tell us to" because they were making money hand over fist in the oil for food program, nor were they enforcing their meaningless resolutions.Bertster7 wrote:
You're not enforcing a UN resolution if the UN tell you not to. It's very simple.usmarine2007 wrote:
Who gave the UN permission to fuck up the oil for food program? Look, if nobody enforces UN resolutions, then they will never mean shit will they?Bertster7 wrote:
Because Clinton decided to send you over there because Iraq were not complying with UNSCOM inspections. He asked the UN for permission and they voted in favour of action 15-1. That's why.
He was given permission to send troops in by the UN. Bush wasn't.
If you can produce a document showing the case for war, I'll be astonished. Because you'll have done better than the enormous legal and spin teams that the US and UK employed in the build up to war (although they seem to have you fooled).
..and guess who the UN has to rely on to enforce its resolutions ? You guessed right, its member states, including the US...usmarine2007 wrote:
Who gave the UN permission to fuck up the oil for food program? Look, if nobody enforces UN resolutions, then they will never mean shit will they?Bertster7 wrote:
Because Clinton decided to send you over there because Iraq were not complying with UNSCOM inspections. He asked the UN for permission and they voted in favour of action 15-1. That's why.usmarine2007 wrote:
Why was I sent over there to "enforce UN resolutions" in 1998? Why do I have a National Defense ribbon yet I was never in the first gulf war?
He was given permission to send troops in by the UN. Bush wasn't.
But if said member states chose to do what suits their national interests instead, that completely defeats the purpose of the UN. See the Irony here ?
Right...ok, send Finland to enforce the Iraq resolutions.B.Schuss wrote:
..and guess who the UN has to rely on to enforce its resolutions ? You guessed right, its member states, including the US...usmarine2007 wrote:
Who gave the UN permission to fuck up the oil for food program? Look, if nobody enforces UN resolutions, then they will never mean shit will they?Bertster7 wrote:
Because Clinton decided to send you over there because Iraq were not complying with UNSCOM inspections. He asked the UN for permission and they voted in favour of action 15-1. That's why.
He was given permission to send troops in by the UN. Bush wasn't.
But if said member states chose to do what suits their national interests instead, that completely defeats the purpose of the UN. See the Irony here ?
Not at all. The member states determine what happens, primarily the security council permanent members. France didn't want the war in Iraq to happen so it was never going to be legal because France would veto any resolution that legalised war in Iraq. Nothing to do with the UN making money.usmarine2007 wrote:
UN did not "tell us to" because they were making money hand over fist in the oil for food program, nor were they enforcing their meaningless resolutions.Bertster7 wrote:
You're not enforcing a UN resolution if the UN tell you not to. It's very simple.usmarine2007 wrote:
Who gave the UN permission to fuck up the oil for food program? Look, if nobody enforces UN resolutions, then they will never mean shit will they?
If you can produce a document showing the case for war, I'll be astonished. Because you'll have done better than the enormous legal and spin teams that the US and UK employed in the build up to war (although they seem to have you fooled).
Of course you can say this is very awkward of France, causing problems and forcing the US into an illegal war. But the US does the same thing on a very regular basis with Israel, except there's no one stupid and beligerent enough to go into Israel to enforce any UN resolutions over there because it could create a massive amount of international fallout.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-22 06:56:36)
How can it be legal if the UN is adding to the problem? France and Russia were selling shit to Iraq, no kidding they find it illegal.
Nothing to do with them finding it illegal. France just prevented it from being made legal.usmarine2007 wrote:
How can it be legal if the UN is adding to the problem? France and Russia were selling shit to Iraq, no kidding they find it illegal.
The security council could have made the war legal. They didn't and the US coalition took unilateral action, which was illegal.
Illegal according to who?Bertster7 wrote:
Nothing to do with them finding it illegal. France just prevented it from being made legal.usmarine2007 wrote:
How can it be legal if the UN is adding to the problem? France and Russia were selling shit to Iraq, no kidding they find it illegal.
