1/23 US fought the first Gulf War to help Kuwait defend its sovereignty.
So how come US can continue to violate Iraq's sovereignty given that
it has found no evidence of WMD or terrorist activities?
\_ It's never about sovereignty, son. The first golf war was to
prevent Iraq control 36% of world's total oil output. We never
cared about Kuwaiti people, nor does the Kuwaiti Royal Family
for that matter.
\_ That is just one factor. The first gulf war is when
international law, people of Kuwait's interest, and US's
interest are in alignment. Unfortunately, in the second
gulf war, international law is not our our side, and
whether it's in the US's interest and whether it's in the
people of Iraq's interest are highly debatable. It is in
the Bush admin's interest though. You have much to learn, boy.
\_ "international law was not on our side". since there is no
such thing, it is hard to say if it was or not. there are
competing views on this point from reliable people on both
sides of this. The 2nd GW was certainly in the Iraqi people's
interests as long as you're not one of the Sunnis who was
getting along just fine at the expense of the Shiites and
Kurds. You mave much to learn, son.
\_ Why don't you ask Pentagon hawk, Richard Perle, who said:
"I think in this case international law stood in the
way of doing the right thing." As for the existence
of international laws, try <DEAD>www.un.com<DEAD> -> english ->
international laws. Even Perle understood that there
are international laws and the US invasion of Iraq is
illegal. As for whether it is "doing the right
thing", it's highly debatable. You have much to
learn, boy.
\_ I thought I'd replied to this, but I guess not since it
was the same as the rest. 1) Richard Perle doesn't
speak for me or anyone else important. 2) As I said
every other time you bring up this nonsense, if there
is no enforcement there is no law. And slapping "boy"
at the end of your posts doesn't add anything to your
case. You're still naive and ignorant even though you
pretend otherwise. After a dozen times we've gone over
this you are still incapable of telling me how those
"international laws" get enforced. Because they don't
and can't be. No enforcement = no law. I should just
save this to a file and paste it back in everytime your
silly little ass comes on here with worthless URLs to
the UN website. You never have anything new to say
because there's nothing more you can say. There's no
international law. There are a *lot* of international
suggestions, hints, and advice.
\_ Well you did reply to it, at least you tried.
No, law is law. Enforcement is enforcement.
If say commie China invaded some small country
on its border today, it broke international law
irregardless of whether anyone dared to send an
army to chase it out. Your silly ass no perfect
enforcement means no law argument is bogus.
As for slapping "boy", it's just to counter the
use of "son". Your protest against my use of
"boy" without also mentioning the use of "son"
thus exposes you again as the hypocritical
silly ass that you are.
\_ Nice try at a back handed compliment on line one.
I only used 'son' to show you how stupid you look
putting "boy" on the end of every one of your
cut'n'paste posts. As far as the actual topic
goes: China would not be in violation of anything
if they were to invade a neighbor. Law without
any enforcement mechanism is silly. It's the
same idea as when Bush gets attacked for making
the "No Child Left Behind" act but not putting
any funding into it. There's no reason to respect
a "law" which has no enforcement mechanism. If
you'd like to say "oh boo hoo! the law was broken,
woe unto the the earth and all peace loving good
peoples!" go right ahead, it doesn't matter what
you whine about who 'broke' what pseudo-law when
there's nothing anyone can or will do about it,
especially when your 'laws' are, at best, just a
list of rules countries are supposed to more or
less follow BY AGREEMENT, and there's nothing in
any of your 'laws' which says what the punishment
shall be for a violation. There's no internatn'l
legal system, no police, no judges, no cops, no
nothing anyone can or would do to even a second
rate nation, such as France, much less to a Hyper
Super Power like the U.S. It's silly and naive to
talk about violations like that. The obvious
response is always, "So what? Go do something
about it". And the fact that no one can, would,
or even wants to is what makes International Law
and the violation of said myth the farce that it
is.
