Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Neocons NOW Love International Law

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby Cochise » Wed 13 Aug 2008, 22:16:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', ' ')Musch easier to keep perched upon the tall rock of ignorance then look beyond the horizon.


You are totally right... so when are you starting to get your head out of your ass?
User avatar
Cochise
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri 13 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Location: LA

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby Specop_007 » Wed 13 Aug 2008, 22:20:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cochise', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', ' ')Musch easier to keep perched upon the tall rock of ignorance then look beyond the horizon.


You are totally right... so when are you starting to get your head out of your ass?


Sadly you have provided nothing but opinion. I gave you facts. Look up the Sanctions. look at the timeline.

What do you have to offer other then "Yeah, jeez what does he know. We sure told him". As far as your concerned, the world didnt exist before 2001 or so. Obviously its difficult to debate something when you flat out IGNORE anything that doesnt fit your narrow little view.

:roll:
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby Specop_007 » Wed 13 Aug 2008, 22:31:38

Violations of UN Sanctions

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123

What a Difference Four Years Makes
Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now



"The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them."

-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98


"To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago."

--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02




"The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning"

--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98


"As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago."

--Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02




"The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes."

--AP, 12/16/98


"Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998."

--AP, 9/7/02




"Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq."

--Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98


"It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make weapons."

--Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02




"The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes."

--Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98


"If he has secret weapons, he's had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them."

--Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02




"This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain."

--Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98


"What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out."

--John King, CNN, 8/18/02




"Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council."

--USA Today, 12/17/98


"Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies."

--USA Today, 9/4/02




"But the most recent irritant was Mr. Butler's quick withdrawal from Iraq on Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the American representative to the United Nations, and a discussion with Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh."

--New York Times, 12/18/98


"America's goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons.... To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms inspectors four years ago."

--New York Times editorial, 8/3/02




"Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night--at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report."

--Washington Post, 12/18/98


"Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons."

--Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02




"Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq's prohibited weapons of mass destruction."

-- Newsday, 12/17/98


"The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors' work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That's disingenuous."

--Newsday editorial, 8/14/02
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby americandream » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 03:29:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('basil_hayden', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '
')
Oh spare me the bullshit you dumbass. America and it's mothercountry the UK want IT ALL. The Russkies clearly have had enough of giving ass and are taking a last stand. Last stand I say, cos I don't reckon Putin has the balls to stand up to the cabal of Anglo Saxon gangsters running the world. Nor do the Chinese...bloody next to useless those buggers. Muslim terrorists...so fukkin stupidly moronic, it's blimmin tragic.

Has anyone got the balls to stand up tp the Pommie bluebloods and their poodles in America...NIET. The only way these buggers are gonna be given the boot is when the atmosphere starts to cook the lot of you like frogs. As I've said before, that aint gonna happen soon. I'ld give it 50 years.


Such a compelling argument.....

You DO realize we barely knew Georgia existed until all this hoo-ray happened.

But I dont want to ruin your fantasy of hating America.


Thats cos you an inconspicuous worker bee you fool. What does it matter what you want! You're nothing but cannon fodder, to be duped and controlled for the glory and wealth of an old established class of privilege, infinitely smarter than you.

What does it really matter what YOU want. What does it matter that you are from America? Do the elite bluebloods really care other than to ensure you are well fed enough and kept suitably stupified to gratefully fight their wars.

Duh! Frankly, fools like you are a genetic failure in the species.


Aren't you a daytrader or something? Talk about useless DSEs as Cashmere would put it...


Knowing what I do about capitalism do you honestly think I would seek a job (just over broke). Hahahahaha! You're funny.

Let me get a few facts right though. I admire the old British elite. They have conned the commons big time. How can you not admire a group who have enjoy unparalled power for over one thousand years and are the undiputed owners of the world. No consipracy sunny boy. They own the media, our countries, our armies and our minds. They have no need to conspire. They have no competition worth mentioning.

