Another meaningless stab at the US, devoid of reason or comprehension, that completely failis to actually address the substance of post.If they followed the US political line, they would already have pre-emptively bombed the US with nuclear weapons :roll:
This doesnt address what I said.As of a while ago, it seems the plans will not move forward at all. Obama is not pushing this issue at all as far as I have understood.
It would be less effective than is placed in eastern Europe - in fact, it might render the system completely ineffective.If the shield was placed in Turkey....
Of course you do.I think the US would react if Russia just put up short range missiles in Cuba for example. Or put up missile shields in central and south America...
Then go somewhere and do that, rather than trying to interject this into conversations that have nothing to do with it.I do not see the US as the root of the problems, but I see our own society as something that WE need to focus on, not focus on everyone else....
I dont want to discuss this anymore.. You seem to have no comprehension of the reality.
You have no comprehension of LEGALITY!
You dont know anything about the Iraq war, so its worthless to debate it with you. Your memory in such case is incredibly short.
Another meaningless stab at the US, devoid of reason or comprehension, that completely failis to actually address the substance of post.
:roll:
And you know nothing about international law and UN Security Council resolutions, so it would seem that debating with you is useless. You simply will not wake up and realize that there is a view to the world other than the liberal Euro-centric world you live in.
Nice.. Really nice.. To try to drown out your ignorance about Iraq with putting a label on me.. Geez..
Labels do not stick on me.
Pot... meet kettle.
You are still showing abject ignornace regarding the wording of relevant UNSC resolutions and international law. That label, my socialist pro-tyrant friend, only sticks on you because it is true.
Ok, so in your opinion then, there was no controversy surrounding Iraq, and the Security council approved of the war, and France came along with the US in the Iraq war..
Ohh, wait, non of those things actually happened in REALITY.
When did I say there was no controversy? I only said it was completely legal. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is controversial. Similarly, just because it is controversial, it doesn't mean it is not legal.
Understand?
It was not legal, nor approved by the security council..
The US found no evidence of WMDs, which was their so called justification to go to Iraq in defense, s the war was illegal. Even if they had found WMDs, the US use of the resolutions would be incredibly shady and worthy of bad states(and memory of NAZI Germany) at best.
You did know NAZI Germany went to Poland in defense as well?
It was perfectly legal. Didn't you read the relevant UNSC resolutions I cited earlier?
Wrong. Sure, no evidence was found, but there were still violations of the resolution.
If Saddam didn't want to be invaded, he should have complied with the relevant resolutions. However, for you to defend the regime of such a murderous dictator is entirely consistent with your defense of despicable regimes like this in Tehran and Moscow.
No, it wasnt perfectly legal.. You know that. You know all the controversy, yet you continue to defend the US abuse of UN laws to get into Iraq on defense clause when there was no reason for it, except fabrications..
Tons of countries are in violations of tons of resolutions.
I dont defend them.. I just take their side when its justified like people like you who always take any side against them, no matter what, because you hate them and do not understand anything about them and blindly listen to propaganda against them.
Sure it was legal. Iraq violated 1441 and various other resolutions. The authorization for the use of force was in 678 and it applied to all subsequent relevant resolutions, of which 1441 was one of many. Sorry you can't connect the dots, but there they are.
How many with the authorization with the use of force connected to Chapter 7?
Sounds like defending them to me.
You are so incredibly naively blind pro-US and just a slave of US government agenda.. it seems you have no opinions of your own..
Its incredibly sad to see the way things are developing.
This is not about OPINION. THis is about the passage of UN Security Council resolutions and how they provided LEGAL AUTHORIZATION for the use of force.
You seem to have no opinions save to defend dictators and tyrants.
The UN security council never approved WAR with Iraq.. A war like that is something that has to be approved by the UN security council, and it never was..
You cant just go to war with a sovereign state without the UN security council approval. Perhaps you should read up on the UN laws instead of focusing on the technicalities the US eagerly jumped to go to Iraq.. There was NO WMDs, which was the stated reason the US went and the justification for 1441.
I dont defend them, I defend international laws and norms. I also defend anyone against unjust attacks. Russia is frequently a victim of such from people from the US, and therefor I often choose to stand on the side of Russia in unjustful attacks against it. Had it been legitimate attacks I would not defend it, but when its because of general hatred and ignorance I do.
Then why can't you understand that UNSC REsolution 678 gave authorization to use force to enforce that OR ANY SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT resolution?
Did you stand by Russia when it illegally intervened in Georgia's internal affairs and has now essentially torn two of its provinces away from it?
Have you ever read UNSC Resolution 678?
Iraq however complied with that resolution.
A whole ## of resolutions state that Iraq did not comply and calls for the actions promised in the case it does not comply.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?