The security council could have made the war legal. They didn't and the US coalition took unilateral action, which was illegal.
International law.usmarine2007 wrote:
Illegal according to who?Bertster7 wrote:
Nothing to do with them finding it illegal. France just prevented it from being made legal.usmarine2007 wrote:
How can it be legal if the UN is adding to the problem? France and Russia were selling shit to Iraq, no kidding they find it illegal.
The security council could have made the war legal. They didn't and the US coalition took unilateral action, which was illegal.
So, everyone.
Oh ok.Bertster7 wrote:
International law.usmarine2007 wrote:
Illegal according to who?Bertster7 wrote:
Nothing to do with them finding it illegal. France just prevented it from being made legal.
The security council could have made the war legal. They didn't and the US coalition took unilateral action, which was illegal.
So, everyone.
who wasn't selling shit to Iraq ? Even the US supported Saddam when he was still fighting the "bad" mullahs in Iran.usmarine2007 wrote:
How can it be legal if the UN is adding to the problem? France and Russia were selling shit to Iraq, no kidding they find it illegal.
As I have said, national interests usually outweigh those of the international community, especially when permanent members of the SC are involved. That is why the UN needs serious reform.
THe question is, would any of said nations be willing to give up so much of their national power, even if it were for a greater cause ? I doubt it...
I am aware of that, but that is not what / when I am talking about. I am talking about after 1991.B.Schuss wrote:
who wasn't selling shit to Iraq ? Even the US supported Saddam when he was still fighting the "bad" mullahs in Iran.usmarine2007 wrote:
How can it be legal if the UN is adding to the problem? France and Russia were selling shit to Iraq, no kidding they find it illegal.
You're right about that part.B.Schuss wrote:
well, that obviously depends on wether you accept the UN as a kind of meta-government and grant it authority above your own.
The US simply chose not to, and as unfortunate as that may be, from a legal point of view, there is nothing wrong with that.
Moreover, if I remember correctly, the UN charter specificially acknowledges the right of every nation to defend itself against an unprovoked attack. Of course, an argument can be made that Iraq never posed such a threat to the US, but I guess the US government thought differently.
It's all a matter of interpretation. And as long as the UN is mainly a forum for debate and negotiation, and has no real means to sanction charter or resolution violations by important member states ( such as the permanent members of the security council ), that is not going to change, unfortunately.
EDIT: the UN is long due for reform, but I doubt that the superpowers USA, China, Russia and the other permanent members of the SC would be willing to give up that much of their national power, even if it is for a greater cause.
In the end, national interests almost always outweigh those of the international community, especially when it's about the superpowers...
But although it is merely a forum to debate for all the nations of the world, big and small, it can have the ability to reach far beyond individual actions, e.g. Kuwait 1990-1991.
And when some members say 'FU' to the UN and do as they want to, how can one ask from a smaller nation (e.g. Iraq in the past or Iran atm) to act accordingly?
What the UN needs is (a) to quit the veto rights of some members in the SC, (b) to have a permanent standing army ready to go places when there is a need for.
irony ftw...usmarine2007 wrote:
Right...ok, send Finland to enforce the Iraq resolutions.B.Schuss wrote:
..and guess who the UN has to rely on to enforce its resolutions ? You guessed right, its member states, including the US...usmarine2007 wrote:
Who gave the UN permission to fuck up the oil for food program? Look, if nobody enforces UN resolutions, then they will never mean shit will they?
But if said member states chose to do what suits their national interests instead, that completely defeats the purpose of the UN. See the Irony here ?
seriously, you know very well that without a standing army of its own, the UN will always depend on contributions of the militarily strong nations among its members. Naturally, those will include the US.
You can either decide to give up a little national power for the sake of the greater good ( as determined by the world community, i.e. the UN general assembly, or the SC ) or continue to use the UN when it fits your own goals, and ignore it, when it doesn't.