But all this 911 conspiracy stuff. Nah! Bollix. If the muslims are stupid enough to do their work, hey, whose to blame them. Putin might as well piss in the wind if he thinks he has a hope in hell of unseating thse smart boys. Climate catastrophe and resource depletion are the only ways these boys are going to be shifted. By then, it'll all be too late.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby americandream » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 03:33:33

Specop is such a naive but endearingly loyal soul. Yes specop, it's all about protecting Merika....lol!
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby sparky » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 04:44:42

.

From the " Stars and Stripes " unimpeachably patriotic pages

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?sect ... icle=56723

the way I see it



The present U.S. administration claim that the Georgian attack at midnight 07/ 08 took them by surprise , so did the Russian 58th army reaction , twelve hours later

considering the july trip to Georgia by condoleeza Rice , Standing firmly with the Georgian president and abusing Russia .
the presence of about 140 U.S. advisers and the presence during july August of
2000 U.S. armed forces personnel for operation " immediate response 2008 ".
Some warnings must have been given

If the present administration speak the truth ,
U.S. intelligence agencies and U.S. diplomatic services are responsible for gross incompetence ( again )
That the job of Intel to give some clues as to what is going to happen 24 hours in advance .
the billions of dollars spend on those agencies is an obscene waste of taxpayer money
They couldn't make a call sitting in a friendly country about what was going to happen next door and couldn't make a call on a couple of Russian divisions a few miles away

American patriots .. prepare the defence your country ... read financial papers !

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/624c5186-64e0 ... ck_check=1

.
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby Specop_007 » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 08:23:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'S')pecop is such a naive but endearingly loyal soul. Yes specop, it's all about protecting Merika....lol!


If you had as many facts as you had useless hot air......

Still waiting for SOMETHING besides "blah blah blah" personal attacks.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby drgoodword » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 10:03:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'T')hen you will see the Iraqi war, while bullshit, is indeed "legal".

And remember, I'm not condoning the Iraqi war, nor the Bush administration. I will admit to defending them as what they have done, technically, is NOT illegal. Questionable? Yes. Underhanded? Perhaps. Necessary? Most certainly not.


The opinion that the Iraq war was "legal" is far from unanimous.

In 2004, Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the UN, said the following regarding the legality of the Iraq war:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.


The UK's top military commanders had serious concerns about the legality of the planned invasion of Iraq:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ritain's Army chiefs refused to go to war in Iraq amid fears over its legality just days before the British and American bombing campaign was launched, The Observer can today reveal.

The explosive new details about military doubts over the legality of the invasion are detailed in unpublished legal documents in the case of Katharine Gun, the intelligence officer dramatically freed last week after Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, dropped charges against her of breaking the Official Secrets Act.

The disclosure came as it also emerged that Goldsmith was forced hastily to redraft his legal advice to Tony Blair to give an 'unequivocal' assurance to the armed forces that the conflict would not be illegal.

Refusing to commit troops already stationed in Kuwait, senior military leaders were adamant that war could not begin until they were satisfied that neither they nor their men could be tried. Some 10 days later, Britain and America began the campaign.


As for comparing the recent Georgian-Russian skirmish to the invasion of Iraq by the "coalition of the willing"...there isn't any serious basis of comparison.

Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, America and Europe, via NATO, have been steadily surrounding Russia with formally allied nations. Russia has legitimate security concerns stretching back an entire millenium regarding neighbouring aggressive states. If Georgia's recent attempts to secure NATO membership were successful, it would have been a direct threat to Russian security placed not just in Russia's front yard, but at Russia's doorstep. Russia finally decided to draw the line to show where its tolerance for NATO encroachment ends, and the end result was this week-long war with Georgia.

In contrast, by the time of the Iraq invasion, Saddam's army had been de-fanged, his WMD programs had been thoroughly investigated, catalogued and dismantled, and he hadn't made any threats against the West or any other country. Futhermore, Iraq and its leader Saddam had nothing to do with the terrorism threatening America, and in any case, given the military capabilities of the U.S., it is ludicrous to argue that terrorism is any kind of serious "military" threat. Terrorism is a matter for police and federal security organizations, not for modern armies. If terrorists are your biggest military worry, then you really don't have much to worry about.

