NationStates Jolt Archive

He is fine with offering "My daddy said so" as proof and refusing to give examples that others can check out to back him up.
Amongst other things, but I am precluded from discussions on this thread. In any event, Corneliu has stated he knows my thoughts and can best be counted on to speak on my behalf in these matters, so kindly address anything pertaining to me or my opinion to Corneliu instead.

Lord knows I wouldn't want to contradict myself. Thank goodness for people like Corneliu, who can speak effectively on my behalf.

That's it, my bit is said. Don't bother sharpening your guillotines, fans of the smirking chimp. I'm outta here.

I do so love when it ends up in name calling, or deliberate mocking of names.
Condescending and bad will all around.

I wouldn't be talking about my parents Sumamba. My parents raised me to question everything. Did yours?

I don't trust any media 100% why? They are trained to sensationalize the news. That goes back to the USS Maine incident of 1898!

Well, since he is in the region, why shouldn't I listen to him?

Of course you wouldn't talk about your parents. You hold everything they say up as irrefutable fact. Thats thinking for yourself! Way to question everything buddy. Good example there. :rolleyes:

Of course I was told to think for myself, thats why I question all the 'facts' you present from your dad which are contradicted by servicemen and citizens who are also in Iraq. If someone that is in Iraq is all knowing, why do you question what they say and not what your father says? Isn't your father prone to biased thoughts too?

That's it, my bit is said. Don't bother sharpening your guillotines, fans of the smirking chimp. I'm outta here.

I heard a description of his smirk as zoolanderesque - I thought that was hilarious.

Personally I don't know if Eut is a vet or not and really doesn't make a difference to me as far as his postings on these forums.

However, given I recall when you joined NS, as do many others who have been here far longer and more involved in NS on many levels than you, I was just curious as to what you mean by what I've bolded in your text. Your nobody just like the rest of us on here. Don't think otherwise, you'll be in for one heck of a let down!

I have always conducted myself with respect and appreciation for others. YOU in particular should know that!!!! I have always been honest to a fault. I have made my personal time available to help others if they wanted it and did so without bringing my personal beliefs and feelings into it. I have tried to calm down explosive situations and have never hesitated to defend and support someone who is being attacked unfairly no matter their ideologies (remember?). Of all the people on this board you are the last person I would have thought would try to portray me as less than honest and to try to lessen my personal credibility. Perhaps you have your undies in a bundle because I criticized your obvious personal vendetta against one particular NSer. Well, that's your problem, not mine. More and more each day I regret the encouragement and support I gave to you when you were having a rough patch. Never too old to learn.

I have always conducted myself with respect and appreciation for others. YOU in particular should know that!!!! I have always been honest to a fault. I have made my personal time available to help others if they wanted it and did so without bringing my personal beliefs and feelings into it. I have tried to calm down explosive situations and have never hesitated to defend and support someone who is being attacked unfairly no matter their ideologies (remember?). Of all the people on this board you are the last person I would have thought would try to portray me as less than honest and to try to lessen my personal credibility. Perhaps you have your undies in a bundle because I criticized your obvious personal vendetta against one particular NSer. Well, that's your problem, not mine. More and more each day I regret the encouragement and support I gave to you when you were having a rough patch. Never too old to learn.

Well said Zooke. Well said indeed.

Furthermore, I know for a FACT that Eut is a Nam vet. He and my husband, also a vet (I have seen his military record) have discussed places, people and events in Nam. I also have personal knowledge (private to Eut) that verifies his former military status. Maybe Steph chooses to forget my code of ethics, and maybe I don't "live" on these forums and make 100 posts a day, but anyone who has come across me on these forums should have a pretty good hunch that I always present myself exactly as I am in real life, do not play games, and I DO NOT LIE! People can get by with pretending to be other than they are for a while, but eventualy it will catch up with them. I never have to worry about maintaining a false persona.

Nice opinions. All of them. That is all they are opinions. In the eyes of international law, the Invasion of Iraq is 100% legal. Sorry if your brainwashed mind can't accept that fact.
You didn't like it when I posted one link, so I posted 5 links and you say that "the Invasion of Iraq is 100% legal", based solely on YOUR opinion. All you have is unsubstantiated opinions, nothing more. You're trying to say that YOUR opinion trumps these experts' opinions?

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html)

Law Groups Say US Invasion Illegal (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0321illegal.htm)

GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT OPPOSES U.S. INVASION OF IRAQ (http://www.ctgreens.org/documents/opposeiraqwar.pdf)

Annan: Invasion of Iraq 'illegal' (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0916/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent2)

Blix: Iraq war was illegal (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1493820,00.html)

Just bring facts to the discussion and leave the rhetoric behind.

Furthermore, I know for a FACT that Eut is a Nam vet...(I have seen his military record)
Gee, lucky you.

Is that meant to carry weight?

Take Care Steph!

Thanks for conceding.
Weak sauce.

Gee, lucky you.

Is that meant to carry weight?
Only if you're interested in the truth and not in character assassination by lie and innuendo.

Only if you're interested in the truth and not in character assassination by lie and innuendo.
Ah, he speaks.

Just a note:

While I might've been among those few, so long ago, who would have leapt to the defense of returning soldiers, like you (apparently), facing vitriol on the tarmac as they made their return from Vietnam, I wouldn't do so now. I'd just try to direct the flow of the crowd's spittle toward Misters Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeldt should they be present. And I owe that change of heart to you and your menagerie of extreme-right wing parrots.

Ah, he speaks.

Just a note:

While I might've been among those few, so long ago, who would have leapt to the defense of returning soldiers, like you (apparently), facing vitriol on the tarmac as they made their return from Vietnam, I wouldn't do so now. I'd just try to direct the flow of the crowd's spittle toward Misters Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeldt should they be present. And I owe that change of heart to you and your menagerie of extreme-right wing parrots.
Explain to me how one so new to NS General can legitimately characterize me as an "extreme-right wing parrot." What do you know about me and who I am and what I believe?

Explain to me how one so new to NS General can legitimately characterize me as an "extreme-right wing parrot." What do you know about me and who I am and what I believe?
You aren't the parrot. Your menagerie is/are (?). I know you feel hard done by and put upon for things that happened a long, long time ago. Somehow, you think it's happening again. That, or on some level you want to see it happen again. Because you can't divorce yourself from it.

Well, it's over. It's been over for more than 35 years, according to your sig. And what I said is true: I would have tried stopping people from spitting on you then. But from everything I've seen and heard from you today and in the last few days, I wouldn't do that now. I'd still be inclined to direct the spit at someone more appropriate, like I sketched out earlier - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeldt - but I wouldn't be too upset if someone wetted the face of the less-reasonable troops, either.

Must I quote the Byrds?

I am a vet of this war. I've seen things that no one should have to see, and done things that I know will be in my nightmares for a long time to come. War is hell, and until you've been in combat you don't have any idea what that means. I've lead troops into battle, and dealt with the emotional side effects. One reason that combat vets only talk about thier experiances with other vets is because unless you've been there, you don't know and no one can ever explain it to you.

That being said, there are time when it becomes nessisary to fight. We are facing an enemy who believes that it is thier religious duty to convert you to thier way of thinking, or kill you. They don't care who else they kill in the process. They believe that it is fine to send thier own children out to die with a rifle in thier hand or a bomb on thier chest.

Please tell me how anyone can reason with people who have beliefs like that?

You aren't the parrot. Your menagerie is/are (?). I know you feel hard done by and put upon for things that happened a long, long time ago. Somehow, you think it's happening again. That, or on some level you want to see it happen again. Because you can't divorce yourself from it.

Well, it's over. It's been over for more than 35 years, according to your sig. And what I said is true: I would have tried stopping people from spitting on you then. But from everything I've seen and heard from you today and in the last few days, I wouldn't do that now. I'd still be inclined to direct the spit at someone more appropriate, like I sketched out earlier - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeldt - but I wouldn't be too upset if someone wetted the face of the less-reasonable troops, either.

Must I quote the Byrds?
Quote anyone you like, you've already revealed your own stripes. If the sort of vituperaton of American soldiers takes place as took place during Vietnam, it won't be because of some deep, dark psychological perversion on the part of Veterans like me. It will be because of the idiocy of spoiled brats like you who think that any and all acts, no matter how vile, are justified to make others recognize you and your ilk as the intellectual elite you believe yourselves to be, and thus endorse your obvious superiority.

You didn't like it when I posted one link, so I posted 5 links and you say that "the Invasion of Iraq is 100% legal", based solely on YOUR opinion. All you have is unsubstantiated opinions, nothing more. You're trying to say that YOUR opinion trumps these experts' opinions?

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html)

Law Groups Say US Invasion Illegal (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0321illegal.htm)

GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT OPPOSES U.S. INVASION OF IRAQ (http://www.ctgreens.org/documents/opposeiraqwar.pdf)

Annan: Invasion of Iraq 'illegal' (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0916/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent2)

Blix: Iraq war was illegal (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1493820,00.html)

Just bring facts to the discussion and leave the rhetoric behind.

Opinions Opinions Opinions! That is all they are are opinions. :rolleyes:

We already played this game CH and you lost it.

BTW: Since when did it become legal to violate a BINDING UN resolution?

Quote anyone you like, you've already revealed your own stripes. If the sort of vituperaton of American soldiers takes place as took place during Vietnam, it won't be because of some deep, dark psychological perversion on the part of Veterans like me. It will be because of the idiocy of spoiled brats like you who think that any and all acts, no matter how vile, are justified to make others recognize you and your ilk as the intellectual elite you believe yourselves to be, and thus endorse your obvious superiority.
*lets the rush of hot air subside as the nearby trees and lamp-posts right themselves again*

Thanks for confirming all that for me. See you on the tarmac sometime.

That being said, there are time when it becomes nessisary to fight. We are facing an enemy who believes that it is thier religious duty to convert you to thier way of thinking, or kill you. They don't care who else they kill in the process. They believe that it is fine to send thier own children out to die with a rifle in thier hand or a bomb on thier chest.

Please tell me how anyone can reason with people who have beliefs like that?

You cant

Eutrusca, you and other Nam vet went thru way worse than nearly anyone that I know of from this war. There are many people out there who would love to turn iraq into another Vietnam, but as long as we can keep congress from trying to run the war, it won't happen.

And if no has said it to you before, thank you for your service.

Eutrusca, you and other Nam vet went thru way worse than nearly anyone that I know of from this war. There are many people out there who would love to turn iraq into another Vietnam, but as long as we can keep congress from trying to run the war, it won't happen.

And if no has said it to you before, thank you for your service.

Amen to that!

Amen to that!
Amen to what?

Amen to what?

Amen to what Gun Toting Civilians said.

I guess you can't read english?

Opinions Opinions Opinions! That is all they are are opinions. :rolleyes:

We already played this game CH and you lost it.

BTW: Since when did it become legal to violate a BINDING UN resolution?
I will take the opinions of Richard Perle, Hans Blix, and Kofi Anann over yours any day of the weak because their opinions trumps yours. You have zero proof, nothing, nada, and zip.

I have posted enough links on this to sink a battleship. More than enough to swamp your rubber dingy.

Amen to what Gun Toting Civilians said.

'Amen' shouldn't be thrown around higgledy-piggledy. It's a sacred word to some. I wouldn't connect a word like 'Amen' to that drivel you put in quotes.
I guess you can't read english?
You're a surly one, aren't you?

I will take the opinions of Richard Perle, Hans Blix, and Kofi Anann over yours any day of the weak because their opinions trumps yours. You have zero proof, nothing, nada, and zip.

I have posted enough links on this to sink a battleship. More than enough to swamp your rubber dingy.

And I'll take the opinions of our US military soldiers who know what international law really is!

And I'll take the opinions of our US military soldiers who know what international law really is!I wouldn't. As deserving as they are of respect for what they're doing, if they haven't got any experience in international law, chances are, they might not know what they're talking about. Although, if you want to, I can try and get you in touch with my International Relations professor. I value his opion quite a lot. According to your statement, you do to. He knows damn well that the war was illegal.

I wouldn't. As deserving as they are of respect for what they're doing, if they haven't got any experience in international law, chances are, they might not know what they're talking about.

Most of the people I've talked to, and that's a wide range of age, they know that this war isn't illegal under international law. You have to know what international law is to be inside a warzone. Those that violate it are punished and tossed out of the service.

I listen to both enlisted and officer and they both know what international law is because they have too in order to do their jobs.

Although, if you want to, I can try and get you in touch with my International Relations professor.

If you like, I can try and get you in touch with my intro to global politics professor.

I value his opion quite a lot. According to your statement, you do to. He knows damn well that the war was illegal.

And who'll that be?

Most of the people I've talked to, and that's a wide range of age, they know that this war isn't illegal under international law. You have to know what international law is to be inside a warzone. Those that violate it are punished and tossed out of the service.

I listen to both enlisted and officer and they both know what international law is because they have too in order to do their jobs.As far as I remember, you don't need to know the level of international law required to legally start a war in order to operate in a warzone. Please do correct me with some statements of what you've talked about.


If you like, I can try and get you in touch with my intro to global politics professor.
And who'll that be?I don't see why you had to answer that by splitting it up. It is rather early over here and you've managed to confuse me. I do not want to make a mistake of laying words into your mouth, so please explaint the part about "And who'll that be?" to me. I don't see how it needs to be anyone special than someone who's served in the US military for his or her opinion to count.

As far as I remember, you don't need to know the level of international law required to legally start a war in order to operate in a warzone. Please do correct me with some statements of what you've talked about.

Well....I do know that officers get training in it. Enlisted people also get a dose of it because enlisted troops work together without officers around. Mostly more senior NCOs get that level of training.

I don't see why you had to answer that by splitting it up. It is rather early over here and you've managed to confuse me. I do not want to make a mistake of laying words into your mouth, so please explaint the part about "And who'll that be?" to me. I don't see how it needs to be anyone special than someone who's served in the US military for his or her opinion to count.

I value his opion quite a lot. According to your statement, you do to. He nows damn well that the war was illegal.

Whose opinion will I value more? I value the opinions of those that actually put it into practice and not those that are behind the lines debating it. Now whose opinion do you value quite abit?

'Amen' shouldn't be thrown around higgledy-piggledy. It's a sacred word to some. I wouldn't connect a word like 'Amen' to that drivel you put in quotes.

You're a surly one, aren't you?
Welcome to the world of Corn. :rolleyes:

Well....I do know that officers get training in it. Enlisted people also get a dose of it because enlisted troops work together without officers around. Mostly more senior NCOs get that level of training.And you think the Commander-in-Chief would make the illegality of preemptive wars (not strikes, mind you) part of the curriculum?

Whose opinion will I value more? I value the opinions of those that actually put it into practice and not those that are behind the lines debating it. Now whose opinion do you value quite abit?Muahaha. That's a cute way of worming your way out of valueing a veteran's opinion! Might I recall your attention to this:
And I'll take the opinions of our US military soldiers who know what international law really is!
I don't see how him debating it now and having "studied international politics to learn to understand [his own] stupidity" (he volonteered for Viet Nam) discredits his opinion and makes him less valuable than someone whom is doing a very stressful job and may or may not lack the distance to current events to properly grasp them. By no means am I saying that anyone who is a recent veteran is wrong, but this guy's had quite some time to think about and analyze what things were like for him then and how things are like now, why they are different, and why this war is illegal by international standards that the United States of America has agreed to.

Allow me to get this thread back on topic. It appears from the letter that the soldier in question is complaining more about lack of Government support of the troops, and his resentment towards others who didn't serve in combat than he is about his homecoming. Directly from the soldier's letter:

"Along the way a general stood shaking hands and exchanging salutes with the returning soldiers. Next to him, a young lieutenant shivered as he held an umbrella out at arm's length over the general. Neither had combat patches on their uniforms, and I splashed by without saluting or shaking hands. It gave little satisfaction."

"They had signed up for the fabled "one weekend a month, two weeks a year" and gotten very much more than they bargained for."

"As the weeks turned to months, however, and we watched active-duty units return to their families, our stoicism was replaced with mounting frustration. Our Vietnam-era flak vests, retooled M-16's more than two decades old and a general absence of supplies added to an irrefutable feeling that we had been abandoned in the lion's den."

"When the tour ended a year later, our uniforms were in tatters, night vision goggles had been packed away seven months earlier when all our replacement parts ran out, and the ragged men who stepped off the plane in Hinesville, Ga., scarcely resembled the "shock-and-awe" troops seen on television."

"That night, in the same dilapidated World War II barracks that we had deployed from an eternity before, I didn't sleep."

"A week later someone gave a speech, and bags full of coupons for free double cheeseburgers and oil changes were handed out. (Most of the good freebies had already been plundered by 17-year-old trainees who hadn't yet been to basic training.) "

Hmmmmmm.

And you think the Commander-in-Chief would make the illegality of preemptive wars (not strikes, mind you) part of the curriculum?

Last time I checked the rule book, pre-emptive wars aren't illegal. BTW: The president doesn't decide the curriculum.

I don't see how him debating it now and having "studied international politics to learn to understand [his own] stupidity" (he volonteered for Viet Nam) discredits his opinion and makes him less valuable than someone whom is doing a very stressful job and may or may not lack the distance to current events to properly grasp them. By no means am I saying that anyone who is a recent veteran is wrong, but this guy's had quite some time to think about and analyze what things were like for him then and how things are like now, why they are different, and why this war is illegal by international standards that the United States of America has agreed to.

And my father has been in the service for over 30yrs and has participated in most major combat operations from Gulf War 1 through Kosovo through this current Gulf War. My father has been shot at in real life and still risks his life. I know other veterans that I talk to who says that its about time that we decided to oust Saddam. Most of our soldiers knew about the human rights condition inside the country. They also know that we have other resolutions that allowes us to go in and they know the fact that this is 100% legal in the eyes of International Law. I could go on but whats the point? No one's minds are going to be changed because of the rhetoric and opinions of those on both sides of the issue.

Welcome to the world of Corn. :rolleyes:
Not too friendly a cob.

Not too friendly a cob.

I'm the nicest person people will ever meet.

Not too friendly a cob.
You must be careful, or you will get an earful of unsubstatiated opinion from Master Corny.

I'm the nicest person people will ever meet.
I said 'friendly', fella. And you're not that, and I'm only one man.

Last time I checked the rule book, pre-emptive wars aren't illegal. BTW: The president doesn't decide the curriculum.
It would help if you use the correct Rule Book:

Charter of the United Nations (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-chp1.htm)

Chapter I
Purposes and Principles

Last time I checked the rule book, pre-emptive wars aren't illegal. BTW: The president doesn't decide the curriculum.
Show me the rule book some time. I'd be interested in seeing it.


And my father has been in the service for over 30yrs and has participated in most major combat operations from Gulf War 1 through Kosovo through this current Gulf War. My father has been shot at in real life and still risks his life. I know other veterans that I talk to who says that its about time that we decided to oust Saddam. Most of our soldiers knew about the human rights condition inside the country. They also know that we have other resolutions that allowes us to go in and they know the fact that this is 100% legal in the eyes of International Law. I could go on but whats the point? No one's minds are going to be changed because of the rhetoric and opinions of those on both sides of the issue.The human rights situation by no means allows the United States to Start a pre-emptive war to sustain its security. There was no immediate breach of human rights that provoked a reaction. And I put my faith as to judging whether a resolution allows for a pre-emptive war or not into the hands of the man who runs the UN, Kofi Annan. Not el presidente arbusto.

But you are right. Neither of us is going to change their minds and it doesn't do Eutrusca credit if we continue to hijack his thread.

Show me the rule book some time. I'd be interested in seeing it.

I'll be interesting to see where it is illegal.

The human rights situation by no means allows the United States to Start a pre-emptive war to sustain its security. There was no immediate breach of human rights that provoked a reaction. And I put my faith as to judging whether a resolution allows for a pre-emptive war or not into the hands of the man who runs the UN, Kofi Annan. Not el presidente arbusto.

Kinda hard when France and Russia have been vowing veto upon veto with anything regarding Iraq. I don't trust the UN anymore and that's a shame. It used to do its job now it doesn't do a thing about anything.

But you are right. Neither of us is going to change their minds and it doesn't do Eutrusca credit if we continue to hijack his thread.

Well we are talking about Iraq so its only a partial hijack :D

I'll be interesting to see where it is illegal.
I will point you in the right direction:

Charter of the United Nations (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-chp1.htm)

Chapter I
Purposes and Principles

It would help if you use the correct Rule Book:

Charter of the United Nations (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-chp1.htm)

Chapter I
Purposes and Principles

Seems a good number of nations are in violation of the UN Charter then, including the UN itself in regards to Iraq.

Where are the resolutions and sanctions on France and Russia for selling weapons during the embargo, on the UN itself for not adequately overseeing the Oil-For-Food program.

I'm also wondering when the UK, Japan, Italy, etc. became US territories making this a "unilateral" action.

I will point you in the right direction:

Charter of the United Nations (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-chp1.htm)

Chapter I
Purposes and Principles

And you do know that this is a charter and not a treaty right?

Oh, I also love Article 2 section 5: "All members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the presient Charter, and sall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Natins is taking prevntive or enforcement action."

I can tell ya who violated this and it wasn't the United States in regards with Iraq.

Now care to show me where in this chapter that states that pre-emptive wars are illegal? I'm not seeing it in there and I'm staring at it right now.

Seems a good number of nations are in violation of the UN Charter then, including the UN itself in regards to Iraq.

Where are the resolutions and sanctions on France and Russia for selling weapons during the embargo, on the UN itself for not adequately overseeing the Oil-For-Food program.

I'm also wondering when the UK, Japan, Italy, etc. became US territories making this a "unilateral" action.

Thank you Kecibukia. People don't realize that the charter is useless because it is really unenforcable.

The human rights situation by no means allows the United States to Start a pre-emptive war to sustain its security. There was no immediate breach of human rights that provoked a reaction. And I put my faith as to judging whether a resolution allows for a pre-emptive war or not into the hands of the man who runs the UN, Kofi Annan. Not el presidente arbusto.
You are correct.

Now back to the thread? What do you think about the US Government's lack of support for their troops according to the original letter?

I summarized them here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9452004&postcount=283).

Now care to show me where in this chapter that states that pre-emptive wars are illegal? I'm not seeing it in there and I'm staring at it right now.
Use both eyes?

