NationStates Jolt Archive

You just love to spit Nanking don't you? You really are a fool.



We didn't need experss permission from the UN. Their violations of the cease-fire was all we really needed to go in. I guess you do not want to acknowledge this.

Yes you did. Because YOU had gotten the UN into this!

THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RAPE THE COUNTRIES IT SEES FIT FOR NO REASON!

Maybe if you look up the definition of what Rape is, you would realize that is not occuring. So stop with the hyperbole. I'm not buying it.

Is that fucking clear now or are you just going to brush this off as well?

The only thing worth brushing off is your spittle that wound up on my sleeve from this incoherency.

Really now? If what you say is true, and we did rape Iraq, then how the hell did we manage that if we have no right?

We obviously do.

No, you do not. People do many things they have no right to. And so do countries.

Yes you did. Because YOU had gotten the UN into this!

WE didn't get the UN into shit. The only way we could get them into it is by physically putting them in it. It was their choice to follow through with it. That means that whether or not they were doubting themselves, they wanted to go.

Maybe if you look up the definition of what Rape is, you would realize that is not occuring. So stop with the hyperbole. I'm not buying it.



The only thing worth brushing off is your spittle that wound up on my sleeve from this incoherency.

Is it an exercise of power? Yes.

Is it a violation of boundaries? Yes.

So the comparison is valid. The point remains that the US does NOT have the right to invade any country it sees fit.

You bombed them because they ATTACKED YOU. If it had anything to do with freedom, Sudan would be being bombed as we speak.

Um Bosnia never attacked us. FYI!

As to Sudan, see what happens when we rely on the UN?

Um Bosnia never attacked us. FYI!

As to Sudan, see what happens when we rely on the UN?

lmao...Bosnia attacking us. What an idiot.

Yes you did. Because YOU had gotten the UN into this!

THere job is to ensure that their resolutions are followed. Obviously they were not. Even Blix said they were not fully cooperating. Notice the word fully before you reply that they were. They were told to FULLY COOPERATE and they were not. Even those nations that oppose the war noticed that one.

The UN can't even enforce their own regulations on those that have them. Its little wonder that many nations do things outside of their perview.

Um Bosnia never attacked us. FYI!

As to Sudan, see what happens when we rely on the UN?

So you're comparing the long-term invasion of a country to a legitimate, UN-backed Bosnia expedition?

THere job is to ensure that their resolutions are followed. Obviously they were not. Even Blix said they were not fully cooperating. Notice the word fully before you reply that they were. They were told to FULLY COOPERATE and they were not. Even those nations that oppose the war noticed that one.

The UN can't even enforce their own regulations on those that have them. Its little wonder that many nations do things outside of their perview.

Blix himself was against the war, so think carefully before pronouncing his name. And he himself said that they were getting the cooperation they needed.

Rights are delegated from the strong to the weak. The UN has no power and thus has no real ability to decide what the "rights" of countries are. Until someone stands up to the US, it will have the "right" to do whatever it wants.

Is it an exercise of power? Yes.

Is it a violation of boundaries? Yes.

So the comparison is valid. The point remains that the US does NOT have the right to invade any country it sees fit.

Actually...no its not. It is an inaccurate picture. Sorry to burst your beautiful bubble.

Really now? If what you say is true, and we did rape Iraq, then how the hell did we manage that if we have no right?

We obviously do.

A killer has no right to shoot his victim. How the hell does he do it? Uh, gee, maybe pull the trigger. A jaywalker has no right to cross the road. How the hell does he do it? Uh, gee, maybe just walk across.

Having the right, as in the moral right, and having the ability are two different things. I don't have the right to constantly flash the bright lights of my car at the jerk who cut me off, I certainly do it. The US has NO moral right to bomb other countries; however if the US wanted to drop a few bombs on [insert name of Latin American/African/Middle Eastern Country here] the US Air Force certainly has the ability to do so.

Do you understand the difference between right and ability? I can't just knock you out and say "hey, I did it, so I must have the right to do so".

*Looks up, mumbles something about victory with dignity and goes back to reading The Law (http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/thelaw.htm)*

So you're comparing the long-term invasion of a country to a legitimate, UN-backed Bosnia expedition?

You failed History didn't you?

Bosnia was not UN backed till after the fact.

A killer has no right to shoot his victim. How the hell does he do it? Uh, gee, maybe pull the trigger. A jaywalker has no right to cross the road. How the hell does he do it? Uh, gee, maybe just walk across.

Having the right, as in the moral right, and having the ability are two different things. I don't have the right to constantly flash the bright lights of my car at the jerk who cut me off, I certainly do it. The US has NO moral right to bomb other countries; however if the US wanted to drop a few bombs on [insert name of Latin American/Africa/Middle Eastern Country here] the US Air Force certainly has the ability to do so.

Do you understand the difference between right and ability? I can't just knock you out and say "hey, I did it, so I must have the right to do so".

Yes I do understand the difference between right and ability.

Right is nothing more than what you said, morals. And morals are just ideas set up by people so they can classify what's good and bad. You think any other animal thinks whether or not they have a right to do something? Nope.


I do admit though that at least you can argue right, unlike some people...

Blix himself was against the war, so think carefully before pronouncing his name. And he himself said that they were getting the cooperation they needed. Clearly, you've never actually read anything Blix actually said about the course of the inspections, including the fact that at the time of the invasion, in an interview he said that he expected the US and UK troops to find WMD.

You failed History didn't you?

Bosnia was not UN backed till after the fact.

Is Iraq UN-backed now?

Not accurate. The UN resolutions authorized its member nations to act in the event that the sanctions were violated. (Resolution 678) which was suspended by Resolution 687, which required Iraq to disarm, not only any WMD programs, but also the manufacture and import and use of numerous other military hardware as well (a fact usually overlooked by the amateur anti-war aficionado).

(For example, the aluminum tube import, widely derided as not being for centrifuges, but for a missile system, was STILL illegal under the sanctions, as import of weapons systems components is a clear violation.)

A violation of resolution 687 would then permit use of force under 678.

In Resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in violation of resolution 687.


That includes the cease-fire, which is why the planes that were shot at or targeted by radar were authorized to engage and destroy the launchers/radar.

Now, we can safely deduce that arguments which flow from an incorrect premise are by definition false, which brings us back to square one.
Then why did the UN specifically oppose the US's proposed action against Iraq, if the US was automatically authorized to do it, acting on the UN's behalf? I maintain my reading of the Resolutions that they did not authorize unilateral action by a member nation acting without UN authorization or approval.

Is Iraq UN-backed now?

Non-sequister actually. Does not matter if it was or not just like it does not matter if Bosnia was backed or not.

You never did answer my Bosnia question.

Because the UN is full of people who are even less logically consistent than you are.
I see, so, referring back to your post to me about the UN, your argument is that, if the people who wrote the Resolutions don't interpret them the same way George Bush did, then those people must just be logically inconsistent. It couldn't possibly be that Bush was wrong about them.

Non-sequister actually. Does not matter if it was or not just like it does not matter if Bosnia was backed or not.

You never did answer my Bosnia question.

Then I'll point out the difference in scale between Iraq and Bosnia.

The UNITED STATES CONGRESS IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY ON THE US GOING TO WAR!!!

Is that fucking clear now or are you just going to brush this off as well?
If you really think that, then why did you bother to claim that the US action was legal under international law (in connection with your erroneous arguments about the cease-fire agreement)?

The fact is, the US is NOT the only authority on the US going to war (no matter how loudly you type it). US law and international law, to which the US is bound by treaties, are the joint authorities on the US going to war.

So yeah, I for one, will choose to just brush off your nonsense.

Then I'll point out the difference in scale between Iraq and Bosnia.

Actually...you really can't. You have condemned Iraq on two fronts. One of those being that it was not UN authorized. The attack on Bosnia was not UN authorized either. As such, logic has it that since you condemned the action in Iraq because of no authorization, it stands to reason that you also condemn the Bosnian campaign for the same reason.

We could go back and forth on the reasons for both sets of actions but I do not have time for that at the moment. Hell I shouldn't even be here at the moment.

Sure you are. You are also a soldier, a female, a male, and whatever else supports your shoddy excuses for points.

The rest of the thread notwithstanding, this is a pretty stupid post. No disrespect meant Heikoku, but this has been the third or fourth time you've levied this accusation and yet you have not backed it up with anything other than the statement itself.

Um Bosnia never attacked us. FYI!
Neither did Iraq. Just mentioning.

As to Sudan, see what happens when we rely on the UN?
Their failings do not justify our crimes.

THere job is to ensure that their resolutions are followed. Obviously they were not. Even Blix said they were not fully cooperating. Notice the word fully before you reply that they were. They were told to FULLY COOPERATE and they were not. Even those nations that oppose the war noticed that one.

The UN can't even enforce their own regulations on those that have them. Its little wonder that many nations do things outside of their perview.
I think you meant "Their job...", but in any event, it wasn't our job.

If you really think that, then why did you bother to claim that the US action was legal under international law (in connection with your erroneous arguments about the cease-fire agreement)?

Because the US agreed with the cease-fire. Duh!

The fact is, the US is NOT the only authority on the US going to war (no matter how loudly you type it). US law and international law, to which the US is bound by treaties, are the joint authorities on the US going to war.

Yep. Which still makes Iraq legal.

So yeah, I for one, will choose to just brush off your nonsense.

It isn't nonsense when it is true.

Rights are delegated from the strong to the weak. The UN has no power and thus has no real ability to decide what the "rights" of countries are. Until someone stands up to the US, it will have the "right" to do whatever it wants.
"Might makes right" is not a legal argument, therefore it does not justify the US's actions.

The rest of the thread notwithstanding, this is a pretty stupid post. No disrespect meant Heikoku, but this has been the third or fourth time you've levied this accusation and yet you have not backed it up with anything other than the statement itself.

Thank God someone other than me realized how mentally challenged Heikoku is. How valid can an accusation like that really be?

Clearly, you've never actually read anything Blix actually said about the course of the inspections, including the fact that at the time of the invasion, in an interview he said that he expected the US and UK troops to find WMD.
If you can find a source for that, I would appreciate it, because I don't remember him saying that.

Thank God someone other than me realized how mentally challenged Heikoku is. How valid can an accusation like that really be?

This isn't an attack on Heikoku's mental facilities or on the arguments presented thusly in this thread by Heikoku. It is merely a comment on a single post.

It seems that people can't get their heads out of their collective asses to actually see that there were other reasons, more important reasons in my opinion, to go into Iraq than the WMD argument.

Such as? Hmm, strategic control of resources might be one. And don't give me that cheap oil crap. Another would be a permanent staging grounds for Middle East conflicts, because no matter how much they say Iraq is a sovereign government, the Bush administration treats it as their own stomping ground, including ignoring the Iraqi government.

Same old geo-political crap that saw America playing the "democracy through corpses" doctrine back when the Soviet Union was a world power.

Humanitarian? That's laughable. America, or any other nation for that matter, has never, and will never, go to war over humanitarian causes. There's no profit in it.

If you want to argue breaking the peace agreement, might I remind you that during the many years Iraq was under sanction, it was bombed every now and again by American planes? America broke it first. Iraq firing on those planes were merely self defense.

Thank God someone other than me realized how mentally challenged Heikoku is. How valid can an accusation like that really be?

Considering the sheer amount of people that joined today JUST TO answer in this thread, either one person here went to Stormfront for backup or one person here created fake accounts.

Yes. But it is the sovereign right of nations to go to war for whatever issues they feel strongly enough about to take that drastic step. The US had a legitimate casus belli - nothing more was needed, ethically, to take such a step.

How legitimate is a case for war when you start it by bombing the other side for several years without actually invading it? I bet the British didn't feel that they weren't at war when V-2 rockets were landing in London or when BF-109s were making bombing runs.

I joined the forums today cause I was bored. I saw the topic, and decided to make a post. Big whoop.

Considering the sheer amount of people that joined today JUST TO answer in this thread, either one person here went to Stormfront for backup or one person here created fake accounts.

And you have proof that the joined today?

Because the US agreed with the cease-fire. Duh!
It was still not the US's agreement. It was the UN's agreement. If you work for a company, does that give you the right to sell its assets or decide who it will make contracts with, without your boss's permission? No, it doesn't. Even if you are a joint partner in a company, you do not have the authority to commit the company to a course of action without the agreement of the other partner(s). By this same token, being a member of the UN does not give a nation any right to take action on behalf of the UN without the UN's authorization.


Yep. Which still makes Iraq legal.
No, it doesn't, but I commend you for at least not wasting any time trying to "explain" your ridiculous comments.


It isn't nonsense when it is true.
That would be true, if it was true. But since your comments are not true, they certainly serve well as nonsense.

It was still not the US's agreement. It was the UN's agreement.

Which authorizes any party to resume hostilities if Iraq didn't comply. Nothing in there about seeking another resolution to resume force.

"Might makes right" is not a legal argument, therefore it does not justify the US's actions.

There is no need to "justify" the US's actions.

Question.

After thousands of deaths, a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, NO WMDs, and an increase in the threat of terrorism, all of which were predicted by us, the people that were against this war from the beginning...

And after the same people that were against this war from the beginning got called US-haters, anti-Americans, terrorist sympathizers, and every possible kind of libel and slander under the sun, in the run-up to the war, were proven right...

Why is it that there isn't more bragging about it or pointing out that they, like me, were right and rubbing the mistake on the faces of those that insulted them for predicting EXACTLY what happened?

Because, Media Outlets will rip you apart, in the name of the all mighty Profits...

Which authorizes any party to resume hostilities if Iraq didn't comply. Nothing in there about seeking another resolution to resume force.
No, it doesn't. I've explained why. Your refusal to focus on reality is not relevant to that.

I'll check in with this again tomorrow. Right now, I'd much rather stare at Japanese cartoons than keep arguing with you. In fact, I'd rather discuss Iraq with my cat that with you atm. Conversations with him are much more cogent and reasonable. So, I'm off to watch "Tactics." See you over breakfast.



And PS: Whatever you might say to me in response to this, you will be wrong. :p

There is no need to "justify" the US's actions.

Tell that to the people who keep trying to justify them.

I'm off to anime land. Later, all.

Only if you had gone out of your way for five years or more to obfuscate that very issue.

I guess we can then execute every single person who has had a murder trial lasting over 5 years, including delays and everything, regardless of actual guilt.

No, it doesn't. I've explained why. Your refusal to focus on reality is not relevant to that.

I'll check in with this again tomorrow. Right now, I'd much rather stare at Japanese cartoons than keep arguing with you.

That's because you can't argue with facts.

That's because you can't argue with facts.

No, that's because she has better things to do than to argue with YOU.

War never does any country any good at all. Unfortunately, we live in an age where disinformation has reached it's pinnacle of perfection. Perhaps you are right, and I should dismiss my husband's word. But since I have utter faith in his sense of honor, I think I'll be trusting him for what it is worth.

Unless your husband is an administrative or strategic level personnel, it is highly unlikely that he has an overall picture of the events happening there. He need not be lying to you or anything, but if he is your average infantryman/pilot/etc, it is likely that what he sees and tells you constitutes a very small window of the overall picture of what is happening there.

Plus, nothing is illegal till you get caught. How is it illegal when Bush haven't been caught yet.

Ahhh, killing you will not be illegal if I am not caught. I will have to make the arrangements then shouldn't I? There are so many things I can do now that have magically become legal so long as I am not caught.

No, that's because she has better things to do than to argue with YOU.

same difference.

same difference.

Not really, no.

Indeed and why? For the same damn reason why we are in Iraq. Freedom from Tyranny. Blow that one up your tailpipe squib.