I think it must be clear to even the most dedicated interventionist conservative that the "war on terror" is a political/propaganda tool for the application and maintenance of control on foreign territories (or "imperialism" as they used to say), whether it be for resources or geopolitical strategics. In short, America's war on Iraq was offensive, Russia's war on Georgia was defensive. And even a godless communist like Nikita Khrushchev knew which of those is moral and which isn't.
drgoodword
 
Top

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby Roccland » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 10:14:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('drgoodword', '
')
I think it must be clear to even the most dedicated interventionist conservative that the "war on terror" is a political/propaganda tool for the application and maintenance of control on foreign territories (or "imperialism" as they used to say), whether it be for resources or geopolitical strategics. In short, America's war on Iraq was offensive, Russia's war on Georgia was defensive. And even a godless communist like Nikita Khrushchev knew which of those is moral and which isn't.


Well put.

Thanks!
500 MPH into a brick wall - me
User avatar
Roccland
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1604
Joined: Sat 16 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby Roccland » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 10:21:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd yet more on how amerika has attempted to sucker NATO countries into a war with Russia...

Certainly Russia now recognizes that the US is determined to exert hegemony over Russia and is Russia’s worst enemy.

China realizes the US threat to its own energy supply and, thereby, economy.

Even America’s European allies, chafing under their role of supplying troops for America’s Empire, must now realize that being an American ally is dangerous and has no benefits. If Georgia becomes a NATO member and renews its attack on South Ossetia, it must drag Europe into a war with Russia, a main supplier of energy to Europe.


Rove and Kristol have got to be pissed about the EU not allowing Georgia into NATO.

Article 5 of NATO (1949)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')rticle 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .


Nice try punks.

Link
500 MPH into a brick wall - me
User avatar
Roccland
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1604
Joined: Sat 16 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby cowuvula » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 11:57:39

All Republicans and Neocons need to be voted out of office this year, pass it on.
Be ready...
User avatar
cowuvula
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue 15 Apr 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 13:50:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'S')pecop is such a naive but endearingly loyal soul. Yes specop, it's all about protecting Merika....lol!


Yeah. He and Golem are both good for comic relief every once in a while. I especially enjoyed the bit about planning to leave. If I'm not mistaken, Bush's withdrawal timetable specifically stipulates that pigs must fly out of Condaleza's butt first.

Neocon's are opportunistic about international law. Bush the elder loved the UN back in 1991 when they authorized him to invade Iraq. When junior couldn't get their approval to invade, he decided that international law doesn't matter at all.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby Roccland » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 14:04:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'S')pecop is such a naive but endearingly loyal soul. Yes specop, it's all about protecting Merika....lol!


Yeah. He and Golem are both good for comic relief every once in a while. I especially enjoyed the bit about planning to leave. If I'm not mistaken, Bush's withdrawal timetable specifically stipulates that pigs must fly out of Condaleza's butt first.

Neocon's are opportunistic about international law. Bush the elder loved the UN back in 1991 when they authorized him to invade Iraq. When junior couldn't get their approval to invade, he decided that international law doesn't matter at all.


Puts a lot of events in very clear perspective since 2001.

If - one is open to alternative interpretations of what really happened...and that is a huge IF.

SC messages mirror MSM messages.

He is being used as a tool.
500 MPH into a brick wall - me
User avatar
Roccland
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1604
Joined: Sat 16 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby Dezakin » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:00:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Roccland', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Roccland', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '
')Russia wants the land. Period.


And amerika wants Iraq oil. Period.

If that were the case, we would have let Saddam stay in power and bought it from him rather than going through all these high minded projects that reduced oil production in the region.


Nope - Saddam did not want to privatize Iraq's oil.

That is why he was hung.

Right, which is why the Saudis are next? The decision was clouded with arrogant idealism more than malice. Honestly if the decision was malicious we would have had a far better outcome as there would have been a more thought out plan to keep order.

