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

[Edan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


How does this validate Iraeli's fragrant violations of UNSC resolutions?

Perhaps rightwingers have more of a problem with violations of chapter 7?

Also, resolution 242, the main resolution concerning the A-I conflict, is a two way street:

It does not instruct Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the territories occupied in 1967. It does not condemn Israel's conquest, for the good reason that most western powers at that time thought it the result of a justifiable pre-emptive war. It calls for a negotiated settlement, based on the principle of exchanging land for peace. This is a very different matter.

If Israel is in violation of not returning the land in exchange for peace, the Arabs are just as much in violation for not exchanging peace in return for land.

It's also worth pointing out that on two of the fronts - Jordan and Egypt, Israel has achieved a negotiated settlement exchanging land for peace, and has trid to work towards a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.

[Agathon]

I'm not. I fully accept that WMDs were a pretext. I accept that the case was overblown. I do not accept that Bush and Blair made the whole thing up.

The fact that Blair's dossier contained ten year old material plagiarized from a student thesis, which was immediately disavowed by its author notwithstanding?

And as Kay said, he could have bought the stuff already refined.

And if he had the bomb what use would it be other than to deter others from attacking him - this is the only use that people have found for nukes in the last 50 years.

Why would he nuke someone else when it would mean his own annihilation? That's the reality.

Hitler? Who said Hitler? Mao, or Pol Pot, or a Cuban with his own bomb would have been bad enough.

These comparisons are almost as risible.

Saddam was in a cage - for life. He knew it. It didn't matter what weapons he had. If he tried to destabilize the region again, the US and most other countries would have done him in. He knew this. We knew it. Do you seriously think he'd play nuclear games against Israel or the US? What have you been smoking?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm not. I fully accept that WMDs were a pretext. I accept that the case was overblown. I do not accept that Bush and Blair made the whole thing up.

So you are saying that all those people who claimed that Bush had an agenda were lying?

Originally posted by notyoueither
In short, I think they ****ed up a lot of stuff, but I feel no need to paint everything ever done as a **** up. Some here do.

If Saddam had no BCN weapons, or at least not sufficiently to be an imminent thread, what's the business of the coalition forces?

Originally posted by notyoueither
Good riddence to bad rubbish.

So, it's fine to lie, so as to invade a sovereign country to overthrow a government you don't like to replace with one that you do.

Nice.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

Your outdated Machiavellian crap is getting old

You're right Ted.

They always resort to a power trip in the end. I guess it makes them feel manly and important to align themselves with the overlords and their arsenals of destruction.

Some of that penis cream that spammers advertise would be a cheaper and more peaceful solution to this problem.

NYE WAKE THE **** UP!!! The 20th century gives us ample reason why this attitude is a bad idea - any rational person would oppose it to the limits of his will.

Ted and Aggie, WAKE THE **** UP! The UN means ****!

Power still resides in the hands of the governments with the will and the power to enforce their decisions on others. It's not a nice, peaceful neighbourhood with a freindly beat cop. The world is still a semi-feudal place, except in place of villages and peasants, we have 'allies'. Less than a quarter of the people on this earth live in democracies. The only reason those democracies survive is that they have the big guns. Don't delude yourself that all would be well if economics were different.

[Agathon]

Blair and Bush knew that Saddam might have WMDs. This means he might have a few chemical weapons and perhaps some anthrax.

Neither of these constitutes a major threat to anyone. Chemical weapons are just a kind of field artillery - no big deal in the grand scheme of things.

The key word is "might". He "might" have had HIV. He "might" have been a secret transvestite.

They damn well knew that he didn't have nukes and wasn't even close to them. There was no evidence of that and the Niger claim (which was the best they had) was completely shot down.

They presented a possibility as if it were fact, and refused to allow Blix and company to see if there was any substance to the rumours. They exaggerated the threat and made no attempt to address misconceptions that they had created (like Saddam being able to attack Britain - meaning a British base in the Med, and even that was unlikely).

They tried to present rickety model planes, of the sort that any competent person could build in his shed, as "drones of death". How dumb is that?

They deliberately misled the public. End of story.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
So you are saying that all those people who claimed that Bush had an agenda were lying?

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.

If Saddam had no BCN weapons, or at least not sufficiently to be an imminent thread, what's the business of the coalition forces?

Ther point isn't what he actually had, the point is what some/many/most (choose one) experts thought he had. Bush and Blair chose to make it their business based on that information.

So, it's fine to lie, so as to invade a sovereign country to overthrow a government you don't like to replace with one that you do.

Nice.

No. 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. It is what the entire world (or most of it) wished the French had done in 1937. I wonder if we would be condemning them had they done what they should have?

What was the pretext for Tibet?

[Agathon]

Power still resides in the hands of the governments with the will and the power to enforce their decisions on others. It's not a nice, peaceful neighbourhood with a freindly beat cop. The world is still a semi-feudal place, except in place of villages and peasants, we have 'allies'. Less than a quarter of the people on this earth live in democracies. The only reason those democracies survive is that they have the big guns. Don't delude yourself that all would be well if economics were different.

Ah... the small penis defence.

Sorry. Your post assumes Saddam was a threat. He wasn't, ergo the war was dumb. Defending democracy my ass!!! Against the mighty evil empire of Iraq? They weren't protecting us against ****.

If you want to argue that might makes right, go ahead. That is an absurd position. It is certainly not a justification.

If you merely want to state that powerful people will coerce others, then thanks for telling me something that everyone already knows. It still doesn't make it right, or even prudent.

My position is that the war was unjustified, stupid, and founded on deliberate lies. Your assertion that the world is a dangerous place in no way addresses my complaint.