You know as well as I do that "Freedom from Tyranny" has about as much truth in it as Japans "Economic Co-prosperity Sphere" while it was busy raping South East Asia.

Not really, no.

Continue to argue the facts. It is your right. Just like it is my right to point these things out to you.

Continue to argue the facts. It is your right. Just like it is my right to point these things out to you.

You see, she wasn't arguing AGAINST the facts. Unless you claim to be Kofi Annan, I think you do not know the interpretation to be given to Resolution 1441 better than him. So, yeah.

You see, she wasn't arguing AGAINST the facts. Unless you claim to be Kofi Annan, I think you do not know the interpretation to be given to Resolution 1441 better than him. So, yeah.

And I do not care what his interpretation of it was. His opinions mean jack to me just like Bush's interpretation of 1441 means jack to me. I also looked at all relevent resolutions to this and there is nothing in any one of them, except in 1441 (and even then it does say serious conseuence is Iraq does not comply fully) that requires a vote by the UN to reauthorize the use of force considering the cease-fire resolution states that any violation of it is grounds for the resumption of hositilities.

Even International Law on cease-fires backs up the US's case to use force against Iraq.

I think this forum is a Case in Point of why Democracy isnt this magical Tonic that everyone thinks it is, You cant just enter into an area, and force Democracy on people, it cant be done....

You can force a Dictatorship, or an Oligarchy, but not a Democracy, it requires that people be willing to get along well enough to Compromise, and during an Civil War, its not going to happen...

The difference between the forum and the current Civil War in Iraq would be that these members dont have weapons and cant shoot eachother, unfortunately in Iraq they can...

Just because your congress, under the influence of abject fear, authorized it, doesn't mean you have the right to pursue it. The WORLD exists around the US. So does ethics!

Ok, how was Saddam ethical? How is it ethical to allow torture and the infamous casket prison? How is it ethical to have wives and daughters of political opponents raped? Are you for real or are you a troll?

How is it not ethical to attack someone who violated the ceasefire several times? Why is it not ethical to attack a regime that tried to assassinate an ex president? The list goes on.

And I do not care what his interpretation of it was. His opinions mean jack to me just like Bush's interpretation of 1441 means jack to me. I also looked at all relevent resolutions to this and there is nothing in any one of them, except in 1441 (and even then it does say serious conseuence is Iraq does not comply fully) that requires a vote by the UN to reauthorize the use of force considering the cease-fire resolution states that any violation of it is grounds for the resumption of hositilities.

Even International Law on cease-fires backs up the US's case to use force against Iraq.

Yeah, his opinions mean jack shit to you. However, you see, they're more VALID than yours. Because he was the SECRETARY-GENERAL.

Yeah, his opinions mean jack shit to you. However, you see, they're more VALID than yours. Because he was the SECRETARY-GENERAL.

Does not mean what he said was right anymore than what others have said was right.

Ok, how was Saddam ethical? How is it ethical to allow torture and the infamous casket prison? How is it ethical to have wives and daughters of political opponents raped? Are you for real or are you a troll?

How is it not ethical to attack someone who violated the ceasefire several times? Why is it not ethical to attack a regime that tried to assassinate an ex president? The list goes on.

1- That Saddam was bad doesn't mean you get to act like him.

2- The CIA tried to assassinate Castro 638 times. Does that mean Cuba has the right to attack the US?

3- The ceasefire was violated in self-defense.

4- Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam.

Does not mean what he said was right anymore than what others have said was right.

Given that he is the leader of the UN, yes, yes it does.

1- It's a BAD work when you push otherwise-moderate Muslims into fanaticism because your bombs destroyed their houses, your soldiers raped their 9-year old daughter and your tanks demolished their mosques.

2- You did not "free" a country, you destroyed it.

3- It's not a good thing to be a bully. Or would you say Bin Laden did the world a favor by showing it Al Qaeda means what it says?

Oh my gosh are you saying that America has a high percentage of civilian kills? Where have you been for the past 17 years? We have taken great efforts at the cost of lots of money to use high tech highly accurate weapons. Mistakes will always occur but they are not at a high rate. I challenge you to prove me wrong. Also, a high level of respect has been shown to holy places. If there are any bad guys out there it is the enemy, not us.

How are we a bully and Saddam not a bully? He was a terrible bully and we stood up to him.

I cannot believe the way you view this war. It is mind boggling. Now I am 100% for this great and just war. I have some criticisms about it but I am not an opponent. I can understand someone who thinks hey we have done enough and the mission is over and we should reduce our forces. I disagree but I understand the point. Your position is pretty extreme though, you do not think that we are doing a good thing. We are fighting evil people. We overthrew an evil dictator. I do not know how that you can say it an unjust war.

Just in case anyone cares what my problem with the war is, I think that we are spending too much on it. I also think that armor technology was not fully used as well as it could have been. I also do not like that we cosied up to the Chinese by putting some freedom fighters that are operating in "their" country on our terrorism watchlist. I also oppose the fact that we did not simultaneously invade Syria and North Korea. The fact that North Korea was allowed to go nuclear on George Bush's watch makes me unhappy with his leadership. All Axis of Evil countries and other bad guys should have been attacked in some manner or another.

2- The CIA tried to assassinate Castro 638 times. Does that mean Cuba has the right to attack the US?

Actually...I would say yea but they wouldn't stand a chance.

3- The ceasefire was violated in self-defense.

Yea right :rolleyes:

Given that he is the leader of the UN, yes, yes it does.

Oh for the love of God! If we want to use that logic then we can say categorically that the words of any leader is right. Including Bush.

Oh for the love of God! If we want to use that logic then we can say categorically that the words of any leader is right. Including Bush.

Come on...Bush being right!? thats fucking Crazy, i think it may create a paradox that causes the next Apocalypse :rolleyes:

Now I am 100% for this great and just war.

I'm sorry to inform you that you have been duped then.

I'm sorry to inform you that you have been duped then.

I am sorry to inform you that that is only your humble opinion.

Oh for the love of God! If we want to use that logic then we can say categorically that the words of any leader is right. Including Bush.

Why, was drafting and accompanying the creation of Resolution 1441 within Bush's competence?

Also, did Annan ever display mind-boggling stupidity?

1- That Saddam was bad doesn't mean you get to act like him.

2- The CIA tried to assassinate Castro 638 times. Does that mean Cuba has the right to attack the US?

3- The ceasefire was violated in self-defense.

4- Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam.

1. We do not act like Saddam.

2. Yes.

3. No it was not. That is ridiculous. How can one party unilateral violate a ceasefire in self defense. You have some explaining to do on that point.

4. So what? Was the United States better during its civil war than before or after the war? A country at war is always pretty lousy. It is the peace that was sacrificed for and secured by victory that makes it all hopefully worthwhile. In many ways it is better. If it is not better in some areas it is the terrorists fault, not ours. So, we should redouble our efforts to kill them. You do not back down or negotiate with terrorists. You kill them. This is pretty basic stuff here.

I am sorry to inform you that that is only your humble opinion.

Nah, I'm pretty sure there are about half a million dead Iraqis that think the same.

Nah, I'm pretty sure there are about half a million dead Iraqis that think the same.

Unless you can somehow communicate with the dead, that statement really has no weight to it.

1. We do not act like Saddam.

2. Yes.

3. No it was not. That is ridiculous. How can one party unilateral violate a ceasefire in self defense. You have some explaining to do on that point.

4. So what? Was the United States better during its civil war than before or after the war? A country at war is always pretty lousy. It is the peace that was sacrificed for and secured by victory that makes it all hopefully worthwhile. In many ways it is better. If it is not better in some areas it is the terrorists fault, not ours. So, we should redouble our efforts to kill them. You do not back down or negotiate with terrorists. You kill them. This is pretty basic stuff here.

1- Not only you do, you also put people in power that do. Such as SADDAM HIMSELF.

2- Good, at least you're coherent on THAT.

3- US planes dropping missiles. Saddam responded with artillery.

4- Oh, so it's not your fault for destroying the infrastructure and destabilizing the whole place? That's rich.

Unless you can somehow communicate with the dead, that statement really has no weight to it.

I'm good, but not THAT good.

However, it stands to reason that they'd rather not be dead.

1- Not only you do, you also put people in power that do. Such as SADDAM HIMSELF.

I hate to burst your bubble son but we never put Hussein into power.

3- US planes dropping missiles. Saddam responded with artillery.

As opposed to him not cooperating with the Inspectors and using radar to lock onto our forces which prompted us to launch those missiles at these installations. And where did Saddam launch artillery at?

I'm good, but not THAT good.

However, it stands to reason that they'd rather not be dead.

Now there I can agree with you.

I hate to burst your bubble son but we never put Hussein into power.



As opposed to him not cooperating with the Inspectors and using radar to lock onto our forces which prompted us to launch those missiles at these installations. And where did Saddam launch artillery at?

Okay, my bad, you only supported him and provided him with technology, as opposed to, for instance, Pinochet, whom you DID put in power.

So he violated the treaty by locking onto your forces with radar, but you didn't by bombing him? Cute.

1. We do not act like Saddam.
Was the United States better during its civil war than before or after the war?

This would be my point, and the reason why we should leave, They will never Reconcile their differences with us interfering...

Imagine in the US Civil War, Britain decided it was going to solve the problem and try to establish a Pro-British government in Washington...

The North and South would simply join in Fucking the British, hell, we'd probably ask Germany and the UK's rivals for Help in doing so...

and WW1 would be started way sooner, and could still be going on in North America...

this is whats happening in Iraq, they are actively trying to destroy us, because they see us as putting in a Puppet Government in their Country...and they are asking their neighbors, who are enemies of the US for help, like Iran and Syria, who are in turn sending in their well funded Terrorist groups to kill our people...

We lost our ability to combat these regimes because we are stuck in the Quagmire that is Iraq, we lost the most important asset we had in the Middle East, our Mobility, we need to leave so that we can seek and destroy Terrorist organizations wherever they are, instead of just sitting in Iraq with targets on our back waiting for the Terrorist Groups to come to us...

Yea right :rolleyes:

Did or did not American planes cross Iraqi airspace and bomb Iraq territory multiple times during the ceasefire period?

So he violated the treaty by locking onto your forces with radar, but you didn't by bombing him? Cute.

1) It was the ROE

2) Self-Defense against possible Anti-Aircraft attack.

Did or did not American planes cross Iraqi airspace and bomb Iraq territory multiple times during the ceasefire period?

Not really, the ceasefire ended the moment the Iraqis fired the first shot.

1. We do not act like Saddam.


Legalized torture on foreign as well as their own citizens. Check. Legalized indefinite imprisonment. Check. Imprisoned and tortured people without charge. Check. Break Geneva conventions on treatment of prisoners of war. Check.

Yes you do. You just hide it better.

Oh, and if you want to say that they are "enemies of the state", then likewise I can only apply the same excuse to Saddam's actions. Or the "illegal combatants" excuse, which I counter by shooting you in the head and calling it "surgery".

Did or did not American planes cross Iraqi airspace and bomb Iraq territory multiple times during the ceasefire period?

Considering that the No Fly Zone was authorized by NATO in conjunction with defending the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the North, it was not technically a violation of the cease-fire.

As to boming Iraqi territory, it was only in response to threats from the ground and the non-cooperation of Hussein in regards to inspections.

This would be my point, and the reason why we should leave, They will never Reconcile their differences with us interfering...

Imagine in the US Civil War, Britain decided it was going to solve the problem and try to establish a Pro-British government in Washington...

The North and South would simply join in Fucking the British, hell, we'd probably ask Germany and the UK's rivals for Help in doing so...

and WW1 would be started way sooner, and could still be going on in North America...

this is whats happening in Iraq, they are actively trying to destroy us, because they see us as putting in a Puppet Government in their Country...and they are asking their neighbors, who are enemies of the US for help, like Iran and Syria, who are in turn sending in their well funded Terrorist groups to kill our people...

We lost our ability to combat these regimes because we are stuck in the Quagmire that is Iraq, we lost the most important asset we had in the Middle East, our Mobility, we need to leave so that we can seek and destroy Terrorist organizations wherever they are, instead of just sitting in Iraq with targets on our back waiting for the Terrorist Groups to come to us...

I do not see it as an "either or" our military is big enough to be several places at once.

Your alternative history example is kinda strange but I see your point because you likened us to the chinese during WWII.

1) It was the ROE

2) Self-Defense against possible Anti-Aircraft attack.

Rules of Engagement as directed under the US only allow for retaliatory fire if there is an enemy attack to begin with. That usually means shooting. Radar lock isn't an enemy attack, otherwise Putin's Tu-95s would have been justified in bombing the hell out of London when he buzzed them near their airspace.

Considering that the No Fly Zone was authorized by NATO in conjunction with defending the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the North, it was not technically a violation of the cease-fire.

So let me get this straight. You have a ceasefire agreement. But then turn around and say "Nope, it doesn't cover this territory that's inside your borders. We can bomb wherever we like in there."

So NATO's ceasefire agreement isn't even worth toilet paper. No surprise there. They'll break it whenever they want, and claim you did.


As to boming Iraqi territory, it was only in response to threats from the ground and the non-cooperation of Hussein in regards to inspections.

Threats from the ground like what? Possibility of an attack is not an attack and is not grounds for a breach of ceasefire. Ceasefire is exactly what is means. Cease firing. No shots. No weapons use. Weapons use is breach of ceasefire. Oh, and further military incursion into the other's territory. Anything else is outside the cover of that.

So if America used weapons first, it broke the ceasefire first.

I do not see it as an "either or" our military is big enough to be several places at once.

Your alternative history example is kinda strange but I see your point because you likened us to the chinese during WWII.

Well, i was using the Civil War because thats what he cited...

But, even though it may be big enough to be in several places at once...

It cant Police several places at once, for that requires a much greater force, just look at the disproportion of soldiers in Iraq vs the ones In Afghanistan fighting Terrorists...

Legalized torture on foreign as well as their own citizens. Check. Legalized indefinite imprisonment. Check. Imprisoned and tortured people without charge. Check. Break Geneva conventions on treatment of prisoners of war. Check.

Yes you do. You just hide it better.

Oh, and if you want to say that they are "enemies of the state", then likewise I can only apply the same excuse to Saddam's actions. Or the "illegal combatants" excuse, which I counter by shooting you in the head and calling it "surgery".

Ok, I do not believe that the US should ever torture anyone no matter what. I am not like Bill Clinton. I do not think it is ever excusable. Also, what we do is not nearly as bad as what they did. ALthough, our allies probably torture people we give them. I am not proud of this at all.

However, we never mistreated POWs as a matter of policy. I doubt that any POWs were mistreated. A captured illegal combatant is not a POW. I am a pretty strict military honor type and even I acknowledge the difference between a soldier and a murdering terrorist or an ununiformed insurgent.

Rules of Engagement as directed under the US only allow for retaliatory fire if there is an enemy attack to begin with. That usually means shooting. Radar lock isn't an enemy attack, otherwise Putin's Tu-95s would have been justified in bombing the hell out of London when he buzzed them near their airspace.

1) The example fails considering the fact that Britain was not under a No Fly Zone while Iraq was.

2) Being locked on by radar in the No Fly Zone is an act of agression and as such, it is lawful for the US and British forces to launch missiles at said sites.