On the international oil market it doesn't matter if oil comes from a privatized source or a government oil company.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby Roccland » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:01:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Roccland', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Roccland', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '
')Russia wants the land. Period.


And amerika wants Iraq oil. Period.

If that were the case, we would have let Saddam stay in power and bought it from him rather than going through all these high minded projects that reduced oil production in the region.


Nope - Saddam did not want to privatize Iraq's oil.

That is why he was hung.

Right, which is why the Saudis are next? The decision was clouded with arrogant idealism more than malice. Honestly if the decision was malicious we would have had a far better outcome as there would have been a more thought out plan to keep order.

On the international oil market it doesn't matter if oil comes from a privatized source or a government oil company.

I think Egypt is next.
500 MPH into a brick wall - me
User avatar
Roccland
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1604
Joined: Sat 16 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby Specop_007 » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:46:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('drgoodword', '
')
The opinion that the Iraq war was "legal" is far from unanimous.

In 2004, Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the UN, said the following regarding the legality of the Iraq war:


Funny. SDo almost a year AFTER the start of the war he comes out and thinks its illegal? And truth be told, your using 1 incredibly corrupt individuals word to damn anothers! Mind you this is the same Kofi that all but turned a blind eye to the genocide in Rwanda. The same Kofi that was admonished for his comments regarding the killing in Iraq by none other then the Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwaffaq al-Rubaie. The same Kofi that was involved in that whole food for oil deal....

I'd be REAL careful using Kofi's opinion on something.....


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ritain's Army chiefs refused to go to war in Iraq amid fears over its legality just days before the British and American bombing campaign was launched, The Observer can today reveal.

The explosive new details about military doubts over the legality of the invasion are detailed in unpublished legal documents in the case of Katharine Gun, the intelligence officer dramatically freed last week after Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, dropped charges against her of breaking the Official Secrets Act.

The disclosure came as it also emerged that Goldsmith was forced hastily to redraft his legal advice to Tony Blair to give an 'unequivocal' assurance to the armed forces that the conflict would not be illegal.

Refusing to commit troops already stationed in Kuwait, senior military leaders were adamant that war could not begin until they were satisfied that neither they nor their men could be tried. Some 10 days later, Britain and America began the campaign.


We are talking about the same Gulf War 2 right? The one that had the support of 49 countries with a total of 37 putting troops in country right? THAT Gulf War?

If your going to start jailing people, your going to need as really, really big jail. More to the point, to term ANY war as "illegal" or "legal" sounds beyond silly to me.

But to the point. Is it illegal? Well, it seems to me thats hard to answer. A hell of a lot of people supported it. The violations in the late 90's would have been sufficient for military action. So again, it sounds like calling it an illegal war is nothing but an emotional kneejerk AT BEST to obfuscate the real points in the discussion.





$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for comparing the recent Georgian-Russian skirmish to the invasion of Iraq by the "coalition of the willing"...there isn't any serious basis of comparison.


I agree completely.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ver since the fall of the Soviet Union, America and Europe, via NATO, have been steadily surrounding Russia with formally allied nations. Russia has legitimate security concerns stretching back an entire millenium regarding neighbouring aggressive states. If Georgia's recent attempts to secure NATO membership were successful, it would have been a direct threat to Russian security placed not just in Russia's front yard, but at Russia's doorstep. Russia finally decided to draw the line to show where its tolerance for NATO encroachment ends, and the end result was this week-long war with Georgia.


NATO encroachment? Wait, so you mean Georgia is NOT an independent nation? No, it is, your argument is that Georgias choices threatened Russia? So anytime one nation feels threatened by another that allows use of military force. Like what we're doing in Iraq? Or is that different because its not right next door? So we would be ok in attacking Venezuela?