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

I'll be interesting to see where it is illegal.I haven't been to any MUN meetings lately, so I'm a bit rusty, but I think it's in the early parts of the charter. I'll see if I compile a quote list someday for easy reference.

Kinda hard when France and Russia have been vowing veto upon veto with anything regarding Iraq. I don't trust the UN anymore and that's a shame. It used to do its job now it doesn't do a thing about anything.Kofi Annan isn't Putin or Chirac. I personally can't stand the reasons they had for staying out of it. I personally respect Schröder (though he's dropped very far down because his reaction to the Yukos-trial) for his: He promised the people he'd stay out and they reelected him for it. I have the feeling the French might have acted similarly, but I've never really liked Chirac anyway.
The UN's main job of maintaining peace is encumbered by the fact that it is only as strong as the SC can agree on anything. This is what keeps it weak, but there is no other viable alternative that would get more done.
I personally feel shamed that UN officials abused the oil for food program, but corruption is everywhere, and sadly, no one is safe from it. Don't consider it the UN's only duty to be the decisive factor in every conflict. It does too much in other areas for that to be enough to consider it a total failure.

Well we are talking about Iraq so its only a partial hijack :DI guess so. But we got pretty sidetracked from the veteran-issue...

Use both eyes?

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.


Kind of like when they fled from Rawanda allowing tens of thousands to be massacred? Kind of like how they didn't pass any "resolutions" against France when troops were caught on tape shooting civilians in a truly unilateral action? Or how UN "peacekeepers " have been caught raping and whoring with full knowledge of their UN superiors?

These are all keeping with the "Purposes of the United Nations" I gather.

Use both eyes?

Yes I did.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

Saddam didn't do this. Most nations don't even do this.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

And what if someone doesn't want to negotiate or what if someone fails to cooperate as they were told too?

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

You do know that Saddam has threatened the United States right? That is a threat and a violation of the UN Charter. Even Kim Jong Il is in violation of this part of the charter.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

Violated more times than I care to think about.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

If they are outside the charter, they are not bound by the Charter rules.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

Ok then, explain to me why France can Unilaterally go into other nations without going through the UN first? They've been doing that alot you know.

CH, you just showed me why I don't trust the United Nations anymore. Thank you for proving my case for me.

I beleive the UN authorized the US to take action via a resolution. And what's more, even if there wasn't Saddam was still bound to the terms of the original Gulf war terms of surrender, which he violated in many ways.

And what if someone doesn't want to negotiate or what if someone fails to cooperate as they were told too?
That is where Chapter 7 comes in. Also the Security Council is involved.
Iraq was NOT in default of Resolution 1441.

You do know that Saddam has threatened the United States right? That is a threat and a violation of the UN Charter. Even Kim Jong Il is in violation of this part of the charter.
And Bush is guilty of it too with Iran, Syria, and North Korea. However, in regards to Iraq, it was no threat to the US.

Violated more times than I care to think about.
Including the US

If they are outside the charter, they are not bound by the Charter rules.
Not too many countries are outside the Charter.

Ok then, explain to me why France can Unilaterally go into other nations without going through the UN first? They've been doing that alot you know.
Which countries has France been going into?

CH, you just showed me why I don't trust the United Nations anymore. Thank you for proving my case for me.
No, I just showed you that the US was in violation of the UN Charter when it invaded Iraq. Even your own Richard Perle admits that.

Kind of like when they fled from Rawanda allowing tens of thousands to be massacred? Kind of like how they didn't pass any "resolutions" against France when troops were caught on tape shooting civilians in a truly unilateral action? Or how UN "peacekeepers " have been caught raping and whoring with full knowledge of their UN superiors?

These are all keeping with the "Purposes of the United Nations" I gather.

I was just thinking the samething Kecibukia.

And what if someone doesn't want to negotiate or what if someone fails to cooperate as they were told too? Corneliu, what if someone is scared shitless that he might be ousted and is finally starting to comply? Should make an example of them and show everyone how helpful it is to comply?[/QUOTE]

I beleive the UN authorized the US to take action via a resolution. And what's more, even if there wasn't Saddam was still bound to the terms of the original Gulf war terms of surrender, which he violated in many ways.
Iraq was not in violation of Resolution 1441, which incorporates the previous resolutions.

Resolution 1441 (2002) (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)

That is where Chapter 7 comes in. Also the Security Council is involved.
Iraq was NOT in default of Resolution 1441.

And if a resolution is violated and another nation threaten's veto then what?

And Bush is guilty of it too with Iran, Syria, and North Korea. However, in regards to Iraq, it was no threat to the US.

We are trying to do things diplomatically. So far, I haven't heard war drums on either Iran, North Korea, or Syria. And to counter it, Syria is in violation of the Charter as is Iran for threatening the integrity of Iraq.

Including the US

Yep.

Not too many countries are outside the Charter.

Not anymore but when it was founded, most of the nations were outside the Charter. If a nation is outside of a particular charter, then that nation doesn't have to do what is inside that charter.

Which countries has France been going into?

You really don't follow the news do you? How about The Ivory Coast? They went there without authorization from anyone but Chirac yet I don't hear your outcry over that.

No, I just showed you that the US was in violation of the UN Charter when it invaded Iraq. Even your own Richard Perle admits that.

Sorry but no we didn't violate international law by going into Iraq. We're enforcing International Law by going into Iraq.

Iraq was not in violation of Resolution 1441, which incorporates the previous resolutions.

Resolution 1441 (2002) (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)

And yet 1441 didn't overturn past UN Resolutions! It backs up those resolutions. Also, no resolution can overturn a cease-fire resolution either and 1441 didn't do that.

Corneliu, what if someone is scared shitless that he might be ousted and is finally starting to comply? Should make an example of them and show everyone how helpful it is to comply?