Chances are you'll die first. You know... before they leave because the Democrats are stuck in a bitter feud and McCain wants to extend the mission up to 100 years...
i dare you to go to Israel and say Vote for a democrat 08. You will die. If we pull out of iraq israel is fucked. iran will have virtually all of the power in the middle east and israel and some other countries are already forming a defensive alliance and building up there militaries if mccain doesnt win. Im not saying it wasnt stupid to go into iraq. but now its even more idiotic to leave. besides if we leave all radical muslims around the world will cheer and yell 'WE WON WE CAN DO ANYTHING!' and massively increase there attacks. just this time it will be aimed for america again

i dare you to go to Israel and say Vote for a democrat 08. You will die. If we pull out of iraq israel is fucked. iran will have virtually all of the power in the middle east and israel and some other countries are already forming a defensive alliance and building up there militaries if mccain doesnt win. Im not saying it wasnt stupid to go into iraq. but now its even more idiotic to leave. besides if we leave all radical muslims around the world will cheer and yell 'WE WON WE CAN DO ANYTHING!' and massively increase there attacks. just this time it will be aimed for america again

Few times in my life have I ever seen so much bullshit in one post.

Few times in my life have I ever seen so much bullshit in one post. you should trip out on acid more.

Few times in my life have I ever seen so much bullshit in one post.

There is some truth in it though yea...I agree there is alot of BS there.

Ok, I do not believe that the US should ever torture anyone no matter what. I am not like Bill Clinton. I do not think it is ever excusable.


Bush authorized the torture. Not Bill Clinton. But please, do continue deluding yourself.


Also, what we do is not nearly as bad as what they did. ALthough, our allies probably torture people we give them. I am not proud of this at all.

Hah! "We might do it, but they do it too! We're not so bad!"

What a lousy excuse. To be expected from an equally poor personality.


However, we never mistreated POWs as a matter of policy. I doubt that any POWs were mistreated. A captured illegal combatant is not a POW.


Shooting you in the head is not murder either. In fact, you're not a citizen, you're an illegal immigrant. A criminal illegal immigrant. I can change the definitions to suit my agenda too.

And unless you are claiming illegal combatants are hyper intelligent aubergines or space aliens, they are undeniably human, and in US territory, such as Guantanamo, are subject to US laws regarding the treatment of human prisoners. These are blatantly ignored by the Bush administration.

Just like how Saddam ignored the Geneva conventions on human treatment. So yes, America is acting like Saddam.

i dare you to go to Israel and say Vote for a democrat 08. You will die. If we pull out of iraq israel is fucked. iran will have virtually all of the power in the middle east and israel and some other countries are already forming a defensive alliance and building up there militaries if mccain doesnt win. Im not saying it wasnt stupid to go into iraq. but now its even more idiotic to leave. besides if we leave all radical muslims around the world will cheer and yell 'WE WON WE CAN DO ANYTHING!' and massively increase there attacks. just this time it will be aimed for america again

I dont advocate Pulling out of Israel, and i havent Heard a Democrat say that either...

I think the best solution to Israel would be to split it up, into, say Four Nations...

With the Gaza Strip being the new Palestine, the West Bank being a new nation as a sort of 'Buffer Zone', and Israel would control the rest...

The Fourth nation would be Jerusalem itself, in the style of say, Vatican City, only this would be a DMZ, where anyone can go, or live there, but they relinquish any Rights to Bear Arms, and no weapons are allowed to enter...

This DMZ would be enforced by a Multinational UN Force that will keep the peace...

I dont see how anyone could not support it without gaining the wrath of the International Community, stopping Radical Muslim Terrorism in its tracks...

That was my two cents anyway, lol...

1) The example fails considering the fact that Britain was not under a No Fly Zone while Iraq was.

2) Being locked on by radar in the No Fly Zone is an act of agression and as such, it is lawful for the US and British forces to launch missiles at said sites.

Did Iraq agree to this No Fly Zone? Were the No Fly Zones under the ceasefire agreements? If not, this is just another unilateral case of double standards where it's not ceasefire breach when you're shooting.

I'm good, but not THAT good.

However, it stands to reason that they'd rather not be dead.

Oh come on, you don't know that.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/sealx/icons_smilies/face-laugh.png

Where are the sane war opponents why do we have to deal with this craziness? C'mon somebody do some reasonable argument please, i am getting bored. You know what? I apologize. I am tired and I need rest. Sorry if I was a little grouchy. No offense. It is just that some of these antiwar points are pretty lame.

The ones that seem reasonable to me are:

1. We have done enough already, let the Iraqis take over.
2. Let us move our Iraqi based forces somehwere else like Syria or Iran.
3. Let's scale down our forces so that Iraqis can take more credit and pride in their accomplishments.
4. Let's not make war at all because of an extreme interpretation of the commandment not to kill.
5. Let's reform the military by allowing people to sign up for military service in particular areas for particular time periods, like I want to fight in Iraq when it is winter, let the arabs defend themselves more when it is crazy hot in the summertime, or I want to fight in Iraq for a year and Afghanistan for a year and then I want to be able to come home if I want or renegotiate another enlistment contract. This is not antiwar but I think it is a nice and democratic reform.

Did Iraq agree to this No Fly Zone? Were the No Fly Zones under the ceasefire agreements? If not, this is just another unilateral case of double standards where it's not ceasefire breach when you're shooting.

And I could also point out that we were at war still when the No Fly Zone was instituted. A cease-fire doesn't stop a war.

And I could also point out that we were at war still when the No Fly Zone was instituted. A cease-fire doesn't stop a war.

But this was still Iraqi territory yes? So let's see if we have the chronology correct.

NATO establishes No Fly Zones (NFZ)
NATO signs ceasefire agreement. Iraq presumably signs it too. NFZ are still Iraqi territory.
Iraq moves military assets in or around NFZ
NATO Bombs NFZ, violating Iraqi airspace.
Iraq radar locks bombers
NATO Bombs some more.
US cries Iraq 'breaking' ceasefire.

you should trip out on acid more.

Ah, so THAT'S how you make such posts? I see.

I dont advocate Pulling out of Israel, and i havent Heard a Democrat say that either...

I think the best solution to Israel would be to split it up, into, say Four Nations...

With the Gaza Strip being the new Palestine, the West Bank being a new nation as a sort of 'Buffer Zone', and Israel would control the rest...

The Fourth nation would be Jerusalem itself, in the style of say, Vatican City, only this would be a DMZ, where anyone can go, or live there, but they relinquish any Rights to Bear Arms, and no weapons are allowed to enter...

This DMZ would be enforced by a Multinational UN Force that will keep the peace...

I dont see how anyone could not support it without gaining the wrath of the International Community, stopping Radical Muslim Terrorism in its tracks...

That was my two cents anyway, lol...
i agree but look at that realistically. thats not going to happen. why? because people are ignorant and want it all for themselves

But this was still Iraqi territory yes? So let's see if we have the chronology correct.

NATO establishes No Fly Zones (NFZ)
NATO signs ceasefire agreement. Iraq presumably signs it too. NFZ are still Iraqi territory.
Iraq moves military assets in or around NFZ
NATO Bombs NFZ, violating Iraqi airspace.
Iraq radar locks bombers
NATO Bombs some more.
US cries Iraq 'breaking' ceasefire.

Thats probably about right, but the reasoning to going to war changed so many times that the reasoning is pointless at this point...

Saddam helping Al-Queda=False

so they changed it too...

Saddam had WMDs=False...

So they changed it too

Bringing freedom to the Iraqis=false, and failed

Thats probably about right, but the reasoning to going to war changed so many times that the reasoning is pointless at this point...

Saddam helping Al-Queda=False

so they changed it too...

Saddam had WMDs=False...

So they changed it too

Bringing freedom to the Iraqis=false, and failed the reason almost doesnt matter anymore. its what are we gona do and how is that gona affect the current situation. all that stuff has been long gone and nothing can change it

i agree but look at that realistically. thats not going to happen. why? because people are ignorant and want it all for themselves

That attitude would be why nothing Changes and nothing gets Done...

If it is set up, then I believe that even though the Ignorant People would want to have all the territory, they would no longer be able to claim an Altruistic reason for entering them, and it would be readily obvious they simply hungered for territory...therefore it would be fairly easy to stop them with overwhelming force, because there would be almost no opposition...

But, i guess i am being a little Hopeful and Idealistic...:(

Bringing freedom to the Iraqis=false, and failed

Um...it hasn't been proven false nor has it failed. Nice attempt though.

Um...it hasn't been proven false nor has it failed. Nice attempt though.

False and Failed because of the simple fact that the new Government is a US Puppet, if you dont believe so, your being Naive, no one creates a Government, then expects it not to support them...

False and Failed because of the simple fact that the new Government is a US Puppet, if you dont believe so, your being Naive, no one creates a Government, then expects it not to support them...

Sarcasm?

Sarcasm?

oh, lol, My Bad, i was in the whole Debate Mode, so I couldnt detect it, it has a habit of closing off Humor...;)

Going to bed for now. We continue this tomorrow.

Oh my gosh are you saying that America has a high percentage of civilian kills? Where have you been for the past 17 years? We have taken great efforts at the cost of lots of money to use high tech highly accurate weapons. Mistakes will always occur but they are not at a high rate. I challenge you to prove me wrong. Also, a high level of respect has been shown to holy places. If there are any bad guys out there it is the enemy, not us.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Just shows that those weak in virtue will complain of how others conduct themselves, regardless. They aren't interested in truth and seem to relish in the act of complaint, while pointing the finger of self-righteousness so they can feel better about their own black heart. Great lengths have been gone to so as to minimize (more than what is reasonable) collateral damage, which is ironically, the reason I believe this thing is still going on to the degree it is (we are playing too nicely).

<snip>

I cannot believe the way you view this war. It is mind boggling. Now I am 100% for this great and just war. I have some criticisms about it but I am not an opponent...

I too find it mind boggling. I believe it is absurd how short a memory some people have. I agree it is a just war, though we should have dealt with Iraq a decade and a half ago, after Kuwait was liberated. Instead we got 12 years of UN masterbation, corruption, profiteering, scapegoating, and an ignorant populace damning all the wrong people. And yet, for some reason, people are selectively forgetting, or never knew, or don't care, about Iraq's track record regarding weapon research and use.

a brief bit on who knew what:
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes

<snip>

So, today, Iraq...perhaps a brilliantly planned or maybe unintentional maneuver in the long game in forcing the hands of Iran, Syria, and other participants of the region...*shrugs*

My husband was recently deployed in Iraq, and I don't know if the word of someone who has actually been there means anything up against our media here in the US..but he says we are making an enormous impact in Iraq for the good. Perhaps they are reporting on another Iraq? Who knows. I for one am a little ashamed of our media. They point out all of the deaths of our soldiers, and yet fail to point out that alot of those deaths can be attributed to accidents, and almost happen more here than there.

Of course, Iraq is not the only country in the world where terrorism is a threat, and the war against it is one I believe we have to fight, before we have another 9/11, no matter WHO you believe was responsible for it, there is no denying it occurred.

I too find the US major media to be pretty shameful, particularly when it is bordering on propaganda for the enemy nearly half of the time (related content considered).

Thank you and your husband for his service in assisting their cousins in their time of need.

Yeah, anyone who would treat this situation as an excuse to brag would just about fit my definition of evil. People dying shouldn't make for a good ego boosting opportunity.

the iraqis themselves do not want us there and think the occupation is a cause of the continued instability. our obligation to them is not the white man's burden.

I believe this is a standard misconception asserted by disconnected sources, which many of you seem to have grasped onto eagerly. As to why, I cannot fathom. If your brother or cousin asked for your help why would you prefer to turn your back or claim he did not wish your help? Wipe your hands of blood or at least feel as if you are, while your brother dies pleading for your aid. Yeah, not the white man's burden, it's everyone's burden that even cares about their fellow man. It's unfortunate that most nations don't have the stomach to take up the burden (most amusing is the concept of helping our fellow man is actually a burden.) *shakes head*

I believe this is a standard misconception asserted by disconnected sources, which many of you seem to have grasped onto eagerly. As to why, I cannot fathom. If your brother or cousin asked for your help why would you prefer to turn your back or claim he did not wish your help? Wipe your hands of blood or at least feel as if you are, while your brother dies pleading for your aid. Yeah, not the white man's burden, it's everyone's burden that even cares about their fellow man. It's unfortunate that most nations don't have the stomach to take up the burden (most amusing is the concept of helping our fellow man is actually a burden.) *shakes head*

Over 200,000 dead people show what a lie your stance is. And don't even try to pretend that America had nothing to do with it or that they were all "terrorists".

I think that, as for Vietnam, peoples would never agree on this.
Simply because there's lots of people who can't accept the idea that your country killed and makes thousands of its citizens die because of a false and injust war.

Let's be absolutly clear:
About the fact that peoples who were always right are still considered as traitors, cowards or other...and that the peoples who lied and killed and created all this mess are still considered as " good " is an absolutly fucking shame.

How much Americans are still depictin the French are traitors and cowards, only because ( with other countries like Germany ) we were the only ones to have the guts to tell you that you are going to do an awful mistake ?

I still remind of The Guardian " Chirac is a worm " or the freedom fries...

Back to the point:
Putting off Saddam Hussein was a good thing.
But only you could be fooled about the motivation of his fall: as long as Saddam suited US interests, you let him in place.
He gets killed only when he was no more usefull.
The whole world see the situation like this.

Why aren't you going to war with North Korea, Burma, Bielorussia, Iran, Lybia, Syria, China...etc... ?
So saying that this war was just and was done for a just cause, it's simply a lie.

Even worst, now, Iran knew they have nothing to fear from America.
In 2003, just before you launched the invasion, they were offering tremendous diplomatic efforts...but Bush administration rejected all this, throwing them into the Axis of Evil.
And now they are the greatest power in middle-eastern, all thanks to you, plus the fact they fear you no more.

Have you ever been into North Africa, or into Arabian countries ?
I was.
10 years ago, USA was mainly seen there as a great democratic country, with a bunch of infamous capitalists but invincible and with a gentle but ignorant population.
Nowadays, you are perceived as the freehold of Satan on Earth, as a fascist oppressive regim, who doesn't care at all for human lifes and with only concerns for money and oil.
Saddam and Ben Laden are now freedom fighters who act rightfully.

There is today ten more times more terrorists than before 2003...

Now they are sucking China's balls because they are seen as far more less dangerous than you.

Irak is a cluster-fuck, and will end up a theocratic shiit dictatorship, no matter what you do.
Irak was attacked in order to put an end to global terrorism, but it just throw a laic dictatorship into a blessed ground for terrorism.

Your army is taking care of not killing civilians ?
There is still thousands of " errors " occuring, no ?

And still you see this war as just ?
And still you see some success ?

I think that you have sold your soul because you were afraid.
I believe you NEED to woke up soon, for the world sake.

How legitimate is a case for war when you start it by bombing the other side for several years without actually invading it? I bet the British didn't feel that they weren't at war when V-2 rockets were landing in London or when BF-109s were making bombing runs.

It's still perfectly legitimate. The Iraqi troops bombed in those cases were conducting offensive operations against US forces - they were painting US (and British) jets with attack radars.

For those who don't understand the terminology: militarily, there are basically two types of ground operated radar - search and attack. Search radar merely tells you what's up there, and is not a threat; it's similar to the systems used by airport control towers.

Attack Radar is a tightbeam radar used to guide a surface-to-air missile to it's target. It has no other purpose.

Once an aircraft is painted by attack radar, it is in deadly danger. The pilot has no way to know whether a missile has actually been launched; only that one could be at any moment. And SAMs have unpleasently high launch-to-kill ratios.

Therefore, it is generally accepted by militaries worldwide that use of attack radar is itself an attack on the target.

Now, Iraq could have, quite reasonably and legitimately, declared war over the No-Fly Zones. They, also, were a legitimate casus belli - aginst the entirety of NATO. I do not consider it a mistake by Saddam that he did not choose to use it.