\_ the only "competing view" is GW supporters in the US.
Everone else in the world knows US broke international
law.
\_ You're right. We should just walk away and let it fall to total
anarchy. Then assholes like you would be here saying "why did
we leave the poor Iraqis to their fate? We should have stayed
and helped them!" Have a cookie, troll.
\_ the sad thing is I don't think the poster intended it as a troll
\_ It is not a troll but a lead to raise additional questions.
And yes, you need to think more before feeling sad.
\_ okay, so your post was written to raise additional
\_ [ expression of sadness noted ]
questions. I've thought about it more, and I still think
it's sad. To each their own, I guess.
\_ um, whatever
\_ Assholes like you should learn to stop putting words into
other people's mouth.
\_ blah blah blah, heard it all before. when you hate the man
so much it doesn't matter what he does or says you can still
put them there.
find fault and make him into hitler if you like and feel good
about yourself doing so. the words were there. no one else
put them there.
\_ I know you have an irrational hatred for Clinton, so you
project that onto others. You need to grow up.
\_ Just tell me one thing: what makes you spill
the drivel about hating "the man" when the
original poster mentioned nothing about it? Where
did you get the juvenile belief that anyone who
questions the Iraq war has to be a hater of
Bush?
\_ What about those of us who support the Iraq war,
but hate Bush for other reasons?
\_ It can't be. If you support the war then
you're a fascist (R) and love Bush. If you
hate Bush and the evil fascist (R)s then you
are opposed to the war to your core. There
is no middle ground in leftist politics.
\_ From reading the motd everyday. Where'd you get
the opposite idea?
\_ all the more reason for you to be less
presumptuous instead of contributing to
the idiocy.
\_ Uhm, what? We're on the motd, so I'm
perfectly in context.
other people's mouth.
put them there.
\_ I know you have an irrational hate for Clinton, so you
\_ I know you have an irrational hatred for Clinton, so you
project that onto others. You need to grow up.
\_ You don't know any such thing. I have no hatred for
Clinton or anyone else. He's just another scumbag
politician no different than the rest. My original
point remains: the poster is a hypocrite and a troll
and you've done nothing to refute that in any way.
\_ So you are saying that any country can invade any other
country by first making false accusations, then invading,
and then saying that they have to stay because if they leave,
since they already destroyed the former regime and its
\_ That's the point. Us broke international law, and
the reason for the war turned out to be based on a lie
and has to be changed to "regime change". If WMD or
terrorists were found, even if democracy and peace
failed, the war would still be justified. Now, we have
20000 Iraqis dead, 500 US soldier killed, thousands of
US soldiers injured, hundreds of bilions of dollars
spent, thousands of Iraqis homes and property destroyed,
and still no WMD. If we can find WMD or at the very
least have a UN mandate, these losses would be
justified, but without them, now it boils down to
the only justification left - whether we can build a
peaceful and democratic Iraq. All the more reason to
put pressure on the administration to do the right
thing instead of throwing Iraqi people's money to
the admin's business and defense cronies. Take this
Ayatollah Sistani problem. If WMD has been found, t
his would be a much smaller problem, but now that
the whole basis of the invasion rests on regime
change, and helping the oppressed Shiites, and now
you have this Sistani mullah whom all the Shiites
seem to adore, and he's ignoring Bremer and
calling for direct elections, there is
very little one can do except try to placate him.
I hope things turned out well, not because of, but
in spite of.
\_ Not finding WMD doesn't make it any harder to clean
up after. It's still a very difficult thing. And as
far as "justifying" all those deaths, lost homes, and
general mayhem in Iraq goes, I don't think the average
Iraqi gives a flying fuck about your "justifications".
