Yeah!!!! Stick it to those mother$%^& and break it off!!!!

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Oerdin

The UN gave the US the authority to US force and to disarm Iraq in 1990 and that resolution has not been recended. It was deliberately written so as not to have an experation date and it is 100% legal and in force.

Bull****, but can we take that issue to an international law seminar?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Oh I really stopped caring after the hand waving theatrics you did earlier. But if you feel like answering with more than an "IT's not worth it to go into detail"-type reply, here it is.

I didn't consider that a serious question. But if you want: What's the benefit? It shows that the US troops have overwhelming firepower. Now that's really not new.

Downside, those killed belong to a family, a larger family, a clan. And their relatives will hate you for killing them, and that they attacked US troops in the most stupid way won't change one iota with that. Also, depending on secular or islamist inclination, stupid people usually get some kind of martyr status.

The battle of Iraq is not a military one, it's a political one. And the US is losing it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Bull****, but can we take that issue to an international law seminar?

Why a seminar? Where a bunch of academics who are not in policymaking positions can meaninglessly debate the "issue" to no end? (like poly, except with academics instead of... )

If it's a real issue, then why doesn't some principled entity raise it as a formal issue of international law in whatever forum is appropriate?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
I didn't consider that a serious question. But if you want: What's the benefit? It shows that the US troops have overwhelming firepower. Now that's really not new.

No, but in light of their recent successful ops, this one will have a psychological effect and reduce their arrogance a bit.

Downside, those killed belong to a family, a larger family, a clan. And their relatives will hate you for killing them, and that they attacked US troops in the most stupid way won't change one iota with that.

They're mostly Tikriti, and many were Saddam Fedayeen, so it's not like they or their families ever liked us, or ever will. We don't frankly give a ****, because they're a small (and fervently hated) tribal and clan minority within the country as a whole. One with a lot more Iraqi blood on their hands than we'll ever have, and one with whom a lot of people have scores they'd like to settle.

The battle of Iraq is not a military one, it's a political one. And the US is losing it.

That really has yet to be seen, although the brainless optimism of the neo-cons is pretty well repudiated.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Damn, are you stupid?

No.

I get my news from as many different news sources as possible so that I can get the widest possible view point on events. You should try it to instead of always sticking to just one source which always tells you what you want to hear. Of course that would require effort and an open mind so I'm not usre you'd be up to the challenge.

I'm sure you get a very broad media spectrum. Which is why you can call a dead Iraqi teenager a "sack of ***". Or did I misquote you?

Look buddy the quote key is really easy to use so stop trying to lie and misrepresent what I said. Just quote the passage without any more of your interpritation or artistic editing, ok?

I'm sorry. Did I misrepresent your meaning? What DID you mean by those words?

quote: You're really something, Ace. What gives the US the right to invade another country on false evidence, and then kill anyone that doesn't follow (or understand) their instructions? :quote

The UN gave the US the authority to US force and to disarm Iraq in 1990 and that resolution has not been recended. It was deliberately written so as not to have an experation date and it is 100% legal and in force. BTW all orders at check points are given in both Arabic and English but I'm sure you don't know that because that would require you to educate yourself and learn a bit about what really goes on in Iraq.

Is that why the US and Britain sought another resolution from the Security Council to disarm Iraq and when it was denied, invaded anyway? Oh, and the disarm Iraq bit? That was about Weapons of Mass Destruction and the UN had inspectors in Iraq, looking for them. They weren't too happy about not being able to finish looking, either.

But the US was understandably impatient, and just knew that if they invaded, THEY would be able to find them. The fact that they still haven't found them is undoubtably irrelevant to the resolution you mention, and the fact that Bush administration lawyers have used it for a "legal" justification for the war. Too bad most countries (and the Security Council) don't agree with the Bush interpretation which you have swallowed, hook, line and sinker.

[Daz]

I'd like to remind everyone that the Vietnam war had fewer US casualties in the first 200 days than the Iraq war.

Lets see how this evolves...

[Mr. Harley]

Oerdin, you seem to be reacting rather than reading. I agree with how the check points have to be run. I haven't disagreed once.

It's the worthless statement that you seem to be justifying. The men who authorized and carried out the gassing of an entire Kurdish town. They qualify as a worthless piece of ****. A stupid teenager doesn't.

You don't even respond to my, and other posters, comments about the actual civilian casualties at the check points. Instead you stick to you straw man examples, hotheaded teenagers and macho testosterone junkies (which I tried to use, hoping you would see the point). Most of the dead are individuals who just didn't understand the rules, or how they worked, or just panicked. Often children are passengers in those cars, and just as often they are casualties. You don't address that issue at all.

