Flame Wars forum
[ mod this thread ] << - < - > - >>
| From | Message |
| golfman (#) 3/20/2003 16:30:31 [ report this post ] |
 Subject: International LawMessage: If you read UN resolutions 678 and 687 they specifically give the power to individual members of the Un to cause Iraq to comply. Further, under the treaty afforded Iraq during Gulf War I, they had to comply or military force would be reinstated. I believe that your illusory non-compliance has nothing to do with the facts in play here. Research into the law, rather than rhetorical statements regarding misunderstood media hype is a better way to form conclusions. |
| gatsby (#) 3/20/2003 16:38:02 [ report this post ] | Golfman... Message: I love it when you get so technical. |
| moebile1 (#) 3/20/2003 16:40:37 [ report this post ] | Strange Message: For whatever reason, obviously they are not from the US, those sympathetic to Saddam's cause shouldn't condemn those who has threat focused at them. Many people don't realize just how ruthless Saddam really is. He sits around and dreams how he can kill thousands and millions of his enemies, namely, the US. What the Saddam sympathizers don't realize is that they are not being targeted with the danger and shouldn't condemn those who are. Believe me, Saddam has been trying feverishly to aquire WMD to hit population centers, i.e. innocents. If it was you who he wish to target, you wouldn't be so sympathetic. |
| moebile1 (#) 3/20/2003 16:42:14 [ report this post ] | For the Saddam sympathizers Message: The only ones to support a ruthless dictator are those who stands to profit from him. What do you have to gain? |
| sr_ajedrez (#) 3/20/2003 16:48:01 [ report this post ] | International law Message: is a paper (a lot of paper at most). Nucs and weapons are real :). Event Bush knows that. as a matter of fact that is the problem. |
| bartlebie (#) 3/20/2003 16:55:17 [ report this post ] | Ah golfman Message: nice. Since one gulfwar was ok, every war is ok. Your last posts were a bit smarter. Coming on with those old pieces of paper makes me a bit confused. Am I the next one? Is Hitler still alive perhaps? Only those fifty years, that won't make any difference. |
| golfman (#) 3/20/2003 17:00:17 [ report this post ] | Sorry bart Message: I can't understand your post...rephrase please. |
| gatsby (#) 3/20/2003 17:01:19 [ report this post ] | I'm still looking past Message: Golfman's highly political posts, as I see a young woman yearning for love. Where is Pawntificator when one needs him? |
| sr_ajedrez (#) 3/20/2003 17:04:48 [ report this post ] | What a pic !! WOW !!!!!!!!!! Message: YOU DOGS STAY AWAY FROM THE GOLF ANGEL YOU HEAR. UFF ! IVE BEEN STROKE !!! Hi Golfy , you are right what ever you say. i cant read long posts ( i get bored and stressed out) , but im sure you are right ! you all shut up ! :) |
| golfman (#) 3/20/2003 17:05:15 [ report this post ] | bart...No but the first was legal. Message: It had legal merits and basis in law and non compliance on the part of Saddam means it still has legal basis. and gatsby...sounds like you need to put away the harlequin and go find some real reading again. You sem to be getting yourself worked up....hope you have an outlet. |
| gatsby (#) 3/20/2003 17:16:04 [ report this post ] | Golfman... Message: You can continue making attempts to divert attention away from your need to love again by making harsh political statements, but I'm committed to lead you down a new path of enlightenment. I am going to keep nudging you towards your inner exploration as we would all like to see you evolve into a happy young woman devoid of any angry philosophical beliefs. |
| sr_ajedrez (#) 3/20/2003 17:19:07 [ report this post ] | Hey Gat Message: i said away whith you. Im a big guy and i could kick Jhon Travoltas butt any day. So dont be bothering The beauty you beast ;) |
| golfman (#) 3/20/2003 17:22:01 [ report this post ] | sounds like I win... Message: |
| gatsby (#) 3/20/2003 17:22:22 [ report this post ] | Senor... Message: You need to forget about your unwavering love for Golfy, as you're married and must do without. |
| sr_ajedrez (#) 3/20/2003 17:32:31 [ report this post ] | Im a widow Message: in love yet whith my wife to be thruthfull. But She understands now that i still have the burden of flesh on my soul :) |