That's Western White Boy think. If we rolled in and
found a ton of anthrax on every street corner those
Iraqis would still be dead, injured, homeless, etc, and
not at all agree with your "justification" theory and
be just as pissed off that we're there. Sistani would
still be there as before and we'd still have the same
mess to clean up. It would just be harder, not easier,
because of the resources we'd have to divert to WMD
clean up. You can't justify the loss of family and
home to anyone on the receiving end of that loss.
You're so fucking colonial it makes me ill.
\_ Your fucking underestimation of the people of
Iraq makes me sick. Iraqis can think and they
watch and read the news, and they see the Bush
admin caught in lies about WMD, constantly
change its justification for the war, and
inability to find any WMD. They also read news
about how Bush admin gives fat contracts to
its cronies led companies using Iraqi money and
oil to pay for these. You think all these make
no difference to the Iraqis? Are you that
naive or are you just plain dumb?
\_ Who said the Iraqis aren't smart? I never said
any such thing. Go back and *READ* what I said,
not what you wish I'd said. I'll repeat: the
average Iraqi who lost a family member or home or
whatever doesn't give a flying fuck if there were
WMD or not. They don't give a flying fuck that
Bush is handing contracts to his buddies or not.
They don't give a flying fuck about the whether
the war was "just" or not. Those are your
Western White Boy concerns. They only care that
their family member is dead, their house blown up,
or their business destroyed and no amount of
Western justification for the invasion will change
that. If it was your house that got blown up and
2 tons of anthrax was found next door the day
after you'd still be pissed off your house was
blown up no matter how "justified" some white boy
in the US thinks it was.
\_ So you are saying that any country can invade any other
country by first making false accusations, then invading,
and then saying that they have to stay because if they leave,
since they already destroyed the former regime and its
institutions, there will be chaos?
\_ Bush says: That's a CIA failure.
institutions, there will be chaos?
\_ Whatever the quality of the reason for invading, walking out
now would be a case of two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right. If
you broke the cookie jar you should at least help buy new
cookies and some elmer's glue. There's no relationship
between whether or not invading was right and what we should
do now that we have. The fact is we did invade and now have
a moral responsibility to clean up the mess we made. You
seem to think that we only owe the Iraqi people something if
we had found tons of WMD. That makes no sense to me.
\_ 10 years of Resolutions are false accussations?
\_ Where is the WMD then?
\_ Bush says: That's a CIA failure.
\_ Are you trying to make him look bad?
\_ No, that's the genuine administration position.
\_ And if you want to talk about UN resolutions, no, US
did not obtain a UN resolution to invade
Iraq. There are many UN resolutions condemning
Israel. That doesn't mean other countries have
the right to invade Israel.
\_ Bush says: An earlier resolution made the war legal.
\_ Only problem was Bush tried to obtain a UN mandate
for war but had to withdraw. That shows that the
earlier resolution doesn't stand.
\_ Bush says: The earlier resolution still made
it legal; the new resolution was a chance to
show Saddam that the world was united in
opposition.
\_ earlier resolution says "severe consequences".
analogy would be a law that says it is
illegal to possess marijuana and anyone
found in possession of marijuana would face
"legal consequences". this doesn't give
john doe off the street the right to kill
someone found in possession of marijuana.
To determine what the consequences should be
one should go back to the institution issuing
the law (UN in this case).
\_ the US isn't john doe off the street and
'legal' is not the same as 'severe'. did
you think the original un resolution that
said 'severe' meant "we'll sic our lawyers
\_ Try http://www.un.org -> English ->
International Laws. Who enforces
it? Member nations through UN
mandate of course. You prefer
throwing away international laws
and going back to genghis khan era?
\_ "member nations through UN
mandate". bullshit. So you
claim the US is in violation of
UN/international law. Why is
there no enforcement? Why aren't
all the member states enforcing
their will upon the US? The law
is the law and must be applied
equally to all. If any are
above the law or there is no
enforcement the law doesn't exist
as such and becomes a mild
suggestion at best. We're still
in the Khan era. We never left
it. When did World Peace
suddenly strike the planet? What
year did the Age of Enlightenment
begin?
\_ [I knew this one would go
unanswered. Score one for
the "international law is
bullshit" side]
\_ No actually I just
feel that it's so
stupid it doesn't
deserve to be answered.
This guy can't even
distinguish between
law and its enforcement.
See above example
about scenario where
commie China invades
a small country.
\_ Been there, done that
and answered it a
number of times. You
just prefer to change
the words around and
reply to your own words
that you put in my
mouth instead of what
was there on screen.
\_ Bush says: An earlier resolution made the war legal.
one should go back to the institution issuing
the law (UN in this case).
you think the original un resolution that
said 'severe' meant "we'll sic our lawyers
said 'severe' meant "we'll sic our lawyers
on you in the international courts!"?
on you in the international courts!"?
\_ it's an UN resolution, so go back to
UN to decide what it means. otherwise,
on you in the international courts!"?
\_ it's an UN resolution, so go back to
admit that you are breaking international
law.
UN to decide what it means. otherwise,
admit that you are breaking international
law.
\_ if there was a real thing called
international law then maybe it could
be broken. if you have to go back and
'ask' 10 years later what was really
meant by something then the whole
process is a farce anyway and it really
doesn't matter. tell me, who exactly
enforces this 'international law' you
speak so highly of? where can i go
and read the laws and the consequences
for breaking them?
\_ Just to stick up for those opposed to the war: not all of us are
saying get out of Iraq; we merely don't trust the current
administration to do the right thing while there. We never
should have invaded, but we're there and we're stuck for now.
\_ A fair position. Question: if Gore was in office, what do
you think he would have done post 9/11 with Al Qaeda, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc?
Were you also opposed to what happened in Afghanistan?
\_ [ Bad idea. ]
\_ I am not the first guy, but I agree with him. We need
to clean up what we broke in Iraq. I was in favor of the
\_ Either way will do. The Jews need more
living space.
the nasty selfperpetuating evil it's mired in now.
Now, realistically, how likely are one of these two to
invasion of Afghanistan. I think Gore would have invaded
Afgahnistan and then called it a day. He probably
would have tried to continue the Clinton peace process
\_ Nah, despite all the wars and killings,
Israel is the peace loving nation, once it
has attained its rightful King Solomon era
Greater Israel size and thrown all the
Palestinians out. Jews need more living
space than present day Israel.
\_ not really. we should just let the arabs
kill them all and then we wouldnt have to
worry about it.
in Palestine and Israel, which was making some progress
unlike "The Roadmap." -Motd Liberal
\_ There is no realistic chance of peace in the Middle
East. Here is how it could happen:
(1) Israel is nuked, or otherwise destroyed, and never
rises up again.
(2) The palestinian society/culture/infrastructure
is irrevocably broken and rebuilt again without
the nasty selfperpetuating evil it's mired in now.
Now, realistically, how likely are one of these two to
happen? What will probably happen is, Israel will wall
itself off and try to live as a besieged state.
Palestinians will continue to blow themselves up and
train their children to do the same, and everyone will
go on their merry (?) way.
\_ nah, the likely outcome is Israel will bring
in more and more settlers, and expand with
more and more settlements until it reaches its
size during King Solomon's times, and all
Palestinians are thrown out of Greater Israel.
\_ Possibly but I think it won't happen due to the
increase in settlements but yet another Arab
inspired war and this time the Israelis will just
push them all out and be done with it like they
started but wimped out on doing 50+ years ago.
\_ Genocide. The Palestinians want genocide, and
eventually they are going to get it.
\_ The palestinian nation is a peace loving nation
and if only the Jews would just jump in the ocean
and all die we could finally have peace in the ME.
\_ People once thought the same thing about
Ireland. While things are still somewhat bad
there, they do credit Clinton with bringing
people closer to compromise. There can be
peace in Israel/Palestine; it just takes the
right time, the right man, and the right
motivation. Bush's policies have set back that
possibility a great deal.
