300,000 Iraqis May Be in Mass Graves

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Odin
Sava, you took my lines!!! Anyone who thinks Shrubby is doing this on humanitatian grounds is naive and ignorant. What about Congo... oh wait, they don't have oil; what about Saudi Arabia... oh wait, that would make Big Oil loose money. Every time the UN tries to get some REAL work done the US vetoes, it's sickening. I wasn't against the war, I was against the ulterior motives of the Neo-cons and Haliburton.

We're working on Saudi now -- it's why we needed Iraq.

[Ming]

I think some people need to c hill... take the personal crap to some other site...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Mobius you still have absolutley ZERO clue what you are talking about

There were 2600 US Marines sent Liberia who were there until the Nigerian force arrived, to cover in case sh1t REALLY hit the fan

You should also read up on your own history, did you KNOW that the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy? Oh my you are so ignorant!!! LEARN SOMETHIN!!!!!

Next time make sure to take some Ritalin and stop getting your heart broken by American girls

What are you trying to achieve here?

You are blatantly wrong - staggeringly, deludely wrong! I mean it's not even as if there is no proof of how colossally wrong you are - anyone here can check the news independently and find out for themselves (though I'll save them the effort). What scares me is how you came to this incredible conclusion? Is the US media telling lies or something, or is it just you?

May - War in Iraq 'ends' *cough*

June - Liberia hits the news, US asked to intervene

June - August. US tries to avoid its responsibilities - 2 month delay causes hundreds more to die

August - UN troops initially from Nigeria arrive - followed later by namby pamby US troops scared of the possibility of a little combat.

Sept - Oct: US troops hightail it back out of Liberia!

The impasse as the US considers whether to send troops to Liberia prolongs the country's agony

The United States is likely to commit troops to Liberia but only reluctantly

UN approves force for Liberia

Liberia's sad normality

Arguments about money and fear of American casualties have led to long delays for the international peace force

Timeline: Liberia

Look, I like cutting you down to size - but this is just plain embarrassing!

Do yourself a favour and stop humiliating yourself in public like this. Stop wasting my time - you have proved once and for all that your posts should be treated with the contempt they deserve!

EDIT: Apologies to Ming for the harsher language before...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by skywalker I KNOW it is useless. I was responding to allegations that the war was illegal. Take it up with MOBIUS and Savatroll.

So using your justification of Iraq's contravention of a UN resolution, we can invade Israel as well and that will be perfectly legal...?

Especially considering that wall of theirs is annexing another 14% of the West Bank!

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Sikander
Which sh!t are you referring to? That Saddam murdered up to 300,000 of his own people?

Oh, yea, and we're too ckickensh!t to invade Liberia? How many combat casualties has your nation sustained in the last 50 years? Care to compare on a per capita basis? And if you consider yourself such a brave stud, how is it that you aren't protecting the world and your ideals with your own life? You're a hater, and no number of weepy smilies can disguise it.

Finally got to this post! I thought it was another Ted Striker post, seeing as you seem to have adopted his posting style...

Sigh...

Firstly I'm hoping you're being deliberately obtuse re the post you're replying to - because we all know what it means if you're not...

I am talking about the double standards of calling the deposing of Saddam a humanitarian mission when the US was so, erm, 'reluctant' perform a similar 'humanitarian' mission in Liberia for a miniscule fraction of the cost of Iraq...

Pure hypocrisy don't you think?

Besides, as I said earlier, Saddam wouldn't have have to kill that many people if Bush Snr had followed up and actually helped the Kurds and Shias he incited to revolt - instead of betraying them!

AND you didn't have to 'invade' Liberia - you were invited by both sides of the conflict!

As for combat casualties, let's start with after Vietnam shall we - because that is when the US Govt seems to have developed a decidely yellow streak with regards their deployment, which is the whole point...

In which case per capita, I'd say we beat you hands down.

Also, if the UK could handle Sierra Leone volutarily - why couldn't the US deal with Liberia???

As for my not personally protecting the world, I am not a soldier and don't have to. I fail to see what point you are trying to make - because my own lifestyle choice is not the issue here. If I were a soldier I would be far happier being a peacekeeper than embarking on acts of aggression.