Personally, I think that you cannot have it both ways.
Then again, I acknowledge that the UN needs serious reform first.
Absolutely.B.Schuss wrote:
Then again, I acknowledge that the UN needs serious reform first.
QFT. But through lobbying for change not through undermining to the point of collapse.Bertster7 wrote:
Absolutely.B.Schuss wrote:
Then again, I acknowledge that the UN needs serious reform first.
Rather topical...usmarine2007 wrote:
It is not the TINY minority that worries, me, it is the majority of muslims who do not speak out against the hateful preachings, or the be headings and kidnappings. But they sure as hell speak out against a cartoon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6286771.stm
Interesting....CameronPoe wrote:
Rather topical...usmarine2007 wrote:
It is not the TINY minority that worries, me, it is the majority of muslims who do not speak out against the hateful preachings, or the be headings and kidnappings. But they sure as hell speak out against a cartoon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6286771.stm
The moderate and tolerant voice of the Iranian Ayatollah. There's a new one.
Another notch on the bedpost for moderate Islam.
It is a completely different situation.iamangry wrote:
You're right, this is the same kind of idle threats that we heard in 1933. All this "death to the west, we need to invade to take your .... "wives and booty"." is what I see to be just the same kind of speech used by Hitler before and after he rose to power. See, the lesson there is that sometimes a minority can command a majority to do stupid things. Stupid things like kill 6 million jews (and some 20 million soviets, which some how don't get museums or monuments or any other shit because they weren't pussies and fought back). I know not all muslims are like this, and I won't say even a majority of muslims are like this... but neither were the Germans. Don't believe me? Look at the recent election in Palestine, where the palestinians (a peaceful people) chose an organization that views the strapping of explosives to children as a "political tool". The point is, it doesn't have to be the majority of a people who believe something before it becomes dangerous, as we have seen it only takes ONE psycho to plunge an entire people into ignorant rage.CameronPoe wrote:
The same kind of thing happened at one mosque in Ireland (we have a very small number of muslims here) - what happened? The congregation walked out in disgust.ATG wrote:
These are things being said in mainstream mosques in England Cameron.
This is the mainstream thinking of Islam.
Why deny the obvious?
Not all muslims think like these weirdos. There are two or three muslims where I work - they don't hold any such ridiculous beliefs. One of them even drinks. This is just typical scaremongering akin to 'the jews are evil' circa 1933. Tarring every muslim with the one brush is not nice, it's actually disgraceful: bordering on racist/'religionist' (much like the fuckers in those video clips).
As well, there cannot be continued comparisons to Hitler. He was one fanatical dictator who disrupted world peace. That does not mean every future potential threat to the West will do the same.
Everyone says the people in the videos don't represent Islam, so a question, where are the counter demonstrators?
That is such a redundant argument. 'They don't speak out therefore they must wholheartedly agree'. Rubbish. I don't often speak out against Palestinian terror attacks targetting civilians, only when I'm drawn to condemn the act by someone else do I actually condemn it - it doesn't mean I fucking agree with terror attacks on civilians. Such a pointless argument.ATG wrote:
Everyone says the people in the videos don't represent Islam, so a question, where are the counter demonstrators?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-22 12:10:10)
There were none. Why should there be? Because the were not needed;ATG wrote:
Everyone says the people in the videos don't represent Islam, so a question, where are the counter demonstrators?
The individuals in the video were dealt by the law.
Everyone knows demonstrations don't count for squat
They are too westernised to give a shit (seriously do you ever bother reading the posts?)
You don't need to be told the people in the video don't represent Islam
Why do we have to keep telling you this^
Do you actually know any Muslims?
Your continued instance that extremism Islam is mainstream thinking is getting boooooring
I could have demonstrated, but i was probably watching the footy or largin' it around Leeds. Sorry.
edit
Blimey, 18 pages and yet they still don't get it
Last edited by m3thod (2007-01-22 12:24:38)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.