However, one casus belli does not cancel out another.

(Incidentally - the Bf109 was a fighter plane, and did not carry bombs during the blitz - only fuel drop tanks. The Heinkel 111 and a number of varieties of Dornier were the bombers.)

It's still perfectly legitimate. The Iraqi troops bombed in those cases were conducting offensive operations against US forces - they were painting US (and British) jets with attack radars.

For those who don't understand the terminology: militarily, there are basically two types of ground operated radar - search and attack. Search radar merely tells you what's up there, and is not a threat; it's similar to the systems used by airport control towers.

Attack Radar is a tightbeam radar used to guide a surface-to-air missile to it's target. It has no other purpose.

Once an aircraft is painted by attack radar, it is in deadly danger. The pilot has no way to know whether a missile has actually been launched; only that one could be at any moment. And SAMs have unpleasently high launch-to-kill ratios.

Therefore, it is generally accepted by militaries worldwide that use of attack radar is itself an attack on the target.

Now, Iraq could have, quite reasonably and legitimately, declared war over the No-Fly Zones. They, also, were a legitimate casus belli - aginst the entirety of NATO. I do not consider it a mistake by Saddam that he did not choose to use it.

However, one casus belli does not cancel out another.

(Incidentally - the Bf109 was a fighter plane, and did not carry bombs during the blitz - only fuel drop tanks. The Heinkel 111 and a number of varieties of Dornier were the bombers.)

Even if Saddam did a causus belli, it still does not grant the right for the USA for unilaterally military actions since the war against Irak was a UN war and the UN was the only legitmate authority on resuming hostilities.

Has the UN done that? No. In fact, all the UN resolutions on Irak finish with the same paragraph that stipulated that the UN Security Council retained the final decision on Irak.

Also, the USA has signed the UN charter which stipulates that they will not go to war unless provoked. Irak has not provoked the USA even in the runup to the war. Irak was cooperating with everything the UN threw at them. So the USA were the ones who breached the ceasefire.

Along with their allies, mind you.

That's because you can't argue with facts.

Praise from the master.

And I do not care what his interpretation of it was. His opinions mean jack to me just like Bush's interpretation of 1441 means jack to me. I also looked at all relevent resolutions to this and there is nothing in any one of them, except in 1441 (and even then it does say serious conseuence is Iraq does not comply fully) that requires a vote by the UN to reauthorize the use of force considering the cease-fire resolution states that any violation of it is grounds for the resumption of hositilities.

Even International Law on cease-fires backs up the US's case to use force against Iraq.
SHE.

And apparently I was right that you consider not arguing the facts a good thing because here you are bragging about your refusal to do so. It certainly explains the nonsense you present as "argument" -- you really are just making it up on your own as you go along.

FACT: The people who wrote the Resolutions know better what they mean and how they work than you do.

FACT: Your interpretations of the Resolutions are not more valid, nor more important, nor more applicable than theirs are. It doesn't matter if you think your interpretation is the right one. They are the authors, they are the ones who implemented them, they are the ones who will judge what they mean and whether anyone else is violating them. Your take on the issue is irrelevant.

Based on those two facts, if the UN says the US did wrong, then all your ranting otherwise is just so much chin music. Your opinions mean nothing.

Which authorizes any party to resume hostilities if Iraq didn't comply.

No, no it did not.

Oh my gosh are you saying that America has a high percentage of civilian kills? Where have you been for the past 17 years? We have taken great efforts at the cost of lots of money to use high tech highly accurate weapons. Mistakes will always occur but they are not at a high rate. I challenge you to prove me wrong. Also, a high level of respect has been shown to holy places. If there are any bad guys out there it is the enemy, not us.

How are we a bully and Saddam not a bully? He was a terrible bully and we stood up to him.

<snip>
In other words: "The other kid started it!" "The other kids do it, so we should be able to do it too!"

That didn't even work in the schoolyard when I was 10 years old. It sure the fuck doesn't work in foreign policy and warfare.

SHE.

Last time I checked, Kofi Annan was a male.

Is corny really truly trying to argue that the interpretation of the UN on its own resolution is incorrect?

This is not a hard concept to understand. The UN declared a ceasefire to hostilities. the UN threatened to end that ceasefire if Iraq did not comply.

The UN never, ever officially terminated the ceasefire. No part of Resolution 1441 or any other resolution concerning Iraq authorized individual nationstates to engage in hostilities based on their own perceived failings of Iraq's obligations to the ceasefire. NO part whatsoever. No individual nation can decide for the UN what constitutes a breech of a UN ceasefire.

Last time I checked, Kofi Annan was a male.

so let me check this, to make sure I understand, in discussing a UN resolution, a UN RESOLUTION you don't care how the SECRETARY GENERAL of the UN defines that resolution?

I mean, one would think...that's pretty much the main authority on the subject..

Did or did not American planes cross Iraqi airspace and bomb Iraq territory multiple times during the ceasefire period?
Why, yes, they did.

1) It was the ROE

2) Self-Defense against possible Anti-Aircraft attack.
It's not self-defense if the threat is only "possible." Attacking somebody before they attack you is called "attack," not "defense."

Not really, the ceasefire ended the moment the Iraqis fired the first shot.
Only they didn't fire the first shot.

Legalized torture on foreign as well as their own citizens. Check. Legalized indefinite imprisonment. Check. Imprisoned and tortured people without charge. Check. Break Geneva conventions on treatment of prisoners of war. Check.

Yes you do. You just hide it better.
<snip>
No, they don't, not really.

In fact, the very people who voted for UN resolution 1441 AGREED that it did not authorize individual member states to engage in hostilities without UN approval...like...I dunno...this guy:

T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12

John Negroponte, US ambassador to the United Nations

And..um...this guy:

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities

The UN ambassador from the United Kingdom

But, then again, I suppose Corny knows the intent and meaning of the UN resolution better than the secretary general of the UN, and the people who actually drafted, and voted for, the resolution.

Including the ambassadors from the United States and the United Kingdom

so let me check this, to make sure I understand, in discussing a UN resolution, a UN RESOLUTION you don't care how the SECRETARY GENERAL of the UN defines that resolution?

Just like the Constitution can be interpreted in many different ways, not all resolutions are black and white. Not to mention that the Resolution stated that it was a formal cease-fire and that brings us back to International Law.

I mean, one would think...that's pretty much the main authority on the subject..

*chuckles*

Even a lawyer does not know everything about the law.

Just like the Constitution can be interpreted in many different ways

True, and the state county court of Bumbfuck USA is free to interpret the constitution however it pleases, as is the Supreme Court of the United States, but when a conflict in interpretation comes down, whose interpretation wins?

I'll give you a hint, it isn't Bumfuck USA.

Thank you very much for making my point, while law may have different interpretations, there is a heirarchy of interpreters, and not all interpretations are created equal. And just as while Bumfuck county court might disagree with SCOTUS on the intrepretation of a law, its own interpretation is subservient to the higher authority, and is excised from the law when it comes in conflict with that higher authority

And a lesser authority's interpretation of the law is not the law, when it comes into conflict with interpretation from higher authority.

Even a lawyer does not know everything about the law.

I know enough to know that the UN is the final and ultimite authority on the meaning of UN resolutions.

Or did you miss that class in international law at the law school you never went to?

If your brother or cousin asked for your help why would you prefer to turn your back or claim he did not wish your help?

they didn't ask for help, and the iraqi people have overwhelmingly said want us gone every time we ask, starting years ago.

Last time I checked, Kofi Annan was a male.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about me because you were responding to a post of Heikoku's, who WAS talking about me and my arguments, and mentioned Kofi Annan as well. You didn't specify whose interpretation of the Resolutions you were saying were worthless, and it never occurred to me that you would dismiss the head of the UN as lightly as you would me.

True, and the state county court of Bumbfuck USA is free to interpret the constitution however it pleases, as is the Supreme Court of the United States, but when a conflict in interpretation comes down, whose interpretation wins?

I'll give you a hint, it isn't Bumfuck USA.

Indeed. Just like the fact that the Secretary General is not the final authority on a UN Resolution.

I know enough to know that the UN is the final and ultimite authority on the meaning of UN resolutions.

Or did you miss that class in international law at the law school you never went to?

Nope didn't miss a thing. WHen a nation violates a cease-fire, it is grounds for immediate resumption of Hostilities. Its always been that way.

You didn't specify whose interpretation of the Resolutions you were saying were worthless, and it never occurred to me that you would dismiss the head of the UN as lightly as you would me.

Please Mur, don't you know, interpretations are just interpretations! Law can have all sorts of interpretations. Who cares what the head of the UN thinks about a UN resolution? After all, that can't possibly have more weight than what some guy on the internet with no legal training what so ever thinks about it.

You'd have to think that law cares about "heirarchy" and "precident" and "valid legal authority" to believe something as STUPID as that.

Indeed. Just like the fact that the Secretary General is not the final authority on a UN Resolution.

.....

Even if I were to entertain such a ludicrus notion...precisely whose authority WOULD you consider final? How about the people who wrote it? I quoted two of them for you.

Nope didn't miss a thing. WHen a nation violates a cease-fire, it is grounds for immediate resumption of Hostilities. Its always been that way.

Let's play a game, shall we?

Whose ceasefire?

Who set the terms of the ceasefire?

Who decided what would constitute a breach of the ceasefire?


Good, now when you figure out the answer to these very important questions you can riddle me this one. If the ceasefire was created by an institution, maintained by an institution, had its terms set by an institution, that institution threated action if compliance was not immediate.....

Who gets to decide when to end that ceasefire?

You're correct, sorta. When a nation violates a ceasefire it's grounds for resumption of hostilities...by the institution that was involved in the ceasefire in the first place.

It was not a US ceasefire. It was not a UK ceasefire. It wasn't a canadian or australian or Japanese or Chinese ceasefire.

It was a UN ceasefire. And the UN then gets to decide when that ceasefire is over. The US can no sooner decide to end a ceasefire for the UN, than Mexico can declare war on China on behalf of the US. Doesn't work that way.

And if you understood a tiny fraction of the amount of international jurisprudence that you pretended to understand, you'd know that.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about me because you were responding to a post of Heikoku's, who WAS talking about me and my arguments, and mentioned Kofi Annan as well. You didn't specify whose interpretation of the Resolutions you were saying were worthless, and it never occurred to me that you would dismiss the head of the UN as lightly as you would me.

An opinion is an opinion regardless of who speaks it.

Indeed. Just like the fact that the Secretary General is not the final authority on a UN Resolution.



Nope didn't miss a thing. WHen a nation violates a cease-fire, it is grounds for immediate resumption of Hostilities. Its always been that way.

You know, the ancient Egyptians believed that intelligence and thought were housed in the heart, and some of them theorized that brain matter was not actually an organ, but was just the person's lifetime supply of snot. When I read things like the above post, I think they may have been right, at least in some instances.

But at least you've got enormous balls to make up for your lack of reasoning.

Let's play a game, shall we?

No.

An opinion is an opinion regardless of who speaks it.

True. It also remains an opinion no matter how unreasonable or divorced from reality it is, too.

True. It also remains an opinion no matter how unreasonable or divorced from reality it is, too.

Indeed but that what is divorced from reality is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

On that note, I better finish this term paper due in 6 hours.

An opinion is an opinion regardless of who speaks it.

Oh of course, you're entitled to your opinion on the UN resolution. You're entitled to believe whatever damned fool thing you want to believe.

You're entitled to believe that the world is made of cotton candy and balanced on the backs of a million marzipan elephants.

You're free to believe that the ocean is made up of tears cried by angels after god anally raped them.

You're free to believe anything you want.

But the mere fact that you believe something doesn't make it any more right. It doesn't make it valid. It doesn't make it worthy of creadance. We're talking about law here, and in law, the opinions of one person, who has no authority, are worthless. And since I thought you had a modicrum of intellect I was under the assumption that you formed your opinion based on sound reasoning and valid legal precident and authority, which is what normal, intellectually honest people do, I would have thought you'd bring more to the table than just "your opinion"

But I see that's not the case, considering you've failed to cite a single legal authory, failed to rebut fundamental presumptions, and failed to address the words of people who were actual authorities on the subject. And since you've failed to provide any actual creadance to your argument, you're left with only your opinion. Your unsupported, unfounded, uneducated, unsubstantiated opinion

And in the field of law, which is what we are discussing here, your opinions mean exactly jack shit.

On that note, I better finish this term paper due in 6 hours.

What a shock.

No.

Now what was that line of yours? That's because you can't argue with facts?

Yeah, that seems to be a good one.

Please Mur, don't you know, interpretations are just interpretations! Law can have all sorts of interpretations. Who cares what the head of the UN thinks about a UN resolution? After all, that can't possibly have more weight than what some guy on the internet with no legal training what so ever thinks about it.

You'd have to think that law cares about "heirarchy" and "precident" and "valid legal authority" to believe something as STUPID as that.
Silly me. I keep forgetting that nowadays, reality is whatever anyone wants it to be at any given moment, and if anything in the world doesn't match one's "interpretation" of reality, one can fix that by sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting "LALALALA" until the universe stops trying to harsh one's mellow.

Indeed but that what is divorced from reality is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
No, it isn't.

On that note, I better finish this term paper due in 6 hours.

Why bother?

Indeed but that what is divorced from reality is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

No, it is not. There is true, and there is untrue. Either the resolution authorized the US to act without UN approval, or it did not.

The "beholder" changes absolutly nothing in that regard. Reality is not subjective. What you believe does not influence what is.

Silly me. I keep forgetting that nowadays, reality is whatever anyone wants it to be at any given moment, and if anything in the world doesn't match one's "interpretation" of reality, one can fix that by sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting "LALALALA" until the universe stops trying to harsh one's mellow.

Yup, we're all special little flowers, and everybody's opinion matters just as much as everybody else's opinion!

I think I'm going to go this to the senior partners. How do you think they'll react Mur?

What a shock.

A shock that I actually have a fucking life outside of NSG?

A shock that I actually have a fucking life outside of NSG?

which only conveniently comes up when you're getting wrecked in an argument.

Again..

Why bother?

Because I want a Good grade on it?

which only conveniently comes up when you're getting wrecked in an argument.

Again..

Oh boohoo. Cry me a river that I put more emphasis on school than on dealing with fools who know jack shit about international law.

Oh boohoo. Cry me a river that I put more emphasis on school than on dealing with fools who know jack shit about international law.

ah, such amusing irony.

Or, you know, it would be, if you were telling the truth about having a paper to do. Well no, that's not fair, I'm sure it's just a coincidence, just like every time we've seen the suddeny disapperance of Lancaste....erm, sorry...Corneliu.

Because I want a Good grade on it?

But a good grade is in the eyes of the beholder. If you don't do it, your teacher might give you a zero, but, according to your logic, squinting hard enough turns it into a 10.

But a good grade is in the eyes of the beholder. If you don't do it, your teacher might give you a zero, but, according to your logic, squinting hard enough turns it into a 10.

And if you simply close your eye entirely, and never look at the grade, you can truthfully say "I might have gotten a 100".

And then of course, you'd be right, because reality is after all in thee eye of the beholder, and if he believes he got an A...well..

But a good grade is in the eyes of the beholder. If you don't do it, your teacher might give you a zero, but, according to your logic, squinting hard enough turns it into a 10.

Oh funny....

ah, such amusing irony.

Or, you know, it would be, if you were telling the truth about having a paper to do. Well no, that's not fair, I'm sure it's just a coincidence, just like every time we've seen the suddeny disapperance of Lancaste....erm, sorry...Corneliu.