As for being a hater, I hate hypocrisy like the stuff that is pouring out of the US govt on a daily basis - first it was WMD, then terrorism - then they said it was humanitarian...

BS!

[SlowwHand]

You might as well talk to a post, as talk to Mobius.

Move on, move on.

[DinoDoc]

Wow. I thought this thread had died.

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Dino here doesn't seem to care how many people a dictator kills, killing people apparently isn't a justification to remove them from power...

That's actually correct on both counts as long as they confine themselves to their own citizens and don't threaten our interests.

[Imran Siddiqui]

First off, according to the UN's charter, unauthorized regime change is illegal.

Really? So any regime change must be done through the UN in order to be 'legal' under international law? Does that mean Kosovo was illegal under international law? Does that mean that when Vietnam took out Pol Pot in Cambodia, that was illegal under international law? There are exceptions to the prohibition of force, such as for humanitarian reasons, to bring self-determination, or to bring democracy. Making the UN the ultimate arbitrator of international law is foolish, especially because many actions now celebrated (under humanitarian reasons) would be thus considered contrary to international law.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

First off, according to the UN's charter, unauthorized regime change is illegal.

Really? Does that mean Kosovo was illegal under international law?

Arguably, yes. It takes some doing to stretch recognized principles of international law far enough to justify it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Arguably, yes. It takes some doing to stretch recognized principles of international law far enough to justify it.

It's a humanitarian intevention. Jus ad bellum, ya know?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's a humanitarian intevention.

This arguement is strongest when states intervene to protect their own nationals (ex. Israel's raid at Entebbe). The extension, and what I would consider a perversion, of the arguement centers around "exceptional" cases where peaceful means where heaing off a humanitarian crisis has failed and holds that forceful intervention is lawful so long as it is proportional to the situation.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You might as well talk to a post, as talk to Mobius.

Move on, move on.

I can see why you would talk to a post - it's about the only thing not capable of beating you in an argument...

Originally posted by Dinodoc
That's actually correct on both counts as long as they confine themselves to their own citizens and don't threaten our interests

Yeah, well you couldn't sum your attitude better could you?

0.00000000000000000001

Has to be a troll - not even you could be that callous...

Originally posted by Dinodoc Really? So any regime change must be done through the UN in order to be 'legal' under international law? Does that mean Kosovo was illegal under international law? Does that mean that when Vietnam took out Pol Pot in Cambodia, that was illegal under international law? There are exceptions to the prohibition of force, such as for humanitarian reasons, to bring self-determination, or to bring democracy. Making the UN the ultimate arbitrator of international law is foolish, especially because many actions now celebrated (under humanitarian reasons) would be thus considered contrary to international law.

Technically I believe they are/were unless sanctioned by the UN. Can't remember the vagaries of Kosovo, however Vietnam taking out Pol Pot was seen as an 'invasion' because the US was still sore about getting its ass kicked out of Vietnam and pressured the intl community to sanction Cambodia after it was liberated - it was something like the poorest country in the world because of 'year zero' and then the sanctions! You'd think the intl community would want to rush in and help the cambodians after having to endure the terror of the killing fields - but oh no, slap those 'commie scum' with sanctions AND arm, equip and train the very scum that had laid waste to the country in the 1st place!!! Not sure what the yanks did to help the Khmer Rouge (except create their strength by bombing the crap out of Cambodia in the Vietnam war!), but my wonderful govt under Thatcher thought it would be a good idea to send in the SAS to help train them!!!

Anyway, certain places like Cambodia, Rwanda, East Timor, Congo, Sierra Leone and Liberia for example - it is expedient to find a way to short circuit UN red tape, especially as when you are watching civilians being slaughtered on a daily basis (but don't ask Dino to help!)... Some places like this has occurred, like the Aussies in East Timor and the British in Sierra Leone - both places a far worse bloodbath was averted.

Others like Rwanda and Congo this has happened after the bloodletting occurred and is an embarrassment to the inertia of the intl community. That is why, again, invading Iraq on 'humanitarian' grounds was wrong and the US dithering over Liberia was also wrong as hundreds if not thousands of civilians died needlessly because of this...