Bush and Blair are lying scumbags. End of story.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
Blair and Bush knew that Saddam might have WMDs. This means he might have a few chemical weapons and perhaps some anthrax.

Neither of these constitutes a major threat to anyone. Chemical weapons are just a kind of field artillery - no big deal in the grand scheme of things.

The key word is "might". He "might" have had HIV. He "might" have been a secret transvestite.

They damn well knew that he didn't have nukes and wasn't even close to them. There was no evidence of that and the Niger claim (which was the best they had) was completely shot down.

They presented a possibility as if it were fact, and refused to allow Blix and company to see if there was any substance to the rumours. They exaggerated the threat and made no attempt to address misconceptions that they had created (like Saddam being able to attack Britain - meaning a British base in the Med, and even that was unlikely).

They tried to present rickety model planes, of the sort that any competent person could build in his shed, as "drones of death". How dumb is that?

They deliberately misled the public. End of story.

The key word is pretext. Pretext for getting rid of a very bad regime in a very sensitive place.

They certainly overstated the case, or the case presented to them was overstated and then the political spin got added.

However, I maintain that Saddam being gone was a goal that deserved a pretext.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

Power still resides in the hands of the governments with the will and the power to enforce their decisions on others. It's not a nice, peaceful neighbourhood with a freindly beat cop. The world is still a semi-feudal place, except in place of villages and peasants, we have 'allies'. Less than a quarter of the people on this earth live in democracies. The only reason those democracies survive is that they have the big guns. Don't delude yourself that all would be well if economics were different.

Ah... the small penis defence.

Sorry. Your post assumes Saddam was a threat. He wasn't, ergo the war was dumb. Defending democracy my ass!!! Against the mighty evil empire of Iraq? They weren't protecting us against ****.

If you want to argue that might makes right, go ahead. That is an absurd position. It is certainly not a justification.

If you merely want to state that powerful people will coerce others, then thanks for telling me something that everyone already knows. It still doesn't make it right, or even prudent.

My position is that the war was unjustified, stupid, and founded on deliberate lies. Your assertion that the world is a dangerous place in no way addresses my complaint.

Bush and Blair are lying scumbags. End of story.

Why are you so fixated on penises? If you don't have one, I am sure you could rent someone to show you all about them.

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

Now, on your penis hang up, you should go seek out Asher. I am sure he would be willing to give you a demonstration.

[Agathon]

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

It doesn't make it right or prudent. You would piss and moan mightily if someone attacked the US for no good reason... wait.. you did.

Ther point isn't what he actually had, the point is what some/many/most (choose one) experts thought he had. Bush and Blair chose to make it their business based on that information.

I choose "some". But the problem is that it is quite evident that their case was not built on the trustworthiness of their sources, but on the sources conforming to their own prejudices.

No. 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. It is what the entire world (or most of it) wished the French had done in 1937. I wonder if we would be condemning them had they done what they should have?

Again. None of this justifies war. You have to prove he was a real threat to justify war. You have so far failed to do this - offering up speculation instead of hard facts and conspiracy in place of the obvious.

What is most risible is the fact that Saddam had already been stopped. No-one did anything to Hitler when he tried to play them. When Saddam tried he got stamped... horribly.

What makes your whole case completely ridiculous is that Saddam's worst crimes were aided and abetted by the United States, or occurred because of American indifference (provoking revolts and then standing by while the rebels were slaughtered).

No reasonable person can accept your inconsistent position, which is in addition at plain odds with the facts of the case.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
Saddam was in a cage - for life. He knew it. It didn't matter what weapons he had. If he tried to destabilize the region again, the US and most other countries would have done him in. He knew this. We knew it. Do you seriously think he'd play nuclear games against Israel or the US? What have you been smoking?

You seriously think you comprehend what a man who enjoys watching torture is capable of?

Talk about an ego. Maybe you are closer to understanding him than I am.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Edan
Also, resolution 242, the main resolution concerning the A-I conflict, is a two way street:

You mean this one? It does call for the withdrawl of Israeli armed forces:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict

Originally posted by Edan
If Israel is in violation of not returning the land in exchange for peace, the Arabs are just as much in violation for not exchanging peace in return for land.

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.

It appears that Israel has been ignoring much of this, too.

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.

[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.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What was the pretext for Tibet?

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

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

No. 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. It is what the entire world (or most of it) wished the French had done in 1937. I wonder if we would be condemning them had they done what they should have?

Again. None of this justifies war. You have to prove he was a real threat to justify war. You have so far failed to do this - offering up speculation instead of hard facts and conspiracy in place of the obvious.

What is most risible is the fact that Saddam had already been stopped. No-one did anything to Hitler when he tried to play them. When Saddam tried he got stamped... horribly.

What makes your whole case completely ridiculous is that Saddam's worst crimes were aided and abetted by the United States, or occurred because of American indifference (provoking revolts and then standing by while the rebels were slaughtered).

No reasonable person can accept your inconsistent position, which is in addition at plain odds with the facts of the case.

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.

Here's a hint, Aggie. The proof is the violations of the ceasefire. When you are dealing with dangerous people, you don't wait until they spring the trap on you.

Incidently the violations of the ceasefire were reason enough on their own. WMDs be damned.

You bring up Cold War support for Saddam, again. So it is never good to correct one's mistakes? How many times do you want to play the same, broken record?

As for being stopped, not quite. The man sat on a lot of spare wealth with which he proved under sanctions that his army and his toys came first. How the hell do you, or any other swelled head, know what he would have done if left alone as the sanctions disintegrated?