\_ The Ireland situation was different. You had a
different kind of rebel there and it didn't
infect the entire Irish culture. Irish mothers
\_ What do you mean it can't be fixed? If
we can fix Kurds, Shiite and Sunnis in
Iraq, we can fix Jews and Palestinians in
Palestine/Israel. Just send in the marines,
and force these quarrelsome shemites to learn
to live together peacefully or be shot.
\_ Start shooting arabs then.
didn't blow themselves up and leave tapes behind
saying they did it because they loved their
children. Nor did they send their children off
to blow themselves up in discos and pizza parlors
\_ oh boo hoo! if only we understood and
accepted their differences as a people then
we could all just get along! The willful
blindness and naivete of some is TRULY
astounding.
\_ Eh. In some sense I don't _care_ what
exactly goes on in their heads. Do I care why
a serial killer kills? Why should I care why
a serial killer nation kills? I just want to
put the serial killer away to pay back his
debt to his victims. There is no excuse to
be found in palestinians' heads for what they
are doing. It's simply wrong and evil.
\_ SOrry, guess my statement was unclear.
I was trying to say, the Palestinians
(and most arabs) will simply ignore
overwhelming evidence that contradicts
what they wish to believe. It's in
the religion. I should tell the story
about the guy who refused to believe
California is bigger than Azerbaijan.
Basically, people who belive peace is
possiable with those people don't have
any idea what they're talking about.
\_ Yeah those people are inscrutable.
They cannot be understood. Their thinking
process is alien to us. They are like
serial killers. Their culture is evil.
They are not normal humans. In fact,
they can't even be called humans. They
are more like rats. They should be
exterminated. We should burn
them so normal humans like us Jews can
have more living space. long live
Greater Israel!
\_ They may very well be understandable.
But they don't deserve to be understood,
much like any serial killer. The
palestinians have a serial killer
culture.
\_ Pick up an English language arab
newspaper or read them on the net. Then
come back here and tell us how peaceful
and loving and understanding and how
if only the Jews would just give up a
few more square miles here, and there,
and everywhere, peace would be at hand.
Your ignorance is almost painful but
you do the Berkeley hippy long haired
PC leftist thing really well. Give
peace a chance! Think locally, act
globally! Everyone just wants love!
\_ Well, Israel has never stopped the
continuation of the process. With
settlers and ongoing miserable
conditions in the territories, it's
not credible to say they would always
have been the same way. The ones that
went to Jordan seemed to be able to
lead normal lives. Leaving those
camps there for all those years was
a mistake either way.
\_ Jordan? Yeah the ones who went to
Jordan lived nice normal lives
after tens of thousands got
butchered on that side of the
border by their fellow Arabs. If
you don't know the history of the
area you really should take 5-10
minutes to read a summary online
before sharing your opinions here.
The mistake Israel made is they
started to kick out the Arabs 50
years ago but chickened out and
didn't finish the process. That
left them with a few million
really pissed off Arabs inside
their borders which is the worst
situation possible for all sides.
Israel will eventually either lose
a war or be overwhelmed by it's
internal Arab population and then
be no more. The only other option
that exists for Israel to survive
beyond the next 20 years is a war
that they win which has to be
started by the Arabs so the
international community types are
appeased which then leads to
them kicking out the 5th column
Arabs inside the borders now. I
don't see any other paths that
lead to anything other than the
complete destruction of Israel
and genocide inflicted upon the
Jews by the Arabs. At least maybe
someone will pass a UN resolution
asking them to please stop or
something. See the Tutsis for
how that turned out.
\_ Why do you believe that the
Israelis have the right to
kick the Arabs out 50 years
ago? The Arabs didn't kick
the Jews out during the
hundreds years during which
they ruled the region.