Question, Neo, Corny surely knows what your profession is?

Question, Neo, Corny surely knows what your profession is?

If you followed an example, you know damn well I do.

1. There are no moral grounds for bombing another nation that you say is a "threat" but have absolutely no proof of the said nation being a threat. Hans Blix never said that Iraq is a threat, and was against the invasion. There is no moral right here. Cut the crap. You cannot drop bombs on innocent civillians and say that you have "moral rights". Internationally Uniteral Actions are illegal, as Kosovo's president recently found out, when trying to get non-NATO states to sign trade treaties. They didn't want to. That goes for ALL Unilateral Actions, ALL are illegal.

2. In order for the UN to work, the US, UK, France, Russia and China have to ALL agree on something. When one of these members diagrees, the UN fails. The US disagreed with the UN over Iraq, so the UN failed Iraqis.

3. The Iraqis are much WORSE off today then they were under Saddam, that's why they riot and attack the oil pipelines. The US media handpicks Iraqis and shows Americans how happy these people are. But right now Iraq IS IN A CIVIL WAR, ergo much WORSE off then Saddam.

4. The US economy cannot handle the Iraqi War. The US Armed Forces are dwindling. Casualties mount. The war has proved a major disaster for the Bush Administration, more so then Katrina, wiretapping, election rigging, Homeland security, etc. The war has been a disaster for all sides, don't even try to justify it by arguing for morality.

5. The same people who called the war a sham and were proven right, are saying "pull out now!" The ones looking for WMDs ask "what will happen, won't Iraq erupt in a civil war, won't we lose a base in the Middle East?" Umm, ok, first off Iraq IS ALREADY in a Civil War with several major groups: Kurds, pro-Iran Shia, anti-Iran Shia, pro-Saddam Sunni, Awakening councils, pro-Al Qeada Sunnis. Geez, I can't possibly see which group Iran is supporting, but according to McCain and say it's the pro-Al Qeada Sunnis over the pro-Iran Shia. Wait Johnny, why can't Iran be supporting pro-Iran Shia? Oh wait, that's too logical for McCain. About the base, is the US planning on having a base every 200 miles in the Middle East? There are US bases in Dubai, Incirlik, Kabul - how many do you people need?

The courageous thing to say is: "We were wrong with our bravado, Iraqis we are sorry and pulling out, you have your country back, here is some money to rebuild it". But that would be the logical course of action, so I'm expecting the Bush Administration not to follow it. Instead we will "Stay the course" and get more money wasted, more American boys and girls killed and give more recruits to Al Qeada.

If you followed an example, you know damn well I do.

So, yeah, you're actually claiming to know more about international law than a LAWYER, one who certainly knows about things such as law interpretation, jurisprudency, and so on?

What do YOU work as again?

I've been doing the 'we're right, you're wrong dance' since before the war. I'm too tired to keep dancing. Can't I just smoke a 'we're right, you're wrong joint' as the pro-war people continue to keep up their delusion and ignore the dances and the joints?

*drinks self to death also*

3. The Iraqis are much WORSE off today then they were under Saddam, that's why they riot and attack the oil pipelines. The US media handpicks Iraqis and shows Americans how happy these people are. But right now Iraq IS IN A CIVIL WAR, ergo much WORSE off then Saddam.
This claim just irritates me on so many levels, especially since the Iraqis themselves are increasingly cheery about the situation. In the last survey especially, in March, the majority of people (54% of those questioned) said that things were 'very good' or 'quite good', and 45% expect things to get better as the year goes on, with only 18% of people reckoning that things are going to get better.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_03_08iraqpollmarch2008.pdf

Things are genuinely improving. A shame people disregard that just to make a point about how stupid an idea the war was.

...that what is divorced from reality is sometimes in the eye of the beholder...


ROFL. No further comment necessary. I am begining to understand how Bush thinks. *Runs out to get 196 proof liquor to help understand certain quotes better*:sniper:

[BTW, just because someone makes a stupid quote, doesn't mean that person is stupid, just mistaken in this case. But I couldn't pass this up, sorry.]

This claim just irritates me on so many levels, especially since the Iraqis themselves are increasingly cheery about the situation. In the last survey especially, in March, the majority of people (54% of those questioned) said that things were 'very good' or 'quite good', and 45% expect things to get better as the year goes on, with only 18% of people reckoning that things are going to get better.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_03_08iraqpollmarch2008.pdf

Things are genuinely improving. A shame people disregard that just to make a point about how stupid an idea the war was.



Looking at your poll data thru the years we see that the percentage of people who say life is quite good or very good has decreased in 2008 from what it was in 2004.

The percentage of people who expect things to get better has decreased in 2008 from what it was in 2004.

The percentage of people who think their children will have a better life than them has decreased in 2008 from what it was in the beginning of 2007.

The percentage of people who think things are going well overall for Iraq has decreased in 2008 from what it was in 2005.

The percentage of people who think things will be better in Iraq a year from the time the question was asked has decreased in 2008 from what it was in 2005.

This claim just irritates me on so many levels, especially since the Iraqis themselves are increasingly cheery about the situation. In the last survey especially, in March, the majority of people (54% of those questioned) said that things were 'very good' or 'quite good', and 45% expect things to get better as the year goes on, with only 18% of people reckoning that things are going to get better.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_03_08iraqpollmarch2008.pdf

Things are genuinely improving. A shame people disregard that just to make a point about how stupid an idea the war was.


The Iraqis that were surveyed were in the Green Zone! How about the rest of the country, you know the other 90%? If things are so cheery in Iraq, why does John McCain need a special forces squad to stage photo-ops outside of the Green Zone? Having talked to actual Iraqis that don't live in the Green Zone, all of the opinions I've gotten were negative. Most Iraqis know that Maliki is a US puppet; do you really think they'll let the puppet of the nation that bombed them for decades sit long after the US troops leave? If things genuinely improving, why do no other nations want to move in? Why isn't the Maliki Government able to produce as much oil as Saddam's Gov't? I want to see how that survey was done, because I don't buy this crap. You can't a civil war in the country and things getting better at the same time; so either everything I know about Iraq is wrong, and Iraq doesn't have Sunni and Shia hating each other, or the survey's crap. Stop it with the morality already, and with all the claims about how Iraqis are getting better due to a lack of stability and being bombed. Maybe the Kurds are, and those living in the Green Zone are, but for the majority of the population things aren't getting better.

Just for the sake of the argument, let's assume the survey wasn't bull. In 2005, there were more people thinking that things were very good or quite good, then now. So how again is it improving?

Also in EVERY year from 2005 and on, of the poll you provided, more Iraqis say that the US was wrong in invading their country then supported the US invasion. Not to mention the laughable choice of "Somewhat right" and "somewhat wrong". "Your honor, I believe my client was somewhat right in killing that man..."

That survey's just laughable.

Edit: the survey says that it was conducted through personal interviews. I doubt any journalist would travel to the Sunni Triangle and started asking the questions there. Or to any Iraqi hot-spots really. Also, the margin of error is based on the US Polling System, ever noticed that maybe Iraqis think differently then Americans? Or Europeans? You know that whole religion/culture thingy?

Just like the Constitution can be interpreted in many different ways, not all resolutions are(..........)International Law.

Even a lawyer does not know everything about the law.

Do you remember the last time you and me had this out? Because I distinctly remember starting a thread specifically for the purpose of handing your backside on this subject, doing so, and you being handed said ass.

What annoys me is the way you sneak back to the same position, despite having it clearly demonstrated to you that its entirely incorrect.

When Bush was justifying the war, why did he not use this argument of yours?

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

Why aren't the British waving around in their own cabinet level discussions?

The Iraqis that were surveyed were in the Green Zone!
No, they weren't. It's that simple. It was a national survey.

As to your other points :

- McCain needed protection in Iraq because there are a whole load of armed groups who would love to take out US citizens there, regardless of who they are. He also gets protection in the US, so there we go.

- Less oil is being produced because the rigs are still not repaired yet, and there are people still setting the oil fields on fire from time to time. To say that this somehow represents majority Iraqi opinion is like saying that most West Germans were anti-capitalist in the 1970s because the RAF blew up a bunch of department stores.

- Much like the American and English civil wars, I'm pretty positive that certain areas are doing alright away from the fighting. There might be additional difficulties imposed by a war near battlezones, but outside of those areas, life can still go on. In World War I, people were still holidaying in the south of France, for example.

- Things were alright in 2005, then quickly got bad again in 2006, which was the worst year of the war. Improvement is based on the previous situation. 2006 was really bad, and in 2008, things are improving again. How is this somehow illogical?

- There was actually an oversample in the Sunni Triangle (Anbar province and the surrounding area) and in Sadr City, also Basra and Kirkuk. Had you actually read the survey properly, you would have discovered this.

No, they weren't. It's that simple. It was a national survey.

As to your other points :

- McCain needed protection in Iraq because there are a whole load of armed groups who would love to take out US citizens there, regardless of who they are. He also gets protection in the US, so there we go.

- Less oil is being produced because the rigs are still not repaired yet, and there are people still setting the oil fields on fire from time to time. To say that this somehow represents majority Iraqi opinion is like saying that most West Germans were anti-capitalist in the 1970s because the RAF blew up a bunch of department stores.

- Much like the American and English civil wars, I'm pretty positive that certain areas are doing alright away from the fighting. There might be additional difficulties imposed by a war near battlezones, but outside of those areas, life can still go on. In World War I, people were still holidaying in the south of France, for example.

- Things were alright in 2005, then quickly got bad again in 2006, which was the worst year of the war. Improvement is based on the previous situation. 2006 was really bad, and in 2008, things are improving again. How is this somehow illogical?

- There was actually an oversample in the Sunni Triangle (Anbar province and the surrounding area) and in Sadr City, also Basra and Kirkuk. Had you actually read the survey properly, you would have discovered this.

"Things were alright in 2005, then quickly got bad again in 2006"
Got it. So Iraqi Insurgents fluctuate on a sine curve. Or is it a cosine curve? Things don't get quickly bad without a reason. The reason is that the country's in a Civil War!!! So the opposing groups are fighting quietly for influence. When the two meet, there's a big clash, as has happened in 2006. Under Saddam, there was one dominant ruling group. The invasion destroyed that, and now Iraq is fragmenting into more and more groups that seek control. That's why things like the 2006 spike will keep on happening, it's not a one time event, and that's what you just don't get. It's like a sniper-hunt, groups circling, looking to deliver the killing blow. And the more groups there are, the more blows will be delivered.

Your oil comment is laughable. Rigs not repaired yet? How long does it take to repair rigs? Five years? And I didn't say that most Iraqis are insurgents; I said that the Iraqi economy won't go up as long as oil production stays below Saddam Hussein levels, and a poor economy draws more people to hate the government.

Again, you are NOT thinking like an Iraqi militia leader.

"Much like the American and English civil wars, I'm pretty positive that certain areas are doing alright away from the fighting."

The US based their Vietnam strategy on such thinking, that the Vietnamese are like Americans. How well did that go? Western Examples rarely work for the Middle East. This isn't Trench Warfare; this is pure partisan warfare. This is Urban Warfare. Having the best Air Force doesn't help here. That's what you and people who still think that if we "stay the course everything will be just dandy" don't get!

"There was actually an oversample..." Oversample just shows that the people who did the survey feel insecure about it. Thank you for once again proving me correct. Now can we pull out?

It's still perfectly legitimate. The Iraqi troops bombed in those cases were conducting offensive operations against US forces - they were painting US (and British) jets with attack radars.

So did Soviet ground controllers when American spy planes were violating their airspace to do some snooping. No act of war there.

And yes, I do know the difference between navigational, search and attack radars.


Once an aircraft is painted by attack radar, it is in deadly danger. The pilot has no way to know whether a missile has actually been launched; only that one could be at any moment. And SAMs have unpleasently high launch-to-kill ratios.

This is untrue. Missile launches can usually be detected by a high thermal bloom. And countermeasures do exist for a reason. In either case, a radar lock isn't an act of war yet. It is a threatening move, but not an act of war. The same principle applies for air, ground, sea and even submarines. Being pinged for target acquisition sonar isn't enough to be considered an act of war.

Oh, and where were these craft when they were painted by the radar I wonder? Perhaps inside Iraqi airspace? Sending interceptors and tracking with air defense networks is a valid response to airspace breech, and failure to comply will result in an attempt to shoot the intruder down. Or will you argue otherwise?

In which case, there is nothing stopping me from flying a piper cub over Washington DC and dropping a payload of light bombs now is there?


Therefore, it is generally accepted by militaries worldwide that use of attack radar is itself an attack on the target.

And I am sure you will provide proof of this acceptance?

Indeed. Just like the fact that the Secretary General is not the final authority on a UN Resolution.

Well how about that? I guess the 2nd amendment means no guns for private citizens then. Who cares what the supreme court decides? They aren't the final authority on it. And free speech? Naaah, that can't be what the interpretation on the first amendment means. It's only for a specific class of people. The supreme court can't decide on it. It's no final authority.

Your arrogance as usual, replaces facts.


Nope didn't miss a thing. WHen a nation violates a cease-fire, it is grounds for immediate resumption of Hostilities. Its always been that way.

NATO violated the ceasefire by firing the first shot while violating Iraqi airspace. Don't try and pretend otherwise.

Yup, we're all special little flowers, and everybody's opinion matters just as much as everybody else's opinion!

I think I'm going to go this to the senior partners. How do you think they'll react Mur?

I think they'll laugh as hard as I did.

Oh boohoo. Cry me a river that I put more emphasis on school than on dealing with fools who know jack shit about international law.

You should stop talking about yourself. It's not healthy.

I think they'll laugh as hard as I did.

If I'm lucky.

If I'm lucky.

Well, if they don't, you can just stick your fingers in your ears and shout LALALA until they go away. Or they put you away. But either way, they will no longer dispute your interpretation of reality. I'm sure it'll work, because look how it's been working for Corny. :)

So did Soviet ground controllers when American spy planes were violating their airspace to do some snooping. No act of war there.

Sure it was. But neither side wished to take it further - as happens in most cases.

And yes, I do know the difference between navigational, search and attack radars.

That's cool. Not everyone does.

This is untrue. Missile launches can usually be detected by a high thermal bloom. And countermeasures do exist for a reason. In either case, a radar lock isn't an act of war yet. It is a threatening move, but not an act of war. The same principle applies for air, ground, sea and even submarines. Being pinged for target acquisition sonar isn't enough to be considered an act of war.

Most, but not all, SAMs create a thermal bloom. The Stinger, for example, launches by cold gas before the main engine ignites. Additionally, some Russian designs use a ramjet instead of a rocket, resulting in much less of a thermal signature.

For this reason, attack radar acquisition is considered an attack.

Oh, and where were these craft when they were painted by the radar I wonder? Perhaps inside Iraqi airspace? Sending interceptors and tracking with air defense networks is a valid response to airspace breech, and failure to comply will result in an attempt to shoot the intruder down. Or will you argue otherwise?

Not in the least. Iraq had every right to be pissed at the no-fly zones - well, except for those people who were being kept ALIVE by the no-fly zones, I guess - and as I've said, Iraq had legitimate casus belli over them.

However, they didn't act on that. Given that the Zones were well posted, and the US and British aircraft were KNOWN to be there, Iraq's actions can only be considered deliberate provocation - and thus a cause of war also.


In which case, there is nothing stopping me from flying a piper cub over Washington DC and dropping a payload of light bombs now is there?

Go right ahead. I won't stop you.

You won't survive, of course.



And I am sure you will provide proof of this acceptance?

US, British and Australian standard ROEs, and I believe the Russian ones as well.