Once you start seeing the unintended, and unfortunately inevitable, casualties at those checkpoints as a worthless piece of ****, your occupying force is on the way to losing.
Fortunely, the American GI's don't see these casualties as you do. That's what makes me proud. They are emotionally torn up, often in tears, as they have tried to mend the broken bodies that they have no choice (see, I still agree with you on how these check points need to be run) in making. I can't remember, somebody took a photo of a GI with one of those kids, I caught the interview. If that GI could talk to you, after holding the mangled kid in his arms, I have a suspicion he wouldn't be quite so, shall we so, reasonable in his disagreement.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Bull****, but can we take that issue to an international law seminar?

The resolution from the first Gulf War authorized the use of force against Iraq if Iraq didn't leave Kuwait and it made the US head of the Coalition to remove Iraq. Further the cease fire agreement required Iraq to do a number of things and it was explicitly stated that failure to comply with any of the cease fire requirements would automatically restart hostilities. Iraq signed a treaty agreeing to these terms:

1-Allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of ALL weapons of mass destruction, not just 5 or six to appease France, Russia and Germany(*Anti-War-Weenies Trio - AWW-Trio)

2-Prohibited development of new weapons of mass destruction

3-destroy ALL of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, again, not a few to appease the AWW-Trio*

4-Stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq
(*Editor's note: Hund down and arrest Al Qaeda members in Iraq, turning them over to the US CIA

5-Help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals

6-Return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War

7-Saddam was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people

#1 was never done. Saddam claimed he had but it was never done in front of the UN inspectors so this requirement was not filled. #4 was repeatedly broken when Saddam paid $25,000 pensions to the next of kin of Hamas and IJ homicide bombers. #5 was broken because 150 Kuwaiti political prisioners were still in Saddam's jails when the coalition arrived last spring. #6 was also violated because Iraq never returned tens of millions of stolen items nor paid the UN mandated reperations to Kuwait. Do you even want me to point out how Saddam violated #7?

It's clear the UN authorized the US as head of the coalition to use force and the cease fire specifically said that if Saddam didn't fulfill those seven requirements that the war would automatically resume. I've shown how Saddam violated 5 of the 7 requirements so legally the war could resume and would still be authorized by the UN without any new resolutions.

[Dinner]

BTW the legal or illegal song and dance is utter bull**** because all of the countries who are currently *****ing supported the war in Kosovo which was not authorized by the UN. It seems very clear that you only selectively bring up the false claim of illegal war when it politically suites you. Any law which is selectively inforced is no law at all.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by techumseh
that why the US and Britain sought another resolution from the Security Council to disarm Iraq and when it was denied, invaded anyway?

They sought another resolution (BTW they got three more) to provid yet more political cover so that hacks like yourself wouldn't be running around mindlessly repeating that it's an illegal war. My point was that no additional resolutions were legally necissary. Sure, it's politically nice but authorization was already given so legally they had all the authority they needed.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

If it's a real issue, then why doesn't some principled entity raise it as a formal issue of international law in whatever forum is appropriate?

And what is the appropriate forum?

The Axis of Reason should have made a clear statement by leaving NATO and closing all US bases. But our chicken****s didn't do this. Maybe next time.

As for the Tikritis and Fedayeen, I do not believe they are a large part of the Iraqi resistance. Do you really beleive the "baathist remnants" tale?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
You don't even respond to my, and other posters, comments about the actual civilian casualties at the check points.

I did respond. I showed why you need to treat every case as if it is a suicide bomber since you can't know that it is not. You then agreed that was how things should be run but then, perversely, you again contended you shouldn't shoot at people who attempt to run check points. Shooting at and attempting to stop vehicles which are racing towards check points is an intergal part of treating each case as if it might be a suicide bomber. So which is it? Do we treat them like they are the real thing or do we not?

If that GI could talk to you, after holding the mangled kid in his arms, I have a suspicion he wouldn't be quite so, shall we so, reasonable in his disagreement.

What unit is he in and maybe I'll talk to him when I'm there?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The resolution from the first Gulf War... authorized by the UN without any new resolutions.

You don't really expect me to correct all the errors inbetween?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
As for the Tikritis and Fedayeen, I do not believe they are a large part of the Iraqi resistance. Do you really beleive the "baathist remnants" tale?

The BBC does. They are reporting that most of the attacks are coming from Saddam loyalists but most of the suicide bombing are believed to be coming from foreign militants. So far 307 foreign fighters including 20 Al Qaeda have been captured.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
You don't really expect me to correct all the errors inbetween?

We've been over this before. You keep saying it's wrong but no one has brought up any legal case for illegal war against the US and UK have they? Hmm, could that be bacause there isn't one?