0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 02:29 pm
steve

Thanks for the Blix link. I'm a fan of the Swede, but he was a bit slow on the epiphany here.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 02:31 pm
"It's a shame you usually only have discussions with people you disagree with"

not meaning to ignore anyone oe

I just look on it as my mission in life to explain to those who disagree. The ones that agree are of course intelligent enlightened civilised and in every way perfect just like me Smile
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 02:31 pm
old europe wrote:
See: the parties were Iraq and the UN. The UN perceived no violation which would have resulted in a mandate to invade Iraq.

The UN saw violations, but, yes, the UN did not decide to mandate an invasion as a consequence of those violations. The UN said Iraq may or may not possess ready-to-use WMD, but Iraq must prove it doesn't possess such.

But the AQ, who had previously declared war against the US, attacked the US, but did not do so using WMD. So in self-defense the US declared war against and went to war against the AQ and two governments (i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq) permitting the AQ sanctuary, but did not do so using WMD either. The US's treaty with the UN does not prohibit that action by the US, nor does it prohibit any other nation from joining with the US and helping the US to do the same.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 02:35 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
"It's a shame you usually only have discussions with people you disagree with"

not meaning to ignore anyone oe

I just look on it as my mission in life to explain to those who disagree. The ones that agree are of course intelligent enlightened civilised and in every way perfect just like me Smile



oops, not meaning 'you' like in 'you', but 'you' like in 'one'... My poor knowledge of the English language. Again.

But I've been following your campaign to enlighten those who are still in the dark, especially re 'war for oil', with the utmost interest! Thanks for all the links, indeed.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 02:37 pm
Blix was a bit slow. But even I have to admit that its taken a while for the penny to drop.

But now when you look back over the period going back as far as the iran iraq war, I have to ask myself how could I be so stupid?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 02:43 pm
ican711nm wrote:
So in self-defense the US declared war against and went to war against the AQ and two governments (i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq)


Actually, that's not quite true. Not since WWII have the US declared war against a nation/government/country.

Neither was it in self-defense. The word 'preemption' has been used a lot, but closer to the truth would be the word 'prevention'.

Little bit loose on terminology, ican?


ican711nm wrote:
The US's treaty with the UN does not prohibit that action by the US, nor does it prohibit any other nation from joining with the US and helping the US to do the same.


... nor did it specifically prohibit Iraq from invading Kuwait. That doesn't mean that it was legal.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 02:49 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
...But now when you look back over the period going back as far as the iran iraq war, I have to ask myself how could I be so stupid?

I gather you are now convinced the US invaded Iraq to protect the US's oil supply. How do you think Saddam's regime threatened our oil supply? How do you think our invasion of Iraq did/does remove that threat?

Hans Blix never answered those questions. Maybe you can.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 02:49 pm
thanks oe
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 03:05 pm
Ican wrote

"I gather you are now convinced the US invaded Iraq to protect the US's oil supply. How do you think Saddam's regime threatened our oil supply? How do you think our invasion of Iraq did/does remove that threat?"

well thats a reasonable challenge Ican thanks

first this is a short reply as i'm tired and just drunk a bottle of red wine

second it wasn't particularly saddam that threatened us oil but geology. That is oil is getting harder to find and harder to extract. But in that area known as Iraq there is a lot of oil, the most un depleted reserves in the middle east, and Iraq was a natural base for American power projection in the vital oil producing region. With intermediate missiles Saddam could have (underline conditional tense) threatened allt eh oil assets in the area incuding the new oil littoral states of the caspian. None opec oil is already at or past peak. Something like 70% of the world oil comes from the eclipse area from western siberia to the tip of Saudi Arabia. Nuclear armed Iraq would threaten it all.

The US imports nearly 60% of its daily oil needs. It makes perfect sense to take control of those areas which have oil and which will become increasingly important for oil supply in future as we pass peak. Ultimately there has to be a move away from the cheap oil economy. But in the mean time the USUK are going to ensure that the transition is as painless as possible.

good night have to get cat out of house.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 03:34 pm
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
So in self-defense the US declared war against and went to war against the AQ and two governments (i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq)


Actually, that's not quite true. Not since WWII have the US declared war against a nation/government/country.
The US Congress authorized the US to go to war against Iraq if and when the President decided that would be necessary for the US to adequately defend itself. The President decided that was necessary. Thereby, the Congress declared war against Iraq, when the President declared war against Iraq.

Neither was it in self-defense. The word 'preemption' has been used a lot, but closer to the truth would be the word 'prevention'.
Surely, you jest! When you are attempting to prevent another from harming you or harming you more, you are defending yourself. When you have been harmed by someone who has threatened to harm you more, you pre-emptively defend yourself when you take action to prevent that threat from becoming a reality.

