"war in Iraq can still be won" Yay! - wait a minute - can still be won?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Originally posted by notyoueither

Originally posted by GePap

Having read the actual resolution, sorry, but no. Authorization was given to remove Iraq from kuwait, certainly-but regime change in Iraq? NO. The fact is the UN can't authorize such an action anyways.

So, the UN couldn't authorise a regime change in Pol Pot's Cambodia? How quaint. How... useless.

And people go on and on and onnnnn about how the UN, or the UN's rules, are the end of discussion. End of discussion in what rose coloured world?

The UN Charter is an international treaty dealing with international affairs. The treaty's ratifiers including the US didn't want the UN to have the power to meddle in intranational affairs.

So who does?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Actually, it depends on whether your a poor, melodromatic troll or a reasonable person who understands the likelihood that the Israelis will launch their nukes, or give them to people who will launch the nukes, compared to the likelihood that Saddam would do so.

You are living in a fool's paradise. Israel never consults anyone when it attacks other countries.

[notyoueither]

I suppose you're more concerned by Israeli nukes than Pakistani, North Korean, or PRC weapons. Yes, Horse?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I suppose you're more concerned by Israeli nukes than Pakistani, North Korean, or PRC weapons. Yes, Horse?

Does it occur to you that Israel attacked others more than Pakistan, DPRK, and the PRC combined? Right now it is still occupying other people's territories.

[Alexander's Horse]

everybody needs to be abiding by the same rules

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Does it occur to you that Israel attacked others more than Pakistan, DPRK, and the PRC combined? Right now it is still occupying other people's territories.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Ahem... were you intending to make such a large joke?

[Alexander's Horse]

Where's the joke? Israel is by far the most dangerous of all those states with a proven track record of attacking its neighbours and taking their territory.

You North Americans live in a kind of bizarre dream world where the Middle East is concerned. You think of Israel in some sort of idealised way like in a Leon Uris novel.

Its the double standard which kills US efforts to make friends in the Middle East. Israel can do what it likes. This is why Coalition forces have had no credibility with Iraqis as "liberators'.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Ahem... were you intending to make such a large joke?

What's funny?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


So, the UN couldn't authorise a regime change in Pol Pot's Cambodia? How quaint. How... useless.

The Un couldauthorize action to stop genocide and arrest the perpetrators-in that sense it could allowfor regime change-but regime change on its own, without genocide occuring, no.

And people go on and on and onnnnn about how the UN, or the UN's rules, are the end of discussion. End of discussion in what rose coloured world?

When it comes to international law, yes. Obviouslystatesbreak the law all the time- that isa different matter.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Where's the joke? Israel is by far the most dangerous of all those states with a proven track record of attacking its neighbours and taking their territory.

Well, I seem to recall that Tibet is marginally larger than the West Bank, Gazah and the Sinai combined.

Now, the world community, for reasons of its own, chose to accept the annexation of Tibet, but conquest is conquest.

And while it may not compare to Israel's sins, that little Sino-Vietnamese war stains the PRC's record, while, IIRC, the DPRK started the Korean War.

[Arrian]

What's funny?

UR, PRC apologist, whining about Israel being an occupying power.

One word: Tibet.

-Arrian

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Arrian


UR, PRC apologist,

Where?

whining about Israel being an occupying power.

I'm not whining.

One word: Tibet.

So you think that the Chinese occupation of Tibet needs no discussion or analysis before being condemned? You don't even need to make a case?

Can you make a case?

[Arrian]

Where?

First, "UR" = Urban Ranger. Not "you are."

Urban Ranger is a PRC apologist (in many threads over time) and he was *****ing about Isreal's occupation of the territories. THAT's what's funny. It's not about you at all.

If UR hadn't made his comment, Tibet would never have popped up.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Originally posted by techumseh


You're the one that brought up the "cease-fire" violations as a justification for the war. The no-fly zones are a big part of that.

The US/UK, as the dominate military powers, get to dictate terms to the Iraqis. If they don't like it then hostilities resume. We found Saddam's murdering of Shi'as and Kurds to be unacceptable thus we tacked on new requirements to the cease fire. If Saddam didn't like it that's just tough.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Berzerker

The UN Charter is an international treaty dealing with international affairs. The treaty's ratifiers including the US didn't want the UN to have the power to meddle in intranational affairs.

That treaty stated ideals which no one ever entended to live up to and you know it. Why not bring up the League of Nations treaties in the 1920's which declared all war to be illegal?