Since Saddam wasn't complying to begin with.......

And yet 1441 didn't overturn past UN Resolutions! It backs up those resolutions. Also, no resolution can overturn a cease-fire resolution either and 1441 didn't do that.
Read 1441, it incorporates the other resolutions, and there was no UN sanctioned no fly zone:

The United States agreed to a ceasefire with Iraq in February 1991. The no-flight zones over two-thirds of Iraq were imposed by the U.S., Britain and France 18 months after the Gulf War. The United Nations has never sanctioned the no-flight zones.

France has since condemned them. The so-called no-flight zones are in violation of international law. Iraq has every right under international
law and all known laws in the world to defend itself in these U.S.-declared noflight zones. According to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, Iraq has the right of self-defense in all of its country, including these "no-flight zones.

On and on you go and everywhere you turn you hit a stop sign because the facts are not on your side. You cannot prove any of the stuff you type and offer ZERO proof.

Perhaps they will teach you a little bit about international laws in your PoliSci course, but until then you cannot support your points.

Read 1441, it incorporates the other resolutions, and there was no UN sanctioned no fly zone:

I'm glad you mentioned that word incorporates! Goes to prove that it never overturned them in the 1st but instead, backs them up. Thank you for proving my point. Now, tell me where I have ever said that the No Flyzones were UN Sanctioned!

France has since condemned them. The so-called no-flight zones are in violation of international law. Iraq has every right under international
law and all known laws in the world to defend itself in these U.S.-declared noflight zones. According to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, Iraq has the right of self-defense in all of its country, including these "no-flight zones.[/i]

Then by extension, we have the right to self defense if they shoot at us. Excuse us for protecting the oppressed Shi'ites and Kurds.

On and on you go and everywhere you turn you hit a stop sign because the facts are not on your side. You cannot prove any of the stuff you type and offer ZERO proof.

Actually, your the one that just proved half of my arguements. Incorporating is not the same as overturning them.

Perhaps they will teach you a little bit about international laws in your PoliSci course, but until then you cannot support your points.

I have supported my points. It is you that really haven't. Have you actually sat down and read the UN Charter, cover to cover CH?

And another thing, I'm going to get a hell of a lot better education regarding international law. I can judge that based on my professor's credentials.

And another thing, I'm going to get a hell of a lot better education regarding international law. I can judge that based on my professor's credentials.
So how are the credentials of your professor "one way Iraq really IS like Vietnam"? Is he "coming home" with you, or something?

So how are the credentials of your professor "one way Iraq really IS like Vietnam"? Is he "coming home" with you, or something?

I guess you failed to read what I quoted. Not surprising to say the least.

I guess you failed to read what I quoted. Not surprising to say the least.
I avoid reading what you've said with increasing regularity, and seem all the better for it.

I avoid reading what you've said with increasing regularity, and seem all the better for it.

No wonder you always miss the obvious.

I dont think there are very many people on this site who oppose Bush, and his war for money and oil, on this site more than I...

BUT....

If I ever saw anyone spitting on our soldiers, or calling them "Babykillers" or any of the kind of treatment that the Vietnam vets recieved, I would willfully, and viscously beat the shit out of such an aggrevious asshat.

You can support out troops AND protest against the war in wich they are fighting.

Soldiers are people.

I beleive the UN authorized the US to take action via a resolution.Nope.

I dont think there are very many people on this site who oppose Bush, and his war for money and oil, on this site more than I...

BUT....

If I ever saw anyone spitting on our soldiers, or calling them "Babykillers" or any of the kind of treatment that the Vietnam vets recieved, I would willfully, and viscously beat the shit out of such an aggrevious asshat.

You can support out troops AND protest against the war in wich they are fighting.

Soldiers are people.

Well said BackwoodsSquatches.

Well said BackwoodsSquatches.


Danke.

I think this is the one time that you and I will agree on this site.

Heh.

Danke.

I think this is the one time that you and I will agree on this site.

Heh.

I believe you are probably correct in that regard. Hopefully we can agree again sometime down the line.

Shall we end this cease-fire now and go back to war with one another? :D

Since Saddam wasn't complying to begin with.......
Not an acceptable arguement. He was complying in the end. When he wasn't complying, Bush demanded compliance. When he complied, Bush demanded he abdicate.

I dont think there are very many people on this site who oppose Bush, and his war for money and oil, on this site more than I...

BUT....

If I ever saw anyone spitting on our soldiers, or calling them "Babykillers" or any of the kind of treatment that the Vietnam vets recieved, I would willfully, and viscously beat the shit out of such an aggrevious asshat.

You can support out troops AND protest against the war in wich they are fighting.

Soldiers are people.
AND you can oppose militarism and the promulgation of violence as a reasonable means of resolving conflict without getting the shit visciously beaten out of you by supporters of "the troops"?

I mean, fair is fair, right?

Does anybody actually HAVE a case where soldiers returning from Iraq have been spat upon, or is this entire argument based on events thirty-five years in the murky past?

Not an acceptable arguement. He was complying in the end. When he wasn't complying, Bush demanded compliance. When he complied, Bush demanded he abdicate.

But Saddam didn't comply with any of the resolutions. Not a one.

I believe you are probably correct in that regard. Hopefully we can agree again sometime down the line.

Shall we end this cease-fire now and go back to war with one another? :D


So be it.....Jedi.

So be it.....Jedi.

*ignites lightsaber*

I shall never join you! LOL

But Saddam didn't comply with any of the resolutions. Not a one.Which ones. If you told me which ones he was violating, it would make your arguement a bit more sound.
Fact is, when Saddam was scared shitless of an American invasion, he let Blix come in to look through everything.

