France Surrenders!

[Spiffor]

I recall the bombings in Irak started again when Clinton wagged the dog.

The official excuse was because Irak didn't obey the UN resolutions (once again), not because it shot US&UK planes.

[The Mad Monk]

Were those airstrikes debated by the SC beforehand?

[Spiffor]

The UN (I don't know about the security council) accepted Iraqis explanations that the inspectors were doing spying for the US.
The Australian boss of the inspectors took positions contrary to the UN but favorable to the US (and pretty extremistic views indeed).
I don't remember if the US-UK forced the UN to accept the bombings or not, but no UN force is involved in this thing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
Only a mad man would wan't to knock down their neighbor because they were in debt to them.

What a lame excuse.

Thus, it (what I wrote) is not a load of crap. Have you ever stopped to wonder why Sadam is always going to war, at the drop of a hat? Because he is a PSYCHO!!!

Thanks though for the history lesson.

I am trying to find the least insulting way to answer this...

Saddam has gone to war twice in 30 years of power. In 4 years Bush 1 went to war 2 times and sent troops into a third. Hmmm. yeah, the BUsh family is PSYCHO

Saddam in 1990 was facing a difficult economic situation and the Kuwaiti regime was one of the factors. A large state with a large military attacking a very small rich state that is distabilizing its economy, thinking that it has the support of a major superpower in doing so: yeah, thats totally unrealistic and insane...

It woul be nice Japher, to have a reasoned argument, not a bunch of opinions, to argue against. That way, I don't have to censure the long list of expletives I wanted to hurl at you for such a poorly, no, totally unargued, point.


Jimmy:
The US indescriminitelly bombed Hanoi, ( I bet you have never seen that poicture of the little girl running away from the Napalm strike that has just horribly burned her), so you statemnt that the US did not indescriminitelly attack civilians in Vietnam is, well, of dubious reality.

[Drake Tungsten]

The US has a veto on the security council. WHY would you think it would pass a resolution that is "We hate the USofA"? Rather than pass it and ignore it, the US would just veto it.

The US passes those resolutions because it agrees (or at least does not object) to them.

There is a difference between resolutions passed by the Security Council and the General Assembly. You are right that the US can veto any Security Council resolution it doesn't like, but it can't do the same to a General Assembly resolution. Of course, GA resolutions cannot be legally enforced, however, so they aren't nearly as important as SC resolutions. SC resolutions are much more effective, but also much harder to get due to the veto.

There are many GA resolutions targeted at Israel in particular and the US to a lesser extent. For example, all the resolutions that equate Zionism with Racism are GA resolutions, not SC ones.

[GePap]

We had a thread here not long ago, Drake, that showed that Israel is in violation of the most Security council resolutions of all, without counting 242 and 338.

The Us does block any resoltuion calling Israel racist, or assining it full blame for the ME crisis, but it does not vote against resoltuions that ask for small things like asking Israel to stop violating the Human Rigths of Palestinians. The last resoltuion passed by the Security council over this isse asked Israel not only to pull back from Arafats headquarters, but also to pull out of Palestinian areas. It hasn't happened, now has it?

[Drake Tungsten]

We had a thread here not long ago, Drake, that showed that Israel is in violation of the most Security council resolutions of all, without counting 242 and 338.

The Us does block any resoltuion calling Israel racist, or assining it full blame for the ME crisis, but it does not vote against resoltuions that ask for small things like asking Israel to stop violating the Human Rigths of Palestinians.

I never said otherwise. I was just pointing out that the UN does pass anti-American and anti-Israeli resolutions in the General Assembly. The Security Council passes resolutions on Israel as well, but I wouldn't call them anti-Israeli. Asking the Israelis to make certain modifications to their behavior is far different than saying that the whole state of Israel is built upon a racist concept.

[David Floyd]

David, I would like to give a big hearty "f-ck you" on behalf of the United States Armed Forces. Throughout my time here on Apolyton (at least, when I started hanging around the OT) you have demonstrated yourself to be a spineless, ballless ingrate who'd rather have the world fall apart around himself then risk personal harm.

Good counterargument!

Now, in effect, you're labeling USAF, USN, and USMC (Plus RAF) pilots as less than human beings. I always wondered if you had any empathy at all for your fellow homo sapiens sapiens, now I know. You don't.

How am I labeling them as "less than human beings"? In any case, YOU are certainly labeling Iraqis as "less than human beings", with the implication that we should be able to bomb them with impunity.

Those planes are flying over Iraq, and are legally doing so.

Legally, according to a cease fire, maybe. In the spirit of the US Constitution, certainly not. Legal in the eyes of Iraq, clearly not. What you have to remember, though, was that the cease fire agreement was just as immoral as the entire Persian Gulf War was.

It was Saddam Hussein who set himself up for the no-fly zones, not the rest of the World. And now, even though I'm going into "Immient Danger" (so says the job detailer here), I hope to be there when we 'regime change' his ass.

So you want to go kill Iraqis, huh? And that's not even in self defense, either.

So why in the **** are you allowed to say you want to go kill Iraqis (innocent Iraqis, at that), in their own country, but I'm not allowed to say those same Iraqis should be able to successfully defend themselves against aggression?

As the man said, Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

What authoritarian mother****er said that?

[Capt Dizle]

I am just wondering what place in society David would be best suited for.

Has the Unabomber's shack been rented out?

[David Floyd]

go **** yourself

[Capt Dizle]

David you are a fraud. You live in the US and partake in its advantages and then sit back and spit at the hand that feeds you. You are a disgrace.

Your blather about natural rights is a hilarious mockery of intellectual elitist snobbery perpetrated by an intellect that is clearly neither elite nor entitled to look down its nose at anyone.

I don't mind your endless and pointless debating and posturing but when you take a position as blatantly corrupt as to wish death upon young men who serve this country and secure your own liberty, then I can't make excuses for you.

You are simply repugnant.

[Jon Miller]

ha ha ha ha

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

sorry for my response

I was expecting a debate and found the posts that Is aw instead funny

Jon Miller

[David Floyd]

but when you take a position as blatantly corrupt as to wish death upon young men who serve this country and secure your own liberty

I'm not wishing death upon anyone. I'm simply wishing that Iraq would be able to stop the US's aggression. If that means some US pilots die, that's bad, but let's remember where the responsibility lies for that - with the US government, who ordered the aggression in the first place.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by David Floyd
...but let's remember where the responsibility lies for that - with the US government, who ordered the aggression in the first place.

Not taking sides in this thread's debate, but wasn't it Iraq that drew first blood in its invasion of Kuwait? The USA was drawn in because of its impromtu role as International Police Force (and the oil fields, of course). Iraq lost that war and agreed to terms of surrender, which for ten years has not abided by those terms. Imagine what would have happened if Japan hadn't abided by the terms of its surrender after WWII, what the USA's response would have been.

Like I said, I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying.