Shiites told: Leave home or be killed

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman
Edit - in reply to DRoseDARs

Will the Kurds in Turkey and Iran suddenly cease to exist if a small Kurdistan breaks off from Iraq?

Not at all. In fact we'd likely see resurgent nationalism and increased irridentist movements in syria, Turkey, and Iran. In the long run self determination of peoples would be a good thing but in the short run you'd likely see those three countries (and the Kurd-Arab border areas of Iraq such as Mosul and Kirkuk) react violently to such changes.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

and they should get it if they dont already have a state.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Arrian
Isn't it, though? Clearly invasion was the right move, eh Sloww?

-Arrian

All this thread was intended for was to show the latest developments.
If you insist on putting the Mideast on Bush, and/or calling it invasion, I haven't the time nor the inclination to beat that dead horse.

It was a U.N. sanctioned cease fire. Hussein had to go. By the U.N.'s stance, not Bush's.
Want to continue saying it all hinged on us, feel free. You have the right to think what you want, even if you're wrong. Knock your lights out.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

It was a U.N. sanctioned cease fire. Hussein had to go. By the U.N.'s stance, not Bush's.

the security council never voted for an invasion. therefore, the invasion was illegal under international law.

[Pekka]

It's inevitable. The civil war that is. It will happen, the question is when and who wins. You have two large groups not liking each other. Saddam was keeping things relatively stable being the strong man. He is gone, vacuum created. Can't be filled in a while.

So, that creates tensions, vacuum, who fills it, who's gonna get what.

Now, there's only one way this isn't going to happen. And that's to have Saddam like strong man, being there forever. That's clearly not going to happen, even if US didn't invade. Of course US invasion was the starting shots of the ceremony, but the catalyst is local breed.

US created the vacuum, but that vacuum would still be there when the power line of Saddam would be cut. And there's no such thing as eternal power for someone or some family or party or opinion or religion. So the vacuum just came earlier than expected. But it wasn't the catalyst or the ... the reason for the problems THEY have with EACH OTHER. They're just both taking advantage of the situation in each way they can.

Now what are we going to do about it.. I have no idea. But there will be fighting going on at some point, for real, there's no stopping it. I say let them duke it out, or then we kick both of their butts. Otherwise we'll have another 2039029348092348 year hate problem with no solution. Let the nature take care of it one way or the other.

[Odin]

Any one who doesn't admit Iraq has degenerated into civil war is in denial.

[Sava]

[SlowwHand]

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

United Nations Security Council calls an end to cease fire. Read it, or keep your heads buried in the sand.

[Sava]

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sava

God, does that photo look dumber than ever.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Start redrawing borders and we'll likely see a whole host of ethnic minorities clammering for they're own state.

Doesn't this always seem to be the result of Wilsonianism?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
If you insist on... and/or calling it invasion, I haven't the time nor the inclination to beat that dead horse.

How can you not call this an invasion? We invaded the country. There's a difference between invasion and conquest; conquest seems to be the result of an invasion triggered by aggressive territorial expansionism, while invasion seems to be a term that is describing a physical action, not a motive for that action. We didn't conquer Iraq (and we didn't set out to do so), but we definately invaded Iraq.

[Sava]

UNSC Resolutions are pretty much all IMO

I've been reading some from 2001.

I like this one regarding the Congo

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/262/20/PDF/N0126220.pdf?OpenElement

Expressing its deep concern at all violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, including atrocities against civilian populations, especially in the eastern provinces [...]

WOW

they are expressing DEEP CONCERN

HOLY ****

well BRAVO

Deeply concerned at the increased rate of HIV/AIDS infection, in particular amongst women and girls as a result of the conflict,

WOW

MORE DEEP CONCERN

Gravely concerned by the continued recruitment and use of child soldiers by
armed forces and groups, including cross-border recruitment and abduction of
children,

uh oh

GRAVE CONCERN

NOW YOU'VE DONE IT!!!!

I wonder if they ever run out of descriptive terms to express their "concern".

Condemns the massacres and atrocities committed in the territory of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, and demands once again that all the parties
concerned put an immediate end to violations of human rights and international
humanitarian law;

well that's good... I'm glad they CONDEMNED it and didn't ENDORSE it...

but really... if nobody does anything, what does it matter if they condemn it or not?

inaction might as well be an endorsement of the atrocities, right?

and of course... let's not leave out a good asskissing

Commending the outstanding work of MONUC personnel in challenging
conditions, and noting the strong leadership of the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General,

YES... STRONG LEADERSHIP


so the UNSC can go **** ITSELF, IMO

anything it says, it's resolutions, are irrelevant as far as I'm concerned...

their words are empty

the top nations that sit on the "Security Council" are also the top ARMS DEALERS in the world...

the guns that are being used in these conflicts... you think they are being made in these countries?

You think these weapons have "MADE IN CONGO" stamped on them?

The same countries "condemning" this violence, and dictating these resolutions are the same countries arming these regimes.

so the UNSC can go **** itself

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

United Nations Security Council calls an end to cease fire. Read it, or keep your heads buried in the sand.

UN does not call for an end to the cease fire in this resolution.

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

[Lawrence of Arabia]

United Nations Security Council calls an end to cease fire. Read it, or keep your heads buried in the sand.

did you even read it?

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

this is an Art. 39 determination

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

This means that they are given one more chance.

The rest of the articles are what they need to do.

There is nothing in this text that calls an end to a cease fire. In fact, the word isnt even in the document.

There is no Art. 42 determination in the resolution, thus there is no legality to go to war with Iraq.