Little bit loose on terminology, ican?
Smile Yes you are! But I forgive you since you have declared that English is your second language.


ican711nm wrote:
The US's treaty with the UN does not prohibit that action by the US, nor does it prohibit any other nation from joining with the US and helping the US to do the same.


... nor did it specifically prohibit Iraq from invading Kuwait. That doesn't mean that it was legal.
Yes it did prohibit Iraq from invading Kuwait. The UN Charter does prohibit a member state or states from invading another state except in self-defense. The UN did/does in fact specifically prohibit Iraq from invading Kuwait in other than self-defense. Kuwait neither threatened to attack nor did attack Iraq. Therefore, Iraq did not attack Kuwait in self-defense. Iraq, like the US and Kuwait, is a member of the UN. Therefore, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was illegal.

The US among other states joined with Kuwait in attacking Iraq to help Kuwait defend itself.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 03:41 pm
ican711nm wrote:
The UN Charter does prohibit a member state or states from invading another except in self-defense. The UN did/does in fact specifically prohibit Iraq from invading Kuwait in other than self-defense. Kuwait neither threatened to attack nor did attack Iraq. Therefore, Iraq did not attack Kuwait in self-defense. Iraq like the US is a member of the UN. Therefore, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was illegal.


So when, ican, did Iraq attack the US?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 04:09 pm
old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
The UN Charter does prohibit a member state or states from invading another except in self-defense. The UN did/does in fact specifically prohibit Iraq from invading Kuwait in other than self-defense. Kuwait neither threatened to attack nor did attack Iraq. Therefore, Iraq did not attack Kuwait in self-defense. Iraq, like the US and Kuwait, is a member of the UN. Therefore, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was illegal.


So when, ican, did Iraq attack the US?

Iraq attacked the US by permitting AQ sanctuary in Iraq and not attempting to extradite the leadership of that AQ sanctuary when the US requested Iraq to do so.

When a State A knowingly permits sanctuary to those who have both murdered residents of another State B and have threatened to murder more of State B's residents, State A becomes a co-perpetrator of any future murders currently threatened by those murderers.

Under these circumstances, State B has a right to defend itself by attacking State A in pre-emptive self-defense in order to prevent the future murder of more of its residents.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 04:12 pm
In other words: Iraq never attacked the US.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 04:24 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Under these circumstances, State B has a right to defend itself by attacking State A in pre-emptive self-defense in order to prevent the future murder of more of its residents.


I hope you don't die one day from somebody applying the law of pre-emptive self-defense to your person, ican.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 04:27 pm
old europe wrote:
In other words: Iraq never attacked the US.


Iraq never attacked the US.

Afghanistan never attacked the US.


Iraq as a co-perpetrator did threaten to attack the US.

Afghanistan as a co-perpetrator did threaten to attack the US.


The US invaded Iraq.

The US invaded Afghanistan.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 04:32 pm
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Under these circumstances, State B has a right to defend itself by attacking State A in pre-emptive self-defense in order to prevent the future murder of more of its residents.


I hope you don't die one day from somebody applying the law of pre-emptive self-defense to your person, ican.


Why do you hope that?

If I actually were to knowingly permit sanctuary to murderers of others who threaten to murder still more others, I would deserve to die from application of that law.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 04:37 pm
Oliver North...I dreamed of him last night. I awoke in a sweat, excited. He'd shaved his chest and was wearing old fashioned fifties-style women's floral panties. I'm going to bed early tonight to see if we have something more than just a one-night, broom closet leather and belt bottomboy ballet.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 04:45 pm
blatham wrote:
Oliver North...I dreamed of him last night. I awoke in a sweat, excited. He'd shaved his chest and was wearing old fashioned fifties-style women's floral panties. I'm going to bed early tonight to see if we have something more than just a one-night, broom closet leather and belt bottomboy ballet.
Laughing

Don't forget your signature, Foxfyre's: "Conservatives understand that there can be a difference between a lie and an untruth".
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 06:08 pm
blatham wrote:
Oliver North...I dreamed of him last night. I awoke in a sweat, excited. He'd shaved his chest and was wearing old fashioned fifties-style women's floral panties. I'm going to bed early tonight to see if we have something more than just a one-night, broom closet leather and belt bottomboy ballet.


Careful there. The 1967 middleweight boxing finals at the Naval Academy were fought between James Webb and Ollie North. Ollie won by a knockout.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 06:15 pm
Official: Probe of Italian Agent's Death Expected to Clear GIs

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154560,00.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 11:44:02