Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
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.
|
As a party to the ceasefire, we are allowed to react as we see fit if the other party fails to adhere to the strictures. Again, and for the last time because I can't break through your dogma, that is why it is call a cease-fire, not a peace treaty.
Quote:
|
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.
|
It is my opinion backed up by the UNSC resolutions I have clearly posted over the past week. What have you got other than a 5 year old letter by some "professional lawyers"? Where is the move on the part of any nation or body in the UN to bring us to task for our supposedly illegal action?
Do you see international peace and security?
Quote:
You're not reading that right.
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.
|
The cease-fire was contingent upon Iraq submitting to the terms of the cease-fire. How circular can your arguments get? An eight year old can understand the principle here. The terms of the cease-fire must be met in order for the cease-fire to remain in place.
Again, the terms of the cease-fire must be met in order for the cease-fire to remain in place.
And, three being the magic number, the terms of the cease-fire must be met in order for the cease-fire to remain in place.
Quote:
|
That allows a Naval base, not a detention center.
|
Quote:
|
ARTICLE III While on the one hand the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water, on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the United States of said areas under the terms of this agreement the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas with the right to acquire (under conditions to be hereafter agreed upon by the two Governments) for the public purposes of the United States any land or other property therein by purchase or by exercise of eminent domain with full compensation to the owners thereof.
|
By the way, Gitmo is a naval base. It includes, as do all naval bases, a brig (sometimes known as a detention facility)
Quote:
|
I don't think of there being that type of system on TFP. There are people.
|
You are the one who defended your reasoning through the ignorance of the other members.
Who said Arabs were the only danger to us? The fact remains that the DHS was formed after a bunch of Arabs flew some planes into our buildings, and that there is a continued threat from that region of the world. DHS has apparently done a good job of stopping "Dirty White Boy" terrorism, since there hasn't been any since its inception. Does it not make sence to focus on a known threat?
Quote:
|
So better you kill... (High-horse, arm-chair, REMF morality snipped) It's war, after all.
|
Your damn right it is. What the fuck do you know about it?
Quote:
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.
There is no stability in Iraq. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
|
The words used were "semblence of stability". Can you imagine what the country would be like if we left right now?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Why would I do that? The figures you quoted were 60-750 thousand civilian dead (a ridiculous spread). Lets take a median and say 350 thousand (still inconcievably high). Over 4 years that is approximately 88 thousand a year, well with the limit of what Hussein was doing to his own people.
Besides, it is a moot point. Hindsight is always 20/20. Since you are so fond of Nazis, imagine all the lives that would have been saved if we had not landed in Normandy, and the Russians had stopped at the Polish border?
Quote:
|
International military bases mean the world has been better off for 60 years? Not the people who have been victimized by that.
|
Well ask them how they would be doing if the SOviet Union was in charge of them. Remember, it was our projection of force that
prevented a third major world war in the later half of the twentieth century.
Quote:
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?
|
A good portion of those overseas ballot were military, which would have gone overwhelmingly to Bush. Again, where is the outrage, where are the lawsuits, where is the ACLU working for the re-enfranchisement of these voters? Where is the PROOF?
Quote:
|
No bombings then? No IEDS?
|
Not in our AO.
Quote:
|
I think it's easy to imagine that elections in the US and Iraq might be slightly different.
|
Yeah, the ones described in Rolling Stone seem far more dangerous.
Quote:
|
Oh boy, there's a great argument. "You're crazy, therefore I'm right".
|
The "tin foil hats" was drawn from your own article, or didn't you read all of it?