*ignites lightsaber*

I shall never join you! LOL
I'm really disappointed that there's only "Good" and "Evil" sides to the force. Can't there be some Gray Jedi/Sith counterpart? :confused:

I'm really disappointed that there's only "Good" and "Evil" sides to the force. Can't there be some Gray Jedi/Sith counterpart? :confused:

That is a very good question! I was actually wondering that myself but we can debate star wars later :)

AND you can oppose militarism and the promulgation of violence as a reasonable means of resolving conflict without getting the shit visciously beaten out of you by supporters of "the troops"?

I mean, fair is fair, right?

Does anybody actually HAVE a case where soldiers returning from Iraq have been spat upon, or is this entire argument based on events thirty-five years in the murky past?

Hmm..well youve succeeded in blurring partisan lines here, so all I have in defense, is my feelings.

Let me expound on them.

Hating our president and this farce of a war, is something to wich I can fully sympathize with.
I myself feel that Bush is one small law away from a dictatorship.

However, raging at a returning soldier, who had no choice but to do the job he was given, and one that he most likely did for reasons of a GI Bill, or college money, or even becuase he or she simply needed the job itself..is inhumane, and evil.

These guys are people, like you and I.
Our brothers, and sisters, Aunts and Uncles, mothers, and fathers, are over there, doing the job they are given.
They do not have the luxury of making moral descisions on the spot, or making policy.

To welcome such a person home, with curses and spit, angers me greatly.
In fact, to such a degree that it speaks to me of ignorance.
My side is supposed to be opposing this war becuase the US, is clearly in the wrong, and has been from the start.
So, to lash out at anyone who returns after being away from home for far too long..and is recieved in such a way....

Makes me want to kick them in the ribs a few times..to drive home a point of loving your fellow man.

Such an interesting dichotomy isnt it?

Does anybody actually HAVE a case where soldiers returning from Iraq have been spat upon, or is this entire argument based on events thirty-five years in the murky past?
Apparently not.


Which is pretty much as I'd thought.

I can wait all day if need be.

No? No actual incident of American soldiers returning from Iraq, being spat upon and called 'babykillers'?

Let me give you some more time, shall I?

I can wait all day if need be.

No? No actual incident of American soldiers returning from Iraq, being spat upon and called 'babykillers'?

Let me give you some more time, shall I?


whats your point?

Was this not a hypothetical question, anyway?

whats your point?

Was this not a hypothetical question, anyway?
It's a question that belongs in a museum. Which is what I'm trying to assert by asking if anyone actually has news of such an event. Which nobody apparently does, which renders the question moot.

the only story concerning vets and spitting in faces I have heard recently is the one about a vet spitting in someones face - Hanoi Janes. That's what she gets for having an opinion contrary to a vets though.

It's a question that belongs in a museum. Which is what I'm trying to assert by asking if anyone actually has news of such an event. Which nobody apparently does, which renders the question moot.


A hypothetical question does not need any basis in reality for it to be a valid question.
If that were false....religion would never have started.

I was responding to how I would react, if I saw such a thing.

And heres something for you to think about:

While there doesnt seem to be anyone capable of producing such a report for you....with all the nutcases on both sides of the arguement, on this site alone, who would probably do such a thing..I would imagine that it HAS happened.
It just hasnt made national news.

It's a question that belongs in a museum. Which is what I'm trying to assert by asking if anyone actually has news of such an event. Which nobody apparently does, which renders the question moot.
Dobbs, if you read the letter written by the soldier, he is actually more ticked off at the Government then anything else. I posted earlier in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9452004&postcount=283) the exact points of complaint.

Intermingled with that, is a complaint about becoming addicted to valium and overuse of alcohol was also mentioned.

I certainly don't see how that equates to soldiers being spat upon.

While there doesnt seem to be anyone capable of producing such a report for you....with all the nutcases on both sides of the arguement, on this site alone, who would probably do such a thing..I would imagine that it HAS happened.
It just hasnt made national news.
Imaginings all 'round, then. Not the basis for vilifying those who would seek an end to military solutions. not a rationale for lynchmobs.

Imaginings.

I can wait all day if need be.

No? No actual incident of American soldiers returning from Iraq, being spat upon and called 'babykillers'?

Let me give you some more time, shall I?
WTF are you on about, boy? Who the hell said anything about soldiers returning from IRAQ being spat upon? You're so strange. :eek:

WTF are you on about, boy? Who the hell said anything about soldiers returning from IRAQ being spat upon? You're so strange. :eek:


Didnt you say that you were (are) are Vietnam Vet?

Did you witness anything like that when you came home?

and if you did...was there anyone like me around who would have slapped the piss out of such an asswipe, even though he (the slapper) didnt agree with the war in progress?

WTF are you on about, boy? Who the hell said anything about soldiers returning from IRAQ being spat upon? You're so strange. :eek:
*Edit: you're not worth it, old man.

*Edit: you're not worth it, old man.
Damn! I seem to do that to you all the time! Sorry ... seriously. It's totally unintentional on my part. :(

A hypothetical question does not need any basis in reality for it to be a valid question.
If that were false....religion would never have started.

I was responding to how I would react, if I saw such a thing.

And heres something for you to think about:

While there doesnt seem to be anyone capable of producing such a report for you....with all the nutcases on both sides of the arguement, on this site alone, who would probably do such a thing..I would imagine that it HAS happened.
It just hasnt made national news.
I think the point to be made here is that several posters stated that they were spat upon and I believe that they are trying to make the rare occurrence (if in fact it did occur) seem as if it was a national epidemic.

I also believe that if this did occur, one would need to investigate the underlying circumstances. Perhaps the soldier(s) precipitated the events? At any rate, one would think that if this was a widespread situation, then it would have made headlines across the nation.

