Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
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.
|
The Kurds had exactly nothing to do with Desert Storm. Where did you get that? Source? Please?
EDIT - We complied with the exact letter of the law concerning SC 773. The failure was on the part of the UN to properly administer the account.
Quote:
|
So there you go. We had no legal right to invade Iraq.
|
Again, source?
Quote:
|
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.
|
The GA cannot remove permenant members of the SC.
Quote:
|
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.
|
No, it's not. Put some sources behind your assertions. I have shown you again and again in the past few posts where it is specifically in UN resolutions that we are justified legally in our actions. Show me something to the contrary.
Quote:
|
Like torture? Yeah, I wish Gonzales didn't have the power that he does...but he does.
|
The Attorney General had nothing to do with the unfortunate and illegal memorandums by the SecDef. They also have since been quashed by the rule of law.
Quote:
|
So there aren't any 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo anymore? You'd think that would be all over the news.
|
Hmmmmm...
I hate to seem glib, but here are a few for starters:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2914735.shtml
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070612/...y_combatant_30
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19172214/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/11/te...ion=cnn_latest
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070611/2/13q17.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...okillamericans
http://abcnews.go.com/ad/travelintro...s0312?ROS=true
http://www.star-telegram.com/nationa...ry/133211.html
Quote:
|
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.
|
Them why not compare them to Athenian tactics, or Zulu tactics, or Sioux tactics? Nazi is a loaded, yet very powerful word. To use it as you did then explain it away above and below smacks of sophistry, and we can't have that.
Quote:
|
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.
|
But as we have explored reasonable doesn't mean right. I breath air like a Nazi, but to say so is ridiculous. Isn't it?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Ahem:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
...the situation is so bad it can be compared to the Nazis.
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
And I'm saying that comparisons to Nazi Germany are so overused to have made them pointless. The Third Reich was an autocratic, genocidal, expansionist regime that threatened the very existence of democracy on the planet. That is the defining aspect of it, and when you compare another regime to it that is what first enters the minds of your audience. They are not thinking of fuel efficient cars or the risks of smoking.
If I compare the NAACP to the Klu Klux Klan, do you assume off the bat that I am talking about the fact that both organisations offer scholarships? I think not...