The point is, frankly Russia has fuck all to say about what another nation does. If you want to talk about illegal actions....Well, theres one for you.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n contrast, by the time of the Iraq invasion, Saddam's army had been de-fanged, his WMD programs had been thoroughly investigated, catalogued and dismantled, and he hadn't made any threats against the West or any other country. Futhermore, Iraq and its leader Saddam had nothing to do with the terrorism threatening America, and in any case, given the military capabilities of the U.S., it is ludicrous to argue that terrorism is any kind of serious "military" threat. Terrorism is a matter for police and federal security organizations, not for modern armies. If terrorists are your biggest military worry, then you really don't have much to worry about.

We found things during the war that were not previously known about or documented. Now while Saddam may not have had much to do in regards to the terrorist attacks that doesnt mean he was defanged and of no threat. Also, terrorism becomes a military matter when it crosses a nations boundries. And it requires aggressive actions when the nation originating the terrorists refuses to intervene. Case in point, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But I do agree Iraq, from a tactical standpoint, was of low importance.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think it must be clear to even the most dedicated interventionist conservative that the "war on terror" is a political/propaganda tool for the application and maintenance of control on foreign territories (or "imperialism" as they used to say), whether it be for resources or geopolitical strategics. In short, America's war on Iraq was offensive, Russia's war on Georgia was defensive. And even a godless communist like Nikita Khrushchev knew which of those is moral and which isn't.

Defensive?? Wait, so if one nation attacks another that clsoe by its defensive, but if oner nation attacks another a long ways away its offensive??

You make good points but your dead wrong on the Russia Georgia situation. Georgia is an independent nation. Period. It can pass a law requiring everyone to wear Russian flags and dance the hully gully if they want and Russia shouldnt have a leg to stand on. If anything I would say its the opposite. War on terror is defensive while the war in Georgia is offensive.

Remember, Georgia did NOT attack Russia prior to Russia moving troops in. Terrorists DID attack prior to our moving troops for the war.

But again, in my saying that I ignore points of history as well. There has always been the back and forth so long that it becomes difficult to identify one solid beginning to the whole matter. It becomes a futile case of 2 children standing around He did it, no he did! And to trace the full growth one has to lok back to when we were supporting the terrorists to stop the spread of Communism during the Cold War. And then to understand THAT you have to look back to WWII.

Its a long tangled web to be sure.

I hope to hell I quoted all that right.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby Specop_007 » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:48:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'D')on't waste any facts on specialty_cop_007. His head is up his neo-can ass and he can't see them.

People like him are why I am a doomer. People are too f*cking pigheaded to ever change.


Awww, are you jealous cause you're too stupid to understand the topic at hand pissstarr?
Dont be sad. You too can Learn 2 Read and then understand hiSStory too!
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby Specop_007 » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:49:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'S')pecop is such a naive but endearingly loyal soul. Yes specop, it's all about protecting Merika....lol!


Yeah. He and Golem are both good for comic relief every once in a while. I especially enjoyed the bit about planning to leave. If I'm not mistaken, Bush's withdrawal timetable specifically stipulates that pigs must fly out of Condaleza's butt first.

Neocon's are opportunistic about international law. Bush the elder loved the UN back in 1991 when they authorized him to invade Iraq. When junior couldn't get their approval to invade, he decided that international law doesn't matter at all.


A bit of comic relief that no one has as of yet been able to completely refute I've noticed. I think theres been all of 2 links posted citing ANY type of information.

But seeing as Bush is in power for another 50 years, who knows when we will leave...

I think you understand the United States government about as well as Pisstarr understands hiSStory. :roll:
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Neocons NOW Love International Law

Unread postby jbrovont » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:04:55

Actually I've been aware of Georgia for a while. It's existed for a while...since, oh, about 1921 or so. :) It also made the news a few times during the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, and again several times in the last few years from it's desire to join NATO, and involvement in Iraq, regular spats with Russia proper, strategic connection to the pipeline project Israel is so interested in (featured in The World is Not Enough)...bla bla bla

I think I made my point.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '
')Such a compelling argument.....

You DO realize we barely knew Georgia existed until all this hoo-ray happened.

But I dont want to ruin your fantasy of hating America.
User avatar
jbrovont
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1003
Joined: Fri 16 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron