Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
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.
|
As we see fit? I hope you're joking. So if we had decided a proper response to unconfirmed Iraqi fire on American jets was a tactical nuclear strike, we would have been excused because they broke the ceasefire?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
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?
|
I don't need that link to know that you've misinterpreted the way the UN works. As to no one stopping us, 1) we're the most powerful country in the world, and we're in a bad mood and 2) we hold veto power on the Security Council. They're stuck.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Do you see international peace and security?
|
I've not lived in a time with international peace and security, but it's much worse since the invasion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
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.
|
The ceasefire was a one time thing. There was a ceasefire. It was broken later, but there was one. It was that momentary peace that ended the whole situation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
By the way, Gitmo is a naval base. It includes, as do all naval bases, a brig (sometimes known as a detention facility)
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
You are the one who defended your reasoning through the ignorance of the other members.
|
Ignorance is a relative term. I'm ignorant to a hell of a lot, and when people like Roachboy or Host are able to dumb down their posts a bit, I appreciate it because it's easier to understand.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
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?
|
DHS is only a few years old, and no known acts of terrorism, Arab or White, have been reported in the US in those short years. As for known threats, we have no idea who all wants to kill us. We may be a few years away from terrorism coming from South America, for example, but no one is pulling ovr Salvadorans for conspiracy to blow up JFK Airport.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Your damn right it is. What the fuck do you know about it?
|
What do I know about what? Morality? I know that killing on cold blood is wrong, and that collateral damage is another way of saying 'we don't give a shit about civis, we only care about killing the people we think are bad'. I remember when killing civilians was considered something to be concerned about. Now it's just considered to be a 'reality' of war. I call BS on that idea. These civilians who are dying were persecuted under Saddam, only to find that their liberators don';t really care if they are accidentally (or even intentionally) killed. The only time that their feet ar held to the fire is in cases of rape that can be proven.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
The words used were "semblence of stability". Can you imagine what the country would be like if we left right now?
|
The same. There would be a civil war. The only difference would be that the responsibility would lie with the Iraqi security forces instead of the US led coalition. I doubt we'd see a rise in moralities.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
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.
|
Link? Maybe you can explain to m where you get the idea that Saddam was killing 88,000 people per year.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
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?
|
My sight was just fine back in 2002. I said the war was bullshit and the idea that we'd be greeted as liberators was insulting. I wasn't alone, either. If you go back to 2002-2003 on TFP, you can see many members who have been around here for longer than I also were calling bullshit long before the Invasion went downhill. It was a massively stupid idea.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
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.
|
It was mutual, and mutually destructive. We prevented them from taking over and they prevented us from taking over. In that struggle for supremacy, we saw many lives lost and wars started. Why do you think the US Military has a base on Diego Garcia? It was established during the cold war because it was so close to the Soviet Union.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
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?
|
Not in 2004. In 2000, many were Bush votes, but not 2004.
The outrage is right here, but the ignorance is what prevents the lawsuits and such. The ACLU is working with the disenfranchisement of the voters, and they did so for both the 2000 and 2004 elections. The proof is in the citations, just as I said.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
The "tin foil hats" was drawn from your own article, or didn't you read all of it?
|
Of course. The way in which you used it was an attempt to turn it around. I wasn't making the arguments that those who don't believe the election was stolen are nuts, that was the article, and I don't believe in ad hominem arguments.
This is exhausting. Here's the deal:
The US didn't invade Iraq because they broke the ceasefire. We bombed them in the 90s when they broke the ceasefire, as a function of necessary means. We invaded because of Bushco pushing bad intel on Iraq having biological, chemical, and even nuclear weapons, which would have been a breach of the UN resolutions. The obvious problem with this was, of course, that they had not acquired or produced any weapons of this kind, and were not even looking to acquire them. Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside his boundaries, and even his strength inside his borders was waning. I read articles in the late 90s about how Iraq was headed towards revolution, which would have been a healthier and certainly more efficient way to topple Saddam's regime. We acted in response to nothing, and it's because of that we are in error. "All necessary means", quoted from UN resolution 678, does not excuse excessive force, which was clearly the case in the invasion and subsequent occupation. We, the US, said no more to the weapons inspectors, favoring the invasion tactic. Please note that the weapons inspectors said, repeatedly, that there was no evidence of the weapons.