Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The resolutions previously referenced have nothing whatsoever to do with Iraqs treatment of the Kurds. The only two SC resolutions passed in 1992 were 773 and 778, niether of which have anything to do with the Kurds. As I stated before, any attempt to push a resolution through the SC prior to the invasion of Iraq was done for PR purposes only, the legal justification already existed, it was only the moral justification we lacked (and still do).
|
Desert Storm was about protecting the Kurds. What was the title of resolution 773? It was
UN Security Council resolution 773 on Iraq-Kuwait boundary. Nothing to do with the Iraqis and the Kurds? As for Resolution 778: we broke it. 778 required a machanism for providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi population. Instead there were embargoes and over a million Iraqi children died.
So there you go. We had no legal right to invade Iraq.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
And how would that have happened? Perhaps you need to re-familiarize yourself with the UN charter, but the only body within the UN that can pass binding resolutions is the Security Council, and since the US is one of the five permanent members with veto power, it is very unlikely they would approve of themselves being removed from the council.
|
Simple. The US can be removed from the Security Council by the General Assembly, then the Security Council can call on recommend to the General Assembly that the US be expelled for repeatedly violating the principles in the Charter. The General Assembly votes again, and we go home.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Again, the Kurdish issue was not dealt with by the UN in any of these resolutions. There is a very good reason that all of the resolutions from 660 to 1557 are titled "The situation between Iraq and Kuwait ". This is not a coincidence. The UN understands that the entire chain of events is linked to the invasion of Kuwait and Iraqs failure to abide by UNSC resolutions. Resolution 687 stated that inspectors would be given free and unfettered access to all sites they deemed worthy of inspection. They never, NEVER recieved that access, so to casually state that they never found anything is sheer hypocracy, especially if your argument is founded on the (erronious) premise that the US is guilty of violating the UN charter.
|
AGAIN, the UN has to vote for any action, and the action of Desert Storm is over. That was an action, this would be another action, and this action would need a vote from the Security Council. It doesn't matter if you think the matter is still open. It doesn't even matter if they never complied. I hope that's clear. Even if you're right, EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT, and the matter is still 100% open we still can't rush in their without the Security Council vote. That's just how it works.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
First off, the statement by Gonzales is just that, a statement. It is not policy, and would not withstand judicial review if it were.
|
Like torture? Yeah, I wish Gonzales didn't have the power that he does...but he does.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Second, the MCA does not refer to aliens as whole, but those specifically detained as enemy combatants. This too has been overturned via judical review.
|
So there aren't any 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo anymore? You'd think that would be all over the news.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
So how does this compare, in even the most remote way to:
And JFK used the same fear and hysteria of communism to justify the troop increase in Vietnam in the early Sixties. Is he a Nazi as well?
|
He used tactics similar to the Nazi Party. And it's not a sin to admit that. I think JFK was a stand up guy most of the time, but he made big mistakes and not holding people in power's feet to the fire is stupid and a great way to end up losing our freedom. And there's no sin in explaining that tactics—be they legal, propagandistic, military, etc.—are similar or the same as those used by the Nazi party. It helps to put the worst outcome of those tactics in perspective.
Maybe I should put it this way. I'm similar to the Nazis because I love cheap and efficient cars. It's a Godwin, sure, but it's correct and shouldn't be shot down just because it has the word Nazi in it. Next thing you know, you won't be able to name any negative figure or organization in history in an argument because it will be dishonoring someone or something. My arguments are 100% reasonable, even when I cite the Nazis.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
I think you are far too quick to jump on the Nazi bandwagon, will. Throughout history there have been poor leaders who put thier nations to war for poor reasons and use hysteria as thier proschema. None of them, with the possible exception of Stalin and Tamerlane have risen to the the level of moral apathy (or outright evil) that the Nazis have, and to use them as a benchmark to measure the United States shows a carelessness in your reason, or worse, a agenda in your argument.
|
See this is why it's so difficult to discuss things like this. Go to all my posts and tell me where I put our actions on the same level on the whole as Nazi Germany. Cant' find anything? That's because I never said that. If I were to say, "My Mitsubishi Eclipse has a turbo. The Porsche 911 turbo has a turbo.", am I saying my car is as fast as a Porsche? Of course not. I'm comparing similarities, that's all.
Debaser, you're hardly the first to run screaming when I mention the Nazis in a comparison, but I know you're damn smart and that you can see the different between what I'm saying—our government is using similar tactics as the Nazis— and what you're presuming I'm saying—we're as bad as the Nazis or are operating at the same level as them.