Sure it was. But neither side wished to take it further - as happens in most cases.

Right, so if it was an act of war, although neither side took it further, how can it be argued that NATO did not break the ceasefire first by conducting border incursions with aircraft on bombing runs without prior acts of war by Iraq?

If Russia had shot down American military incursions in their airspace, it would have been within their right, as America in this case was the aggressor.

How is it that these very standards do not apply to Iraq?


Most, but not all, SAMs create a thermal bloom. The Stinger, for example, launches by cold gas before the main engine ignites. Additionally, some Russian designs use a ramjet instead of a rocket, resulting in much less of a thermal signature.

However, all SAMs that I know of still produce a high temperature exhaust signature that would show up on thermal sensors. Still detectable.


Not in the least. Iraq had every right to be pissed at the no-fly zones - well, except for those people who were being kept ALIVE by the no-fly zones, I guess - and as I've said, Iraq had legitimate casus belli over them.

However, they didn't act on that. Given that the Zones were well posted, and the US and British aircraft were KNOWN to be there, Iraq's actions can only be considered deliberate provocation - and thus a cause of war also.


This makes little to no sense. A ceasefire has been declared, however one of the ceasefire signatories regularly make border incursions against the other signatory with armed aircraft which conduct bombing raids against said signatory. Even if there is foreknowledge of such incursions and attacks, how can any form of military response against them by the owners of said territory be anything other than self defense?

Would we argue that France started the war against Germany because they knew they were coming and fired on them when they were inside their borders? That's just silly.


Go right ahead. I won't stop you.


Law enforcement and military assets however, would, indicating that at the very least on the nation state level, you are wrong about what constitutes the opening part in act of war.


US, British and Australian standard ROEs, and I believe the Russian ones as well.

I assume the pertinent sections are available somewhere for one to see?

Right, so if it was an act of war, although neither side took it further, how can it be argued that NATO did not break the ceasefire first by conducting border incursions with aircraft on bombing runs without prior acts of war by Iraq?



This makes little to no sense. A ceasefire has been declared, however one of the ceasefire signatories regularly make border incursions against the other signatory with armed aircraft which conduct bombing raids against said signatory. Even if there is foreknowledge of such incursions and attacks, how can any form of military response against them by the owners of said territory be anything other than self defense?



I assume the pertinent sections are available somewhere for one to see?

The cease fire in Iraq had a stipulation that Iraq will comply with all UN mandates.
The no fly zone was mandated by the UN and Iraq had already agreed to do as told by the UN.
Also the cease fire can be voided if the parties feel the other is not living up to their ends of the cease fire agreement which is the reason the US gave for the continuation of war.

The cease fire in Iraq had a stipulation that Iraq will comply with all UN mandates.
The no fly zone was mandated by the UN and Iraq had already agreed to do as told by the UN.
Also the cease fire can be voided if the parties feel the other is not living up to their ends of the cease fire agreement which is the reason the US gave for the continuation of war.

Explain how the US can decide for the UN to resume hostilities.

Right, so if it was an act of war, although neither side took it further, how can it be argued that NATO did not break the ceasefire first by conducting border incursions with aircraft on bombing runs without prior acts of war by Iraq?

Because the aircraft had the right to be there under the peace treaty. Had the NATO forces enforced the no-fly zone by shooting down Iraqi planes, you might have a point, but to my knowledge that never actually occurred. Thus the initial aggressive was by the ground forces.


If Russia had shot down American military incursions in their airspace, it would have been within their right, as America in this case was the aggressor.

In point of fact, they did shoot down US spyplanes.

How is it that these very standards do not apply to Iraq?

The USSR had not just lost a war and had a punitive peace treaty imposed.

However, all SAMs that I know of still produce a high temperature exhaust signature that would show up on thermal sensors. Still detectable.

Detectable, yes, but not guaranteed to be detectED. Particularly if the missile is coming directly towards the target aircraft, blocking some of the thermal emission.

Nor is radar perfectly reliable against small, high-speed missiles. This area of uncertainty is the reason for considering attack radar lock-ons offensive actions.

This makes little to no sense. A ceasefire has been declared, however one of the ceasefire signatories regularly make border incursions against the other signatory with armed aircraft which conduct bombing raids against said signatory. Even if there is foreknowledge of such incursions and attacks, how can any form of military response against them by the owners of said territory be anything other than self defense?

Would we argue that France started the war against Germany because they knew they were coming and fired on them when they were inside their borders? That's just silly.

Except that the NATO forces were NOT conducting bombing raids. They were preventing the use of aircraft in pre-stated areas. And had the right to be there under the peace treaty.


I assume the pertinent sections are available somewhere for one to see?

With the exception of the Russians, I believe all of those documents are public domain, yes.

Because the aircraft had the right to be there under the peace treaty. Had the NATO forces enforced the no-fly zone by shooting down Iraqi planes, you might have a point, but to my knowledge that never actually occurred. Thus the initial aggressive was by the ground forces.

Oh? I was under the impression that NATO had begun offensive actions before the first Iraqi weapons response. The rest of the argument is mooted until this issue is cleared up.


Except that the NATO forces were NOT conducting bombing raids. They were preventing the use of aircraft in pre-stated areas. And had the right to be there under the peace treaty.

And how were they preventing the use of aircraft in these pre-stated areas?

Heikoku:

I do not know if we helped put SH in power. Assuming that you are correct, all I can say is that we got into bed with a lot of really bad folks during the cold war. They may have been tyrants but they were not commies. I am not saying that this is much of an excuse but it is the truth. I think that during the cold war we could be given a little leeway for supporting really bad governments who were part of our alliance. Now that the cold war is over we do not have that leeway.

Also, a lot of folks changed over time. For example, we have Osama bin Laden. OBL was a real hero in the fight against the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan. The mujhadeen were real heroes. I am proud of the support that they received from the USA. Where things get a bit wierd is that the mujhadden did not mind getting help from the USA against the soviets but they did not want the USA using military forces to defend Saudi Arabia and got really mad at us for it. I do not see how anybody can become enraged by one country helping out an ally. I do not see OBL's point at all either in being mad at SA for receiving US military forces or at the USA for helping. It is pure madness.

There may have been folks we supported in the past who were bad then and are bad now but at least they were anti-communist then. Then there were also folks who were good then but bad now.

We agree that assassinating attempts of present or past leaders is a grounds for war. This is as true for us as it is for anyone else. We have achieved our objective by bringing Saddam to justice.

I believe that Saddam violated the ceasefire several times during the Clinton administration. I do not know what you are talking about when you say that we broke ceasefire first.

It is not the USA that destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq. It was in sorry shape when we took over. We have only improved it. That is one of the reasons why it is so expensive. I am not sure that it is our job to do that but we are doing it. Why are you upset at our kindness? Why do you think that our kindness is hurting the infrastructure?

Well, i was using the Civil War because thats what he cited...

But, even though it may be big enough to be in several places at once...

It cant Police several places at once, for that requires a much greater force, just look at the disproportion of soldiers in Iraq vs the ones In Afghanistan fighting Terrorists...

I think anybody that says the US military cant do something is usually wrong. Our military is awesome.

Where are the sane war opponents why do we have to deal with this craziness? C'mon somebody do some reasonable argument please, i am getting bored. You know what? I apologize. I am tired and I need rest. Sorry if I was a little grouchy. No offense. It is just that some of these antiwar points are pretty lame.

The ones that seem reasonable to me are:

1. We have done enough already, let the Iraqis take over.
2. Let us move our Iraqi based forces somehwere else like Syria or Iran.
3. Let's scale down our forces so that Iraqis can take more credit and pride in their accomplishments.
4. Let's not make war at all because of an extreme interpretation of the commandment not to kill.
5. Let's reform the military by allowing people to sign up for military service in particular areas for particular time periods, like I want to fight in Iraq when it is winter, let the arabs defend themselves more when it is crazy hot in the summertime, or I want to fight in Iraq for a year and Afghanistan for a year and then I want to be able to come home if I want or renegotiate another enlistment contract. This is not antiwar but I think it is a nice and democratic reform.



My husband laughed his behind off on this one. He absolutely loves the idea! (Obviously, it's not going to go over..lol..but he said thanks for thinking of him.)

I just have to say. If you are against the war in Iraq, I can understand why. I'd give anything to have him home here with me. I don't want to hear of anyone else dying. I agree totally that war is not good for anyone.

But I also know that because he IS a member of the military (And yes, we ARE proud, I don't see why we should be ashamed.) we have to be in the middle of this thing for a long time. I've read so many articles and spoken with so many people that the subject gets to be old hat.

I don't pretend to know more than you. I wouldn't assume that anyone not LIVING in that situation could possibly pretend to know jack about what is going on there right now. I would even venture forth that some of THEM are living in disillusion themselves.

What I do know is that without tangible evidence in our hands, every one of these arguments is MOOT, even mine.

Bush authorized the torture. Not Bill Clinton. But please, do continue deluding yourself.



Hah! "We might do it, but they do it too! We're not so bad!"

What a lousy excuse. To be expected from an equally poor personality.



Shooting you in the head is not murder either. In fact, you're not a citizen, you're an illegal immigrant. A criminal illegal immigrant. I can change the definitions to suit my agenda too.

And unless you are claiming illegal combatants are hyper intelligent aubergines or space aliens, they are undeniably human, and in US territory, such as Guantanamo, are subject to US laws regarding the treatment of human prisoners. These are blatantly ignored by the Bush administration.

Just like how Saddam ignored the Geneva conventions on human treatment. So yes, America is acting like Saddam.

There is not a geneva convention on human treatment. Are you referring to the UN declaration of human rights or what?

Bill Clinton was the one that started the torturing business, wasnt he? Why do you believe that it was Bush?

I think that nobody should be tortured ever by anyone.

We are not talking about illegal immigrants we are talking about what it takes to be a POW. This is clearly defined by international law. It is not up to you or I to debate what it is. I would be very shocked if the US government as a matter of policy mistreated POWs. Now I am not saying that occassionally there were not violations of the law but I doubt that these were a matter of policy. I am not sure that you agree with me that certain detainees are not POWs. I am sure that you should though.

In other words: "The other kid started it!" "The other kids do it, so we should be able to do it too!"

That didn't even work in the schoolyard when I was 10 years old. It sure the fuck doesn't work in foreign policy and warfare.

No. That is not the point at all. The point is what I said, the US military spends a lot of energy on minimizing collateral damage. In the early stage of the war there was a lot of damage from flak that fell in cities. That was Iraqi fire , not ours. This is not a matter of he started it. I think you missed my point entirely.

1. There are no moral grounds for bombing another nation that you say is a "threat" but have absolutely no proof of the said nation being a threat. Hans Blix never said that Iraq is a threat, and was against the invasion. There is no moral right here. Cut the crap. You cannot drop bombs on innocent civillians and say that you have "moral rights". Internationally Uniteral Actions are illegal, as Kosovo's president recently found out, when trying to get non-NATO states to sign trade treaties. They didn't want to. That goes for ALL Unilateral Actions, ALL are illegal.

2. In order for the UN to work, the US, UK, France, Russia and China have to ALL agree on something. When one of these members diagrees, the UN fails. The US disagreed with the UN over Iraq, so the UN failed Iraqis.

3. The Iraqis are much WORSE off today then they were under Saddam, that's why they riot and attack the oil pipelines. The US media handpicks Iraqis and shows Americans how happy these people are. But right now Iraq IS IN A CIVIL WAR, ergo much WORSE off then Saddam.

4. The US economy cannot handle the Iraqi War. The US Armed Forces are dwindling. Casualties mount. The war has proved a major disaster for the Bush Administration, more so then Katrina, wiretapping, election rigging, Homeland security, etc. The war has been a disaster for all sides, don't even try to justify it by arguing for morality.

5. The same people who called the war a sham and were proven right, are saying "pull out now!" The ones looking for WMDs ask "what will happen, won't Iraq erupt in a civil war, won't we lose a base in the Middle East?" Umm, ok, first off Iraq IS ALREADY in a Civil War with several major groups: Kurds, pro-Iran Shia, anti-Iran Shia, pro-Saddam Sunni, Awakening councils, pro-Al Qeada Sunnis. Geez, I can't possibly see which group Iran is supporting, but according to McCain and say it's the pro-Al Qeada Sunnis over the pro-Iran Shia. Wait Johnny, why can't Iran be supporting pro-Iran Shia? Oh wait, that's too logical for McCain. About the base, is the US planning on having a base every 200 miles in the Middle East? There are US bases in Dubai, Incirlik, Kabul - how many do you people need?

The courageous thing to say is: "We were wrong with our bravado, Iraqis we are sorry and pulling out, you have your country back, here is some money to rebuild it". But that would be the logical course of action, so I'm expecting the Bush Administration not to follow it. Instead we will "Stay the course" and get more money wasted, more American boys and girls killed and give more recruits to Al Qeada.

We are winning. You must be patient. You must learn the lessons of the Vietnam war. You sound like a "Clouds" guy.

Oh? I was under the impression that NATO had begun offensive actions before the first Iraqi weapons response. The rest of the argument is mooted until this issue is cleared up.



And how were they preventing the use of aircraft in these pre-stated areas?

Presence, and stated willingness to force down or shoot down any aircraft used.

Look, I'm not a big fan of the no-fly zones myself; they were a grey area as far as the rules of war and diplomacy are concerned. Worse, they were a textbook case of doing an enemy a small injury - and then continuing to do so.

However, if you paint a warplane with a targetting radar, you are making a direct and immediate threat to that plane. It is unreasonable, and stupid, to assume that he will do anything other than attempt to destroy you.

We are winning. You must be patient. You must learn the lessons of the Vietnam war. You sound like a "Clouds" guy.

I would have thought the lessons of the Vietnam war included "don't get involved in pointless wars".

I see Corn-boy has fled the thread...

Just jumping in here but don't the bragging rights go the coalition military forces who freed 50 million people from a fascist tyranny (Iraq) and a medieval theocracy (Afghanistan) and are currently allowing them the chance to establish a representative government?

Also, considering the wealth of data coming out of Saddam's own archives I believe your dance, however misguided, is a bit premature.

Bush authorized the torture. Not Bill Clinton. But please, do continue deluding yourself.

CIA rendition was a product of the Clinton administration. As for torture, prove it.

CIA rendition was a product of the Clinton administration. As for torture, prove it.

Well if the CIA rendition is where we hand a guy over for questioning by foreign intelligence servcies that use torture, well that is what I was getting at.

I would have thought the lessons of the Vietnam war included "don't get involved in pointless wars".

I see Corn-boy has fled the thread...

Umm Vietnam was not a pointless war and neither is what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The lesson is that you continue on to victory even if you have a bunch of whiney hippie peaceniks bitching about it. We were so close to wiping out the VC after the tet offensive. The hippies were the biggest allies that the commies ever had. Heck they did more for the enemy than the soviets or communist china.

Who is corn boy?

I thought the lesson of Vietnam was 'make sure you're supporting the right side'...

We were so close to wiping out the VC after the tet offensive.

This is so... convenient.

"Yeah, we waged war for a decade and didn't defeat them, but if you had just given us more time...."

OK, first off, the Iraq war was a bad idea from the start. In fact, al-Qaeda has probably gained more recruits than it has lost from the war, America has united the Middle East against us (Israel doesn't count), and meanwhile everyone has completely forgotten about Afghanistan, which is where the real fight should have been in the first place. Not to mention the fact that the US administration lied to its people in an obvious effort to start not only an unjust war, but an unjustifiable war.
On the other hand, though, people need to realize just how tenous this situation is. A full withdrawal would leave anarchy behind. Saddam was a [self-censored], but even the most conservative politicians will agree he was effective in keeping Iraq out of civil war. With no-one to stop the chaos of post-Iraq Iraq, Iraq will cease to exist. In fact, I talked to Vietnam veteran about what he thought about Iraq, and he said that although starting it was a bad idea, leaving was worse, because we would be condemning the Iraqi people to a life of misery and death. He said it was exactly the same problem with Vietnam, and after US forces left Vietnam, the South Vietnamese were literally massacred. America needs to make sure they leave Iraq better than they found it, as hard as that may be. That said, the casualties, both in US forces and, perhaps more importantly, Iraqi citizens, are just unacceptable, and having Americans policing Iraqi streets would just be asking for trouble. Maybe if America apologized and promised to work with the UN for a change, then maybe the UN would be willing to send some (small) peacekeeping forces.
I guess my whole point is that everyone has a good point. I mean, should they continue with their war on general decency, or should they condemn Iraqis to hell on Earth? The only acceptable answer is neither. There's a fine path between the two. I just hope America will find a way to tread that path.

This is so... convenient.

"Yeah, we waged war for a decade and didn't defeat them, but if you had just given us more time...."

No, no, he's right. After Tet, the Viet Cong insurgency was basically extinct.

After that, US forces were fighting NVA regulars more often than VC. Which was bad, as the NVA was more disciplined, better armed and equipped, and better led than the VC ever were.

But the real enemy was what it always was: a South Vietnamese government that wasn't worth propping up, and an ARVN composed of incompetents, Northern sympathizers and unwilling conscripts.

Which is why that war was unwinnable. The south was always going to be better off with the North winning the war.

Umm Vietnam was not a pointless war and neither is what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The lesson is that you continue on to victory even if you have a bunch of whiney hippie peaceniks bitching about it. We were so close to wiping out the VC after the tet offensive. The hippies were the biggest allies that the commies ever had. Heck they did more for the enemy than the soviets or communist china.

Who is corn boy?

Ah, I see, so you favor failed, baseless and pointless wars IN GENERAL.

Umm Vietnam was not a pointless war


Fighting to keep a country divided that had no interest in being so isn't pointless?


and neither is what we are doing in Iraq

Well, not pointless in the sense that establishing a client state in the Gulf is a goal....Not a worthy, noble or decent one, but it does have a point, I suppose..


and Afghanistan.

....undermanning it, now yez are running around in Iraq?



The lesson is that you continue on to victory

Seeing as nobody could define and agree on what constituted victory at the time, you can now amuse me and tell me what it would have been.


Who is corn boy?

According to himself, hes an "historian".

Question.

After thousands of deaths, a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, NO WMDs, and an increase in the threat of terrorism, all of which were predicted by us, the people that were against this war from the beginning...

And after the same people that were against this war from the beginning got called US-haters, anti-Americans, terrorist sympathizers, and every possible kind of libel and slander under the sun, in the run-up to the war, were proven right...

Why is it that there isn't more bragging about it or pointing out that they, like me, were right and rubbing the mistake on the faces of those that insulted them for predicting EXACTLY what happened?

They know they're stupid. They don't need us to point it out for them.

They know they're stupid. They don't need us to point it out for them.

Are you SURE they know? Because stupidity strongly lies in NOT KNOWING stuff. See my point?

According to himself, hes an "historian".

And prey tell why the fuck you put that in quotation marks!

Are you SURE they know? Because stupidity strongly lies in NOT KNOWING stuff. See my point?

Actually Heikoku, that's not 100% true.

...the cease fire can be voided if the parties feel the other is not living up to their ends of the cease fire agreement which is the reason the US gave for the continuation of war.

Not according to International Law. The feelings of the parties don't really matter. I can feel pissed off, but that doesn't give me the right to shoot certain people in the nuts. So one cannot say, seize-fire bad, let's fight! One has to report how the other side breaks the seize fire, then inspectors have to go in, they have to be given ample time, unless there's a direct evidence of severe threat, and only then does the invasion lawfully occur. Otherwise, it is viewed as an act of agression from party A against party B. Also, I'd like to remind people that history's written by the winner, and the US is NOT winning the war in Iraq, no matter how well you spin it, smart people will realize the disaster that Iraq is today.

Also, the reasons that the US gave were bullshit. WMDs, ties to Al-Quada, Hussein threatening Israel, etc. Iran and Syria were always a greater threat to Israel then Iraq, there were no WMDs, and Saddam had no ties to Al-Quada. Then of couse the tune changed, and the US was "bringing Democracy", getting oil, etc - more bullshit. Now the Bush Administration's saying "stay the course", "everything will be fine", "smile".... Kinda reminds me of this:

Thursday:
"Hey, can I borrow $200, and I promise that bully won't touch you again?"
"Sure"
Next day you get beat up by the bully.
"Hey, I want my $200 back?!"
"Well you see, the bully's having anger management issues, but if you give me another $200, I'll pay you back $500 on monday".
"Ok"

Monday:
"Hey, where's my $500"
"The bully took it from me, but I know of a killer investment, can I borrow another $200? You'll get $800 tomorrow, I promise!"
"Sure"

Come on people, when will this end?!?!?! Seriously, just stop and think. Is that guy ever going to get the $800? Maybe if shoots the scammer, but I doubt it. This is what people who still support the war in Iraq are doing to the United States: :headbang: Repeatedly.

Actually Heikoku, that's not 100% true.

I used "strongly" as "mostly", so not 100%. Or "strongly" can't be used this way? o_O

I used "strongly" as "mostly", so not 100%. Or "strongly" can't be used this way? o_O

Maybe its fatigue. I have not been getting enough sleep :D

Maybe its fatigue. I have not been getting enough sleep :D

I actually got curious now, CAN it be used that way?

Umm Vietnam was not a pointless war and neither is what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The lesson is that you continue on to victory even if you have a bunch of whiney hippie peaceniks bitching about it. We were so close to wiping out the VC after the tet offensive. The hippies were the biggest allies that the commies ever had. Heck they did more for the enemy than the soviets or communist china.

Who is corn boy?

Umm, no. The Tet Offensive was launched by the Viet Cong against the US Forces. It was beaten back. However beating back a Viet Cong offensive that was poorly planned, does NOT mean that the US was going to win the war. More eplosives were dropped on Vietnam, then on the entire Western Europe, and yet the VC did NOT bend. The only way to "win" the Vietnam War was to commit Genocide and sink to Nazi levels. It's better to lose a war then to become Nazis with nukes. I mean if we are fighting for Democracy, going Nazi will render all American soldier deaths, totally meaningless.

My husband was recently deployed in Iraq, and I don't know if the word of someone who has actually been there means anything up against our media here in the US..but he says we are making an enormous impact in Iraq for the good. Perhaps they are reporting on another Iraq? Who knows. I for one am a little ashamed of our media. They point out all of the deaths of our soldiers, and yet fail to point out that alot of those deaths can be attributed to accidents, and almost happen more here than there.

Of course, Iraq is not the only country in the world where terrorism is a threat, and the war against it is one I believe we have to fight, before we have another 9/11, no matter WHO you believe was responsible for it, there is no denying it occurred.

Tell you're husband that it fills me with pride to have a man like him fighting for the freedom of America, and the freedom of people who otherwise have no relevance to his life, like the Iraqi's.

I know that many of the empathetic, and compassionate, and caring anti-war people don't actually care about the lives that we are changing over there, or how for the price of thousands, we are buying the liberty of millions (it isn't right in Iraq, but in France, Germany, Russia, and the US it seems more ok).

Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that Saddam had WMD's, and merely because they were not found does not mean they were not there. Besides, he had it coming for slaughtering his own people, which is something that we, at least, aren't doing.

I will take a note from the guy who likened it to a man in the mall with a gun, but the police have been fighting crime for 100 years, so they might as well just give up: What if we had said 'Well, we've had enough of fighting imperialist Germans in WWI, let's just stay outta WWII, after all, because a similar thing has happened in the past, never again should something similar be done."?

Also, why do liberals (in general) argue so much against the cost of the war, yet they would tax everyone poor, and just put everyone on welfare? At least the war in Iraq is trying to solve problems.

Thursday:
"Hey, can I borrow $200, and I promise that bully won't touch you again?"
"Sure"
Next day you get beat up by the bully.
"Hey, I want my $200 back?!"
"Well you see, the bully's having anger management issues, but if you give me another $200, I'll pay you back $500 on monday".
"Ok"

Monday:
"Hey, where's my $500"
"The bully took it from me, but I know of a killer investment, can I borrow another $200? You'll get $800 tomorrow, I promise!"
"Sure"

Come on people, when will this end?!?!?! Seriously, just stop and think. Is that guy ever going to get the $800? Maybe if shoots the scammer, but I doubt it. This is what people who still support the war in Iraq are doing to the United States: :headbang: Repeatedly.

They're giving money to scammers? I support the war in Iraq, and don't give money away to scammers. If you would like to make a valid similarity, you are free to try again.

No. That is not the point at all. The point is what I said, the US military spends a lot of energy on minimizing collateral damage. In the early stage of the war there was a lot of damage from flak that fell in cities. That was Iraqi fire , not ours. This is not a matter of he started it. I think you missed my point entirely.
I did not miss that point because this is the first time you made it. The post I was responding to said nothing of the kind. And your assertion that, in the early stages of the war, it was the Iraqis doing all that damage to their own country is simply mind-boggling. If that was so, then what the heck was Bush's "shock and awe" thing supposed to be, and if the early-stage collateral damage was caused by the Iraqis and not the US, then I would be very interested to know where all that US ordinance that was shot at Baghdad actually landed, if not on the target.

They're giving money to scammers? I support the war in Iraq, and don't give money away to scammers. If you would like to make a valid similarity, you are free to try again.

I think that's a pretty good analogy, and that most people get it. However if you cannot figure out that government pork is another word for scam... or that there is a huge amount of government pork in Iraq... well then, what's the point of trying again?

There is not a geneva convention on human treatment. Are you referring to the UN declaration of human rights or what?

My mistake. I was referring to the US bill of rights, that include the treatment of human captives.


Bill Clinton was the one that started the torturing business, wasnt he? Why do you believe that it was Bush?

Clinton didn't start up Guantanamo bay or camp X-ray did he? He didn't create a new classification of "illegal combatants" which suddenly didn't have any rights, even under US laws.

And giving Bush a free pass just because you accuse Clinton of starting it? Pathetic.


I think that nobody should be tortured ever by anyone.


You seem to think that Bush doing it is fine.


We are not talking about illegal immigrants we are talking about what it takes to be a POW. This is clearly defined by international law. It is not up to you or I to debate what it is. I would be very shocked if the US government as a matter of policy mistreated POWs. Now I am not saying that occassionally there were not violations of the law but I doubt that these were a matter of policy. I am not sure that you agree with me that certain detainees are not POWs. I am sure that you should though.

It does not matter whether they are POWs or not. They are humans, currently held by the US, without trial or charge. Either they are POWs, or they are civilians. In either case, their treatment as human beings is clearly stated in the US laws towards treatment of humans. These laws are being clearly violated by the US acts of indefinite detainment and torture.

Are you going to argue that these people aren't human now? I know one country that did that for their undesireables. Shortly before shoving them into gas chambers.

Presence, and stated willingness to force down or shoot down any aircraft used.

Look, I'm not a big fan of the no-fly zones myself; they were a grey area as far as the rules of war and diplomacy are concerned. Worse, they were a textbook case of doing an enemy a small injury - and then continuing to do so.

However, if you paint a warplane with a targetting radar, you are making a direct and immediate threat to that plane. It is unreasonable, and stupid, to assume that he will do anything other than attempt to destroy you.

Let's say you are right. That target acquisition can be considered to be an act of war. What does armed aircraft flying over your airspace, attack radars scanning for targets, say then?

They're giving money to scammers? I support the war in Iraq, and don't give money away to scammers. If you would like to make a valid similarity, you are free to try again.

You're paying taxes to support a war that ultimately does nothing but increase the total sum of human misery and sow the seeds of future conflict while believing that it will magically "make things better."

Sort of like CoS. Except you're not even promised OT VIII.

And prey tell why the fuck you put that in quotation marks!

Who, pray tell, are any of us? Certainly I could make all manner of claims, none of which can be proven, all thus being irrelevant.

I note you didn't answer any of the points raised in Message 411...............

Let's say you are right. That target acquisition can be considered to be an act of war. What does armed aircraft flying over your airspace, attack radars scanning for targets, say then?

That would most certainly be a belligerant act. OTOH, that, I am quite certain, was not what was happening. In fact, it would surprise me greatly if the US or British planes were emitting any radar.

Consider: both US and British air doctrine is to operate aircraft in a potential conflict zone in conjunction with either an AWACS aircraft or a ground-based control station. In both cases, the controller is using very powerful radar systems that allow him (or her) to view the area from a very long way away - in the case of AWACS, effectively over the horizon.

This means the combat craft have no need to use their radar systems at all - and doing so would give away their exact position to everyone with a radar detector withing a thousand miles.

The first time they would activate attack radar would be on the actual attack run - and since they weren't there to attack, but rather to dissuade, they would have no reason to do that.

That would most certainly be a belligerant act. OTOH, that, I am quite certain, was not what was happening. In fact, it would surprise me greatly if the US or British planes were emitting any radar.

Consider: both US and British air doctrine is to operate aircraft in a potential conflict zone in conjunction with either an AWACS aircraft or a ground-based control station. In both cases, the controller is using very powerful radar systems that allow him (or her) to view the area from a very long way away - in the case of AWACS, effectively over the horizon.

This means the combat craft have no need to use their radar systems at all - and doing so would give away their exact position to everyone with a radar detector withing a thousand miles.

The first time they would activate attack radar would be on the actual attack run - and since they weren't there to attack, but rather to dissuade, they would have no reason to do that.

Does not the AWACS also serve as fire control radar for linked aircraft?

Does not the AWACS also serve as fire control radar for linked aircraft?

Unfortunately, no. This was one reason why the JDAM targetting system was developed for guided bombs; by using the GPS, the dropping bomber doesn't need to emit anything.

However, I don't think relatively small fighters can carry JDAMs.

For air-to-air work, a fighter can use the AWACS search radar to vector on to a target, then destroy it with a heatseeker. This doesn't work with groound targets though (as AWACS usually can't see them, and they usually don't have a strong heat signature).

Unfortunately, no. This was one reason why the JDAM targetting system was developed for guided bombs; by using the GPS, the dropping bomber doesn't need to emit anything.

One question then. Air defense networks must acquire targets with attack radar, or have a negligible chance of actually scoring a hit against today's high speed, high altitude craft.

However, aircraft are not bound by any such restriction when it comes to deploying ordnance. GPS guidance as well as local ground intrusion and target painting remove the need for aircraft to emit electromagnetic signatures that can be identified as a pre-attack target acquisition. Or if accuracy is not required, unguided bombs from strategic level bombers need no attack radar.

If we were to use the act of target acquisition against aircraft to construe an act of war, while applying the same for aircraft which can circumvent the guidelines, then border incursions cannot be stopped without breaking a ceasefire from the defendants side until the intruder actually begins dropping bombs.

This cripples any response from a defending nation.

One question then. Air defense networks must acquire targets with attack radar, or have a negligible chance of actually scoring a hit against today's high speed, high altitude craft.

However, aircraft are not bound by any such restriction when it comes to deploying ordnance. GPS guidance as well as local ground intrusion and target painting remove the need for aircraft to emit electromagnetic signatures that can be identified as a pre-attack target acquisition. Or if accuracy is not required, unguided bombs from strategic level bombers need no attack radar.