| bartlebie (#) 3/20/2003 17:32:45 [ report this post ] | hey. Message: The above mentioned UN-resolutions were the ones for the first gulf war. They have nothing, and really nothing to do with the war going on now. Perhaps that was the information you missed, golfman. At least I do not consider twelve year-old resolutions to be up to date. Neither Bush nor Blair would have made an attempt to have the 1442th resolution if they already had what "old europeans" would call a "legitimate reason for war". |
| golfman (#) 3/20/2003 21:24:24 [ report this post ] | Operative Message: These resolutions are still absolutley operative. A cease fire was reached but never a peace treaty. The US stopped under conditions of disarmament, UN inspectors (which they removed) and trade limits. Once they broke the cease fire...well...i guess firing can continue. I didn't miss a thing. |
| zoobrenok (#) 3/20/2003 22:06:58 [ report this post ] | Golfman Message: nice post and nice wording :) i tried to make same point last week, but it went ignored.. maybe because i did it in social chat? :) |
| mormel12 (#) 3/20/2003 23:50:54 [ report this post ] | you can make any twist you like Message: but a war is never to be justified. it'll bring nothing but misery to the iraq people and after the war lots of them won't be there to complain about it anymore. and it's only to hope they find saddam. bin laden is still missing so far. greetings |
| bartlebie (#) 3/21/2003 01:37:19 [ report this post ] | Resolution Nr. 687/707 Message: Perhaps you can enlighten me, but I wasn't able to find anything in RS 687/707 that authorizes individual members of the UN to take war-like actions or to go to war with iraq. Furthermore there have been about 50 more Resolutions in direct connection or directly about Iraq, most of them concerning "oil for food" or something alike, but none of them seems to give a reason for a state to begin a war without consulting the security counsil. Everybody is well aware of that I guess, else there wouldn't have been the fuss about an possible Resolution concerning Iraq in 2003. Perhaps you remember that Bush and Blair wanted to come up with an outline for a resolution but didn't, because they weren't able to find anybody besides them who would support it. |
| paolo (#) 3/21/2003 02:54:50 [ report this post ] | But this is controversial Message: because the inspections were working now. And, beside that, the 687 states the conditions for the cease-fire but doesn't seem to allow a war if Iraq doesn't coply with the condirions, it only speaks of "necessary measures" which is different from "all the necessary means" (which is the usual UN sentence to allow war). The war was allowed in resolution 678 to comply with the resolution 660 and subsequent (661,662,664,665,666,667,669,670,674,677), that is to say that Iraq had to withdraw from Kuwait. It seems that "all the necessary means" could be used only in case of a new invasion of a sovreign state by Iraq. That's why a second resolution was needed to go to war now. |
| sr_ajedrez (#) 3/21/2003 06:35:29 [ report this post ] | War is always justified Message: When there are conflicts of interests. And when you dont like the other guy a bit. do you follow ? It is like saying hating komei is bad.NOT its naturla jiji ;) hi komei. i like u really :) dont pay attention to the gossip. it wasnt me when i wrote it. |
| drgandalf (#) 3/21/2003 08:35:20 [ report this post ] | The danger with Relying on Legal Bases Message: is that the same could be said about UN resolutions regarding Israeli occupation of Arab lands. The problem is not with Saddam, nor with legalities. Instead, it has to do with the precipitous loss of democratic processes, ie the UN. Instead of allowing the international community to decide the fate ofd a member state, the UN was snubbed essentially by a sole power, USA, which has embarked on a policy of military force AT WILL, with or without allies, with or without legitimacy. This new policy brings Western Civilisation from collective decision making to Caesarism, as predicted by Oswald Spengler. |
| golfman (#) 3/21/2003 09:01:23 [ report this post ] | Interesting point... Message: I don't think that the UN is a world democracy. Each member has retained its sovereign rights. During the Cuban missile crisis in the US, do you think that the US would have been justified in bombing Russia if they did not move their msissiles out of Cuba??? |
Post a reply to this message: |