From an article on the Veteran's For Peace (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Did_protesters_spit_050803.htm) web site:

Lembcke conducted extensive research to ascertain that there were no contemporaneous news reports or police complaints lodged to substantiate the claims that began appearing in the media about 1991. The perpetuation of such myths only blocks the healing of Vietnam veterans from our "culture of victimization," and it serves the agenda of those pro-war forces who place fear and intimidation in the path of open debate on the pressing issues of the moment.

From a Slate article (http://slate.msn.com/id/1005224/):

Lembcke, a professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam vet, investigated hundreds of news accounts of antiwar activists spitting on vets. But every time he pushed for more evidence or corroboration from a witness, the story collapsed--the actual person who was spat on turned out to be a friend of a friend. Or somebody's uncle. He writes that he never met anybody who convinced him that any such clash took place.

Anyways, regardless of the truth, no one should spit on a soldier or anyone else for that matter.

Didnt you say that you were (are) are Vietnam Vet?

Did you witness anything like that when you came home?

and if you did...was there anyone like me around who would have slapped the piss out of such an asswipe, even though he (the slapper) didnt agree with the war in progress?
Well, here we go again. Contrary to what a few on here would have you believe, I am a Vietnam veteran, having been stationed there for two years, at locations such as Bien Hua Airbase, Long Binh Base Camp, Song Be, Phouc Vinh, Ahn Khe, LZ English, LZ Uplift, etc.

When I came home from my first 15 months on 30 days special leave, I flew in through SeaTac International Airport, got a bus down to SF International, and was spat upon by a member of a loud group of protesters as I walked into the Terminal.

On my way back to Vietnam about 28 days later, I stopped over in SF and stayed at a hostel, where some cute lil thang informed me that I was a babykiller.

Most people had no idea how to act when this sort of insult occured, or were too polite to take any sort of action. It was a different world back then and people had what they use to refer to as manners, unless of course they were protesting something and then abandoning manners and civility was acceptable because their cause was "just." :rolleyes:

I think the point to be made here is that several posters stated that they were spat upon and I believe that they are trying to make the rare occurrence (if in fact it did occur) seem as if it was a national epidemic.

I also believe that if this did occur, one would need to investigate the underlying circumstances. Perhaps the soldier(s) precipitated the events? At any rate, one would think that if this was a widespread situation, then it would have made headlines across the nation.

From an article on the Veteran's For Peace (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Did_protesters_spit_050803.htm) web site:

Lembcke conducted extensive research to ascertain that there were no contemporaneous news reports or police complaints lodged to substantiate the claims that began appearing in the media about 1991. The perpetuation of such myths only blocks the healing of Vietnam veterans from our "culture of victimization," and it serves the agenda of those pro-war forces who place fear and intimidation in the path of open debate on the pressing issues of the moment.

From a Slate article (http://slate.msn.com/id/1005224/):

Lembcke, a professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam vet, investigated hundreds of news accounts of antiwar activists spitting on vets. But every time he pushed for more evidence or corroboration from a witness, the story collapsed--the actual person who was spat on turned out to be a friend of a friend. Or somebody's uncle. He writes that he never met anybody who convinced him that any such clash took place.

Anyways, regardless of the truth, no one should spit on a soldier or anyone else for that matter.
Jesus H. Christ! How many times does it have to be pointed out that Lembcke is a Marxist and has been an apologist for the anti-Vietnam war protestors ever since he left his position in the military as A CHAPLIAN'S ASSISTANT to join Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He has consistently tried to cover over the facts of how Veitnam veterans were treated unpon their return, having the unmitigated gall to state that something over 95% of returning Vietnam veterans were "welcomed with open arms!"

Jesus H. Christ! How many times does it have to be pointed out that Lembcke is a Marxist and has been an apologist for the anti-Vietnam war protestors ever since he left his position in the military as A CHAPLIAN'S ASSISTANT to join Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He has consistently tried to cover over the facts of how Veitnam veterans were treated unpon their return, having the unmitigated gall to state that something over 95% of returning Vietnam veterans were "welcomed with open arms!"
His political views aren't on trial.

Well that's like Vietnam and every other war faught throughout the centuries, for better or for worse. Last time I checked, the US has an all volunteer army, if you are volunteering for the wrong reasons (money, think it'll be cool, paying for college) or have expectations that war is going to be OK, even if you don't see any "action" at all, just sit in the barracks somewhere during the whole thing -- war is not a "natural state" for human beings to exist under, it's going to affect you in more ways than one. Trying to find solutions at the bottom of a bottle or through drugs is a sign of weakness, regardless of what one might go through in any walk of life. If famlies have this expectation that their son or daughter is going to come back the way they were before, then they are raising false hopes. War changes many things. I have never been in war, hope I never have to be, support those whose job it is to make it (before and after), I hope against all hope that I can never empathize with such individuals, but mearly help them in whatever way I can. To look at war, any war, any way other than what it actually is, is non-sensical.

Jesus H. Christ! How many times does it have to be pointed out that Lembcke is a Marxist and has been an apologist for the anti-Vietnam war protestors ever since he left his position in the military as A CHAPLIAN'S ASSISTANT to join Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He has consistently tried to cover over the facts of how Veitnam veterans were treated unpon their return, having the unmitigated gall to state that something over 95% of returning Vietnam veterans were "welcomed with open arms!"
As Dobbs so eloquently stated, Mr. Lembcke's "political views aren't on trial", neither are his duties during the Vietnam War, and to try and use that type of argument to discredit his service, is no different than your claim to being spat upon? The fact remains that he is indeed a Vietnam vet.

Having said that, it should be noted that he currently is an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross College, and I wonder how you are going to be able to offically refute what research he has done and what he has written? It certainly would be a difficult if not almost impossible task?