If we were to use the act of target acquisition against aircraft to construe an act of war, while applying the same for aircraft which can circumvent the guidelines, then border incursions cannot be stopped without breaking a ceasefire from the defendants side until the intruder actually begins dropping bombs.

This cripples any response from a defending nation.

In short, the no-fly zones were a setup for another useless war.

Ah, I see, so you favor failed, baseless and pointless wars IN GENERAL.

I favor any military action that is directed against a regime that tortures anybody and who incarcerates people based on political or religious beliefs.

I favor any war that is waged against the forces of communism.

I favor any war where one is attacked by the enemy.

I favor any war that is waged against criminals.

These are not pointless wars.

I favor any military action that is directed against a regime that tortures anybody

So would you be in favor of other western democracies launching a war against the United States?

Question.

After thousands of deaths, a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, NO WMDs, and an increase in the threat of terrorism, all of which were predicted by us, the people that were against this war from the beginning...

And after the same people that were against this war from the beginning got called US-haters, anti-Americans, terrorist sympathizers, and every possible kind of libel and slander under the sun, in the run-up to the war, were proven right...

Why is it that there isn't more bragging about it or pointing out that they, like me, were right and rubbing the mistake on the faces of those that insulted them for predicting EXACTLY what happened?

I watched a Democratic Party commercial where they showed US soldiers being blown up by an IED.

Isn't that "rubbing their faces in it"? Who has the insane whimsical bloodlust now?

Umm, no. The Tet Offensive was launched by the Viet Cong against the US Forces. It was beaten back. However beating back a Viet Cong offensive that was poorly planned, does NOT mean that the US was going to win the war. More eplosives were dropped on Vietnam, then on the entire Western Europe, and yet the VC did NOT bend. The only way to "win" the Vietnam War was to commit Genocide and sink to Nazi levels. It's better to lose a war then to become Nazis with nukes. I mean if we are fighting for Democracy, going Nazi will render all American soldier deaths, totally meaningless.

Why should there be a time limit on war? If you say that all the enemy must do to win is survive for a period of time, have not you just aided the enemy? A war should go on for a thousand years if it ends in victory. I do not think that it is the proper business of any government to surrender unless it has been completely defeated. Anything less is cowardice.

So would you be in favor of other western democracies launching a war against the United States?

I am not in favor of torture. I am not in favor of any war against my country. I could never support an enemy of my country. If there is any torture being committed by someone acting under color of law, they should be arrested and tried.

I believe that no matter how awful a criminal is, he should not be tortured even if he totally deserves it.

I am not in favor of any war against my country. I could never support an enemy of my country.

Then this:

I favor any military action that is directed against a regime that tortures anybody

Is a boldfaced lie, and is in the end reduced to the same silly doublethink as it always is. "we should wage war for moral reasons, unless it should so be found that we are conducting the very bad acts we used to justify a war, in which case, we'll blame it on the individuals".

Need some help moving those goalposts?

For people who think that there is a greater terrorist threat -
Why then did Al Zarqawi send a letter saying they were through in Iraq if democracy took place, and that they are losing there, and that Iraq is key in the war on terror?

Then this:



Is a boldfaced lie, and is in the end reduced to the same silly doublethink as it always is. "we should wage war for moral reasons, unless it should so be found that we are conducting the very bad acts we used to justify a war, in which case, we'll blame it on the individuals".

Need some help moving those goalposts?

I did not understand your reference to goalposts. I also do not think that the United States tortures people and if we do, I think that this is a matter for the justice system to resolve.

It is not silly doublethink to not want to take up arms against your country or support the enemies of your country. It is patriotism.

Would you take up arms against your own government?

I did not understand your reference to goalposts. I also do not think that the United States tortures people

You're wrong.

and if we do, I think that this is a matter for the justice system to resolve.


You JUST SAID you support a war against nations that torture people. Are you now saying you would not support a war against a nation that tortures people?

Am I confusing you here?

One question then. Air defense networks must acquire targets with attack radar, or have a negligible chance of actually scoring a hit against today's high speed, high altitude craft.

However, aircraft are not bound by any such restriction when it comes to deploying ordnance. GPS guidance as well as local ground intrusion and target painting remove the need for aircraft to emit electromagnetic signatures that can be identified as a pre-attack target acquisition. Or if accuracy is not required, unguided bombs from strategic level bombers need no attack radar.

If we were to use the act of target acquisition against aircraft to construe an act of war, while applying the same for aircraft which can circumvent the guidelines, then border incursions cannot be stopped without breaking a ceasefire from the defendants side until the intruder actually begins dropping bombs.

This cripples any response from a defending nation.

Yes, it does. This is why I dislike the no-fly zones; they removed Iraq's usual right to challenge and prevent aircraft from entering attack range.

You're absolutely correct that Iraq was being held hostage by the NATO aircraft controllers' good will. In most cases a nation can challenge and request ID of any aircraft approaching it's borders, and is perfectly justified in using force against any that actually violate it's borders.

I'm willing to give the makers of the no-fly policy the benefit of the doubt; they were trying to save lives. And the peace treaty provisions enabled them to do it. But, as with the demilitarization of the Ruhr by the Treaty of Versailles, it was bad policy and poorly considered.

And, I actually do not blame the Iraqi government for doing as they did - pushing against an unjust treaty is one way to try to put pressure on those who are enforcing the treaty.

But the fact remains: they used attack radars against the NATO warplanes, when said warplanes had the right to be where they were, and this is the equivalent of shooting first.

Why should there be a time limit on war? If you say that all the enemy must do to win is survive for a period of time, have not you just aided the enemy? A war should go on for a thousand years if it ends in victory. I do not think that it is the proper business of any government to surrender unless it has been completely defeated. Anything less is cowardice.

You've just called Americans Cowards. Now go and study the War of 1812. Or the Civil War, the South still had armies, could've dragged it out. Or WWI. Or the Spanish American War. Also, a war that goes for 1,000 years doesn't end in victory for either side. Example: USSR and US fight for 1,000. China wins. If you don't get it, I'm sorry.

I did not understand your reference to goalposts. I also do not think that the United States tortures people

Thats unfortunate, considering everyone knows we do and various government officials have admitted to it. Where have you been?


Oh wait, your the same guy who claimed that Penn. never allowed slavery. Is this the same willful ignorance?

These are not pointless wars.

Then go enlist. Get your whole family to enlist too. If war is so great, Im sure you wont mind fighting in them yourself.

I favor any military action that is directed against a regime that tortures anybody...

Interesting. So if a country's supreme court justice were to legalize torture, would you favor war against that country?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72vgAEX66M

In short, the no-fly zones were a setup for another useless war.
Keep the pot simmering, so you can bring it back to the boil that much faster.

Why should there be a time limit on war? If you say that all the enemy must do to win is survive for a period of time, have not you just aided the enemy? A war should go on for a thousand years if it ends in victory. I do not think that it is the proper business of any government to surrender unless it has been completely defeated. Anything less is cowardice.
So, in other words, you support constant, endless, total war that just keeps on going until at least one nation is utterly destroyed, with the accompanying loss of human life, over periods of time so vast that the conflict cannot do anything but become meaningless and pointless to the people involved. So...I guess that means you believe it is the business of a national government to just keep on killing people -- its own as well as its enemy's -- until it runs out of them, and keep on spending money until it runs out of that, too, and then collapse, and to do all that for no practical reason. How very odd of you.

You're paying taxes to support a war that ultimately does nothing but increase the total sum of human misery and sow the seeds of future conflict while believing that it will magically "make things better."
<snip>


Every taxpayer in the US and anyone which supports the US economy is supporting the situation in Iraq and elsewhere, not just those which profess to support it.

I favor any military action that is directed against a regime that tortures anybody and who incarcerates people based on political or religious beliefs.

Why haven't you favored war against America then?

I watched a Democratic Party commercial where they showed US soldiers being blown up by an IED.

Isn't that "rubbing their faces in it"? Who has the insane whimsical bloodlust now?

The ones who still beat the war drums even now. Meaning, neo-cons, people like you, Glorious Freedonia and such.

Then go enlist. Get your whole family to enlist too. If war is so great, Im sure you wont mind fighting in them yourself.

No. I would not mind. Unfortunately my service was declined.

Why haven't you favored war against America then?

I am an American. The US is not torturing anybody.

You've just called Americans Cowards. Now go and study the War of 1812. Or the Civil War, the South still had armies, could've dragged it out. Or WWI. Or the Spanish American War. Also, a war that goes for 1,000 years doesn't end in victory for either side. Example: USSR and US fight for 1,000. China wins. If you don't get it, I'm sorry.

Americans are not cowards. Democrats are but I would hardly call them Americans. They are nothing but a bunch of Euro trash souls encapsulated by American bodies.

Americans are not cowards. Democrats are but I would hardly call them Americans. They are nothing but a bunch of Euro trash souls encapsulated by American bodies.

So, what you're saying is "true Americans are dumb, belligerent, borderline war-criminals that will destroy any country for real or perceived excuses, all the while ignoring the world".

What you're ALSO saying is "true Americans are only the 30% of Americans that STILL think the war was a good idea".

Which would make "true Americans" a minority of Americans. But Americanism is defined by MOST Americans. So...

Yeah. You're incoherent. And here I thought talking to you might not be a total waste of my time.

I am an American. The US is not torturing anybody.

I favor any military action that is directed against a regime that tortures anybody and who incarcerates people based on political or religious beliefs.


Bill Clinton was the one that started the torturing business, wasnt he? Why do you believe that it was Bush?


So you admit to being a liar and a hypocrite. Technically, you may be American by birth, but you are a fascist war lover at heart.

Yes, it does. This is why I dislike the no-fly zones; they removed Iraq's usual right to challenge and prevent aircraft from entering attack range.

You're absolutely correct that Iraq was being held hostage by the NATO aircraft controllers' good will. In most cases a nation can challenge and request ID of any aircraft approaching it's borders, and is perfectly justified in using force against any that actually violate it's borders.

I'm willing to give the makers of the no-fly policy the benefit of the doubt; they were trying to save lives. And the peace treaty provisions enabled them to do it. But, as with the demilitarization of the Ruhr by the Treaty of Versailles, it was bad policy and poorly considered.

And, I actually do not blame the Iraqi government for doing as they did - pushing against an unjust treaty is one way to try to put pressure on those who are enforcing the treaty.

But the fact remains: they used attack radars against the NATO warplanes, when said warplanes had the right to be where they were, and this is the equivalent of shooting first.

In summary, we can then conclude that the ceasefire was not truly a ceasefire then, but rather, a Versailles treaty-esque arrangement that may or may not have been intentionally placed so as to force the collapse of the ceasefire through what would be normally considered ceasefire violations.

In summary, we can then conclude that the ceasefire was not truly a ceasefire then, but rather, a Versailles treaty-esque arrangement that may or may not have been intentionally placed so as to force the collapse of the ceasefire through what would be normally considered ceasefire violations.

Stop reminding me of the paper I should be writing right now!

Americans are not cowards. Democrats are but I would hardly call them Americans. They are nothing but a bunch of Euro trash souls encapsulated by American bodies.

You are a qoute goldmine, you know that?

I am an American. The US is not torturing anybody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFiFfQPhe80&feature=related

I have to say, you are persistent. Was that link sent in by Aliens? Corrupt Europeans? The Democrats?

Come on, I have visual proof here!

I am an American. The US is not torturing anybody.

Depends on if you think that water boarding is torture. And many do.

In summary, we can then conclude that the ceasefire was not truly a ceasefire then, but rather, a Versailles treaty-esque arrangement that may or may not have been intentionally placed so as to force the collapse of the ceasefire through what would be normally considered ceasefire violations.

I wouldn't say you're wrong.

I lean towards incompetence rather than malice, however.

I am an American. The US is not torturing anybody.

Yep. And America never had slaves either.


Are you a liar are stupid?

Americans are not cowards. Democrats are but I would hardly call them Americans. They are nothing but a bunch of Euro trash souls encapsulated by American bodies.

I love this. The reason democracy works is because you have to have the underlying assumption that your political opponents care as much about your state as you do. People like you are the reason democracies dont work.


You may sit here and tell yourself you love freedom, but deep down, your a facist. And my guess is you know it.

I wouldn't say you're wrong.

I lean towards incompetence rather than malice, however.

Could sheer incompetence be responsible? Consider the factors.

1: No nation with the capability will ignore airspace violations by armed craft.

2: All nations would be within self defense rights to challenge and destroy armed intruders within their territory.

3: The Kurdish territories were not made in any wording of the ceasefire agreements, independent territory, ergo, they were still Iraqi territory.

4: The NFZ aspect of the ceasefire treaty allowed NATO forces to bomb at will, or present a clear and present threat to, bomb certain parts Iraqi territory, yet denying them any right to self defense.

The summary to this sort of treaty is very clear, and needs no extensive study to arrive at. NATO would be given carte blanche to bomb wherever it wants within marked areas of Iraqi territory, yet somehow it wouldn't be a ceasefire breach.

To conclude, it is not a ceasefire treaty. It is blackmail.

Could sheer incompetence be responsible? Consider the factors.

1: No nation with the capability will ignore airspace violations by armed craft.

2: All nations would be within self defense rights to challenge and destroy armed intruders within their territory.

3: The Kurdish territories were not made in any wording of the ceasefire agreements, independent territory, ergo, they were still Iraqi territory.

4: The NFZ aspect of the ceasefire treaty allowed NATO forces to bomb at will, or present a clear and present threat to, bomb certain parts Iraqi territory, yet denying them any right to self defense.

The summary to this sort of treaty is very clear, and needs no extensive study to arrive at. NATO would be given carte blanche to bomb wherever it wants within marked areas of Iraqi territory, yet somehow it wouldn't be a ceasefire breach.

To conclude, it is not a ceasefire treaty. It is blackmail.

So, what do you think most cease-fire treaties are? One side has just demonstrated to the other that it can put a beat-down on it, but good. Then the one that delivered the beat-down presents a cease-fire agreement or a Peace Treaty down and says "Sign or else."

Diplomatic, compromising treaties only happen when nobody won. Gulf War One ended Iraq-0, World - 1 000 000+.

A nation which starts a war and loses it has forfeited all sovereignty rights, even the right to continue to exist as a separate unit at all, except insofar as the victors may grant it any rights. Losing large amounts of territory, or coming under long-term military occupation, are common consequences. What was imposed on Iraq was mild by comparison.

So, what do you think most cease-fire treaties are? One side has just demonstrated to the other that it can put a beat-down on it, but good. Then the one that delivered the beat-down presents a cease-fire agreement or a Peace Treaty down and says "Sign or else."


Generally, cease fire agreements where one side has the overwhelming superiority usually has the other side surrendering territory, resources, people or fealty. Other stipulations may include levies and the like.

However, this is not the case here. The NFZ is effectively a continuation of hostilities, but under the cloak of a ceasefire.

The closest comparison I can think of would have been the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, where Stalin imposed a 3 day free for all of looting, pillaging and raping for his troops in Berlin, except in this case, there is actually a legal document, it lasted for over a decade and supposedly, was a "ceasefire".

You sided towards pure incompetence towards the drafting of the ceasefire agreement. The factors I've assembled cast doubt on that hypothesis, and more strongly support the hypothesis that it was deliberately crafted so as to keep tensions high, while providing an easily sourced excuse to resume hostilities in the "Moral right".

it lasted for over a decade and supposedly, was a "ceasefire".
It was only SUPPOSED to last until the weapons inspectors inventoried and verified the destruction of the arms he agreed to give up. How long could that take?