I never said they had the right. I said what _/
should have done and that what they did was a huge
mistake. The Arabs are on that land all the way
through North Africa and elsewhere because they
waged a bloody war of conquest to take it from the
previous owners. I don't see you crying about
them. And yes, the Arabs *did* kick out Jews from
all over the ME and took their property as well,
but there's a long history of that through the
ages, so it must be ok. They're just Jews.
You said they left "a few million really pissed _/
off Arabs inside their borders". Well, the only
real problems have been from the ones who have
have been under occupation in fenced camps, while
over time a lot of land grabs and other injustices
have been inflicted on them. I say again, it's just
not credible to wilfully ignore that and pretend
there was no other way to deal with the territories.
It was done out of militarily strategic concerns,
with an eye to the other Arab states. But that does
not mean it was the only option.
\_ Fenced camps? You've never seen the "camps"
which btw are supposed to be weapons free as
guaranteed by the UN which is supposed to be
running them until such time as the people can
be found living space in other Arab nations but
we know none of that ever happened, including
your illusionary fences. I do agree and said so
before that the push was for military/strategic
reasons. There's no crime there.
saying get out of Iraq; we merely don't trust the current
administration to do the right thing while there. We never
should have invaded, but we're there and we're stuck for now.
administration to do the right thing while there. We never
should have invaded, but we're there and we're stuck for now.
\_ A fair position. Question: if Gore was in office, what do
you think he would have done post 9/11 with Al Qaeda, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc?
Were you also opposed to what happened in Afghanistan?
happen? What will probably happen is, Israel will wall
itself off and try to live as a besieged state.
Palestinians will continue to blow themselves up and
train their children to do the same, and everyone will
go on their merry (?) way.
\_ nah, the likely outcome is Israel will bring
in more and more settlers, and expand with
more and more settlements until it reaches its
size during King Solomon's times, and all
Palestinians are thrown out of Greater Israel.
\_ Genocide. The Palestinians want genocide, and
eventually they are going to get it.
in the name of anything and say on TV how proud
they are afterwards. Golda said there won't be
peace until palestinian mothers love their
children more than they hate jews. She was
right 40 years ago and it's still true today
and for the future. The palestinian 'culture'
is just broken. The few people that were in
favor of peace were executed by Arafat as
'collaborators' when he came back from exile in
Tunis. Never bargain with terrorists. Letting
Arafat back in and giving him some form of
credibility was the worst possible mistake for
both Israel and the Palestinians who wanted a
nation and a real life and peace. Not until
Afarat is dead and forgotten can anything
positive happen. Bush, Clinton, etc, don't
stand a chance. I find it shocking that you'd
say Clinton was making progress when in fact he
had already given up long before his term was
over. Bush only got involved because he was
pressured into it and wasn't all that serious
about it. This is one of those things we should
not bother with until there's a local change of
some sort. It can't be fixed from the outside
and it is sheer American ignorance and arrogance
in the best colonial sense that says otherwise.
\_ It's amazing how so many people claim to
"understand" the minds of the palestinians,
when the really have no idea. The willful
ignorance ALONE is astounding.
\_ oh boo hoo! if only we understood and
accepted their differences as a people then
we could all just get along! The willful
blindness and naivete of some is TRULY
astounding.
\_ Eh. In some sense I don't _care_ what
exactly goes on in their heads. Do I care why
a serial killer kills? Why should I care why
a serial killer nation kills? I just want to
put the serial killer away to pay back his
debt to his victims. There is no excuse to
be found in palestinians' heads for what they
are doing. It's simply wrong and evil.
\_ SOrry, guess my statement was unclear.
I was trying to say, the Palestinians
(and most arabs) will simply ignore
overwhelming evidence that contradicts
what they wish to believe. It's in
the religion. I should tell the story
about the guy who refused to believe
California is bigger than Azerbaijan.
Basically, people who belive peace is
possiable with those people don't have
any idea what they're talking about. |
http://csua.com/feed/