I still do advocate it, because I don't think he did it. Gaddafi was behind it, but the evidence against him in the trial was shockingly weak and lots of very important bits of evidence were completely left out. The organisation formed by the British families of the victims also supported his release for the same reason.Jay wrote:
Berster, weren't you one of the morons justifying the release of the Lockerbie bomber last year?
looks like a Monday in Iraq circa 2004
and I'm not pissing on the efforts of your militaries troops. Im pissing on hypocrites that do mental gymnastics to justify their position. The same morons that spent years protesting the Iraq war are now cool with intervention.Shocking wrote:
If anything I feel this is a war for public opinion, it's an opportunity to improve relations with the rest of the ME, handed to us on a silver platter.
On the other hand, if we didn't, it would worsen - and subsequently have an effect on the progress we're trying to make in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Last edited by Jay (2011-03-19 13:46:21)
It's pretty simple, Iraq no international consensus, action not intiated by Iraqis - whereas in Libya there is international consensus and the revolution has been initiated by the Libyans themselves and they are being provided with support.Jay wrote:
and I'm not pissing on the efforts of your militaries troops. Im pissing on hypocrites that do mental gymnastics to justify their position. The same morons that spent years protesting the Iraq war are now cool with intervention.Shocking wrote:
If anything I feel this is a war for public opinion, it's an opportunity to improve relations with the rest of the ME, handed to us on a silver platter.
On the other hand, if we didn't, it would worsen - and subsequently have an effect on the progress we're trying to make in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-03-19 13:52:09)
There's no difference apart from superficial ones. You're a hypocrite.Bertster7 wrote:
It's pretty simple, Iraq no international consensus, action not intiated by Iraqis - whereas in Libya there is international consensus and the revolution has been initiated by the Libyans themselves and they are being provided with support.Jay wrote:
and I'm not pissing on the efforts of your militaries troops. Im pissing on hypocrites that do mental gymnastics to justify their position. The same morons that spent years protesting the Iraq war are now cool with intervention.Shocking wrote:
If anything I feel this is a war for public opinion, it's an opportunity to improve relations with the rest of the ME, handed to us on a silver platter.
On the other hand, if we didn't, it would worsen - and subsequently have an effect on the progress we're trying to make in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Are those differences not clear and distinct enough for you? Do you not get the difference?
I don't dispute Saddam was a cunt and that removing him was a positive, but the process was all wrong.Shocking wrote:
Bertster, Saddam HAD to go. You can complain all you want about the timing of the invasion, but it sure as hell wasn't without reason.
There are huge differences. Hence the diplomatic shitstorm surrounding Iraq and the complete lack of any opposition to this response.Jay wrote:
There's no difference apart from superficial ones. You're a hypocrite.Bertster7 wrote:
It's pretty simple, Iraq no international consensus, action not intiated by Iraqis - whereas in Libya there is international consensus and the revolution has been initiated by the Libyans themselves and they are being provided with support.Jay wrote:
and I'm not pissing on the efforts of your militaries troops. Im pissing on hypocrites that do mental gymnastics to justify their position. The same morons that spent years protesting the Iraq war are now cool with intervention.
Are those differences not clear and distinct enough for you? Do you not get the difference?
oh yeah? Both actions came with security council endorsement. The only difference is we now have a liberal president so you dickwads cant scream about imperialism.Bertster7 wrote:
There are huge differences. Hence the diplomatic shitstorm surrounding Iraq and the complete lack of any opposition to this response.Jay wrote:
There's no difference apart from superficial ones. You're a hypocrite.Bertster7 wrote:
It's pretty simple, Iraq no international consensus, action not intiated by Iraqis - whereas in Libya there is international consensus and the revolution has been initiated by the Libyans themselves and they are being provided with support.
Are those differences not clear and distinct enough for you? Do you not get the difference?
If you can't see the clear differences, then you clearly have no grasp of how international diplomacy works.
No they didn't. There was no specific authorisation for using force in Iraq from the security council.Jay wrote:
oh yeah? Both actions came with security council endorsement. The only difference is we now have a liberal president so you dickwads cant scream about imperialism.Bertster7 wrote:
There are huge differences. Hence the diplomatic shitstorm surrounding Iraq and the complete lack of any opposition to this response.Jay wrote:
There's no difference apart from superficial ones. You're a hypocrite.
If you can't see the clear differences, then you clearly have no grasp of how international diplomacy works.
Last edited by menzo (2011-03-19 14:02:40)
Remember the colin powell presentation in front of the UN? (almost) Full support.Bertster7 wrote:
No they didn't. There was no specific authorisation for using force in Iraq from the security council.
If ground troops go in to Libya, that would be in breach of this resolution and I would certainly oppose that, unless they get another resolution first.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-19 14:03:10)
Is your brain getting tired yet?Bertster7 wrote:
No they didn't. There was no specific authorisation for using force in Iraq from the security council.Jay wrote:
oh yeah? Both actions came with security council endorsement. The only difference is we now have a liberal president so you dickwads cant scream about imperialism.Bertster7 wrote:
There are huge differences. Hence the diplomatic shitstorm surrounding Iraq and the complete lack of any opposition to this response.
If you can't see the clear differences, then you clearly have no grasp of how international diplomacy works.
If ground troops go in to Libya, that would be in breach of this resolution and I would certainly oppose that, unless they get another resolution first.
Full support for condemnation of Saddam.Shocking wrote:
Remember the colin powell presentation in front of the UN? (almost) Full support.Bertster7 wrote:
No they didn't. There was no specific authorisation for using force in Iraq from the security council.
If ground troops go in to Libya, that would be in breach of this resolution and I would certainly oppose that, unless they get another resolution first.
Of course it's BS. Just like the claims that they are honouring the ceasefire or that the revolution is due to hallucinogenic drugs in yoghurt....menzo wrote:
twitter
Libyan state television reports French aircraft has been shot down over Libya. No independent confirmation of this claim yet.
i call BS
Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-03-19 14:35:06)
Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-19 14:14:33)
Security council resolution against that was hardly likely was it?Shocking wrote:
What about the russian invasion of Georgia? The UN didn't approve.
Which is funny by the way because the UN doesn't really approve of anything that doesn't serve western interests
I didn't support it. I condemned it.Shocking wrote:
Then if you supported the invasion of Georgia by the russians although they had no UN backing, why do you make it a point that a security council resolution should have been required for Iraq?
Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-19 14:28:32)