Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Well, thats not how a ceasefire works, any ceasefire, and waving a wand and making vague statements about bureaucracy won't change that. If the previuos agreement was over once it had taken effect, then why were there specific terms attached to it for the continuation? This is a ceasefire:
|
It's still under the authority of the UN, and thus the UN must make the determination as to a response when they feel one is necessary. They broke the cease fire. We broke the cease fire. The UN gets to say whether an invasion is necessary, not the US.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
The only relevent part of your 5 year old letter is the following:
Which offers no legal basis for the position, only an issue of public perception. If the US had not gone to the UN in 2002 you would have no argument at all in this case. Again, (and I don't think you are interested in changing your mind, but I'll try nonetheless) 678 allowed us to fight Iraq, 687 temporarilly lifted that authority, then 1441 reinstated that authority by affirming the Iraq was in material breach of 687.
|
That's your interpretation, and you've not proven that the move was a PR move. It doesn't even make sense that they'd try to do it, because it was clear that it would not pass. If the US wanted good PR in the situation, they would have wanted something to pass.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
It looks something like this:
|
Do you see international peace and security?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Honestly a good case could be made that the ceasefire was never truely in effect, since Iraq never complied fully with the terms of 687. But just in case you feel it was:
|
You're not reading that right.
Quote:
|
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);
|
Read this language carefully. You seem to be reading it as 'contingent on the continuing adherence to the above provisions, a formal cease fire will be effective.'
That's not what it says. Iraq accepted the provisions then and there was a cease fire. Since then the ceasefire was broken a few times and kicked out inspectors (which is a result of being immature, not guilty), but other than that, they have no chemical or biological weapons, long range ballistic weapons, and do not have nuclear capabilities.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Cuban-American Treaty of 1903
|
That allows a Naval base, not a detention center.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Proletariat.
|
I don't think of there being that type of system on TFP. There are people.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
True, but the ones we are concerned with at present tend to be muslim males, and generally of arabic descent. But I guess out of fairness we should give equal time to 80year old black grandmothers, right? Again, the guidline given out by the Stasi, oops, Homeland Security have been quashed. It is now up to the discretion of the individual officer to pay more attention to the shifty guy with the coat on in summer.
|
Tim McVeigh
Unibomber
Bobby Frank Cherry
Samuel Bowers
Samuel Byck
Robert Edward "Dynamite Bob" Chambliss
People who resort to the guerilla tactic of terrorism come in all shapes, sizes and colors. To think that only Arabs are a danger to us is stupid, and the Office of Homeland Security is stupid.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Hell, I've shot at unarmed cars. The thing is that when they are accelerating toward your checkpoint at night it is pretty fucking hard to tell if they are unarmed or not. I suppose the proper thing to do is wait to see if they are going to blow us limb from limb, and once they do then return fire?
|
So better you kill an unarmed civilian than you risk them not being civilian. That sounds like a great defensive strategy, but it's morally bankrupt. Collateral damage is another way of saying 'we don't care enough to not kill civilians'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
And as for murder, how dare you suggest that the US is responsible for that hienous act. It is war, and people get killed in war. Our military is the most careful in the world regarding civilian casualties. Mistakes happen, but every attempt is made to minimize civilian deaths. It is a major portion of the planning process for any mission.
|
What do you mean suggest? Many US soldiers in Iraq are guilty of murder. It entirely possible that you yourself are guilty of willfully killing an innocent person in that unarmed car. This shouldn't shock you. It's war, after all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Now you could point your finger at the savage thugs who are cutting off heads and murdering upwards of a 100 people a day in Bagdad as part of a bloody sectarian civil war, but I suppose that is the US's fault as well, isn't it? If we had put our boot on the peoples throat like Saddam had they wouldn't be fighting now, would they?
|
We sparked the sectarian war by creating a power vacuum. It doesn't take any responsibility from those doing the head cutting, but we get some of the blame for creating the instability, of course. They weren't doing that under Saddam.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
You need to wake up to the realities of Iraq. The only semblence of stability in that country at all is the American and British presence there.
|
There is no stability in Iraq. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Except for two new cabinet positions...  |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
No he was killing an equal amount of people to prevent a civil war. Perhaps if we started strapping explosives to people or throwing them off bridges things would calm down, huh?
|
Oh boy, I dare you to explain to me how you cane to the conclusion that under Saddam, the death toll was over 100,000 a year. I double dare you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
ROTFLMAO, and you had the gall to call my argument a strawman...
|
International military bases mean the world has been better off for 60 years? Not the people who have been victimized by that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
You'll have to ask the British about DG, will. They are the ones who closed the plantations there.
|
Of course they were, and now the US and the UK are fighting their right to return.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Well, as interesting as Mr. Kennedys article is, it doesn't offer any substantial proof. He uses statistical chicanery to throw doubt on the process nation wide, then talks about GOP intimidation through the use of "goon squads" and even law enforcement agencies. The only part of it I can't figure is why niether I nor any of my aquaintences observed any of this in our experience at the polls.
|
Because you and your acquaintances were at the only polls in the US?
It's amazing how you read the whole article and the only thing you can mention is voter intimidation. What about the overseas ballots? What about the shredding of registrations? What about malfunctioning machines? What about 357,000 mostly Democratic voters in Ohio not being able to vote?
As for 'no substantial proof', he cited his work. That's more than most people on TFP can do.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
I supervised they first two democratic elections in Iraq. I know what intimidation and ballot stuffing looks like. I didn't see anything in Iraq that even comes close to the lawlessness described in the Rolling Stone article. If this is the case, wouldn't someone have spoken up? Wouldn't Kerry have had the guts to pursue a legal challenge in Ohio? If you truly believe it, why isn't there a rifle in your hands as you storm Capitol Hill?
|
No bombings then? No IEDS? I think it's easy to imagine that elections in the US and Iraq might be slightly different.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Tin foil hats? Indeed.
|
Oh boy, there's a great argument. "You're crazy, therefore I'm right".