We were right. Cuz' i said so. There.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It is acceptable to topple a dictator who breached the peace, twice, and who was not fulfilling his end of a ceasefire after being given years to comply.

Breached peace twice... once with the support of the US of A, with Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and the US selling interesting stuff to Iraq. So the first time was okay, because Saddam was a US lackey. That's just a bit funny.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am still waiting for your evidence that Tibet was a sovereign country and not a rebelling province.

I'm waiting for your justification. btw, how is it a province if none of the Armed Forces of the PRC, or the police, or any other agency of the government, were there before the People's Army moved in?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Breached peace twice... once with the support of the US of A, with Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and the US selling interesting stuff to Iraq. So the first time was okay, because Saddam was a US lackey. That's just a bit funny.

No, it wasn't OK by the rule book of 'you guys'. That's the point.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You mean this one?

No:

Http Status Code: 404

Reason: File not found or unable to read file

There's this bit

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

Yes, and as I said, it's a two way street. Or are you implying that the Arab countries have terminated "all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" with Israel?

In additional to UNSC resolution 242, Israel are in violation of these UNSC resolutions: 252, 262, 267, 271, 298, 446, 452, 465, 471, 484, 487, 497, 573, 592, 605, 607, 608, 636, 641, 672, 673, 681, 694, 726, 799, 904, 1073, 1322, 1402, 1403, and 1405. And that's only up to the end of 2002.

Allof those resolutions originate with (and frequently site as a resolution the implementation of) resolution 242 - it is the core of the UNs involvement with the I-A conflict.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

Why are you so fixated on penises? ....

I'm not. I just wish that right wingers wouldn't sublimate their sexual inadequacies into the worship of force.

Obviously we disagree on whether the war was necessary or justifiable. We can agree on that.

Reasonable people would agree that your side has been completely and utterly pwned. You provide no evidence, you provide nothing... you criminal!!

G'night.

You're the one bringing up penises, comrade.

I shall prepare myself for a helicopter ride.

G'night.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis


UN didn't have an opinion? I thought the whole no support for the war thing says something. Come on. Didn't they want more time too...

Not supporting the war != believing there was no WMD

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Agathon
You accuse Saddam of being crazy with no evidence. He is a brute, but that doesn't make him a lunatic, especially where self-preservation is concerned. As I said, his conduct has been entirely rational - brutal, but rational. You show me where it wasn't.

Saddam's refusal to withdraw from Kuwait in the autumn of '90 as the 'Mercans and friends were amassing their legions always seemed pretty irrational to me, unless he harboured a deathwish. He couldn't know Bush I would let him survive a defeat.

The problem with Saddam isn't that he's consciously suicidal, but that he's prone to huge errors of judgement. That he appears to've promoted his intelligence officers based on who was the biggest sycophant didn't help.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Really? Among the people I have read, they lament that France did not face up to reality in '37. They think that French action as early as '36 was perfectly justifiable, and would have been far better in the long run than the alternative of inaction.

Hindsight is lovely, er? I'd put some money on that had screwed Hitler in '36, plenty of high-minded democratic people today would complain about that.

As regards Tibet, well, your position seems to be that wars, invasions and occupations are OK if you agree with them, and not if not. How is one supposed to argue with that?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No, I agree he had an agenda. Remove Saddam. I agree that he used WMDs as a pretext to do that. Unlike some others, I agree with the object (get rid of Saddam) and acknowledge that governments have always used pretexts to get the people on board to pursue a national objective in war.

I wonder why we argued so much, considering we are in agreement (save for the "I agree with the object" bit).

[Agathon]

Saddam's refusal to withdraw from Kuwait in the autumn of '90 as the 'Mercans and friends were amassing their legions always seemed pretty irrational to me, unless he harboured a deathwish. He couldn't know Bush I would let him survive a defeat.

A massive loss of face that he wasn't prepared to take and which he would not have survived politically.

On the other hand, he withdrew most of his troops from Kuwait, leaving a few miserable conscripts. Sounds reasonable to me.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Not supporting the war != believing there was no WMD

Yes Mr. Obvious. But what's that about? How does that relate to anything I said?
Not everyone thought they had, that was the point.
Here's the point, that should ( ) be obvious.
Not supporting the war = unsure, they wanted to know and not act when they knew they didn't know.