Have you ever read 678? How convenient of you to leave out the other parts of my post in your quote btw..
Never mind that the US doesn't need a UN resolution to go to war...have you been reading the tread?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ary-russian-treaty-plan-7.html#post1057916765
Of course not. The discussion here was about the US and the 'legality' of going to war in Iraq.I am not sure if any country needs....
Never mind that the US doesn't need a UN resolution to go to war...
On the basis of what has become international norms lately I do support Russian intervention in Georgia.
Georgia was in war with those provinces to keep them, and slaughtered its own people as a result, Russia intervened.
If the US hadnt gone to Iraq the way they did, I would not have supported Russians intervention in Georgia without UN security council direct approval. But Russia also noted that the UN was worthless when the US could go to Iraq on technicalities and propaganda, so they just skipped all that and went directly to demonstrate a very valid point. That the US effectively made the UN security council invalid.
Its a resolution valid to the first Gulf war against Iraq. Passed because Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Its NOT a justification for going to war 15 years later.
Iraq however complied with that resolution.
to invade Georgia.Thats the kind of intelligent thinking which unleashed Russia.
Iraq complied with that resolution with FORCE.
And it was NOT valid only to that resolution. It was valid for that AND ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS. Sorry your reading comprehension isn't quite there, but that is in the resolution. What part of this do you NOT understand?
Have you ever read 678? How convenient of you to leave out the other parts of my post in your quote btw..
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
Only the classically blind to the truth could equate Georgia with Iraq. The situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia are far more analogous with the Kosovo/Serbia situation than with Iraq. Of course, the notion that Georgia was "slaughtering" its own people is more a result of RUssian propoganda than any point of fact.
You simply can't read beyond your own pointedly biased point of view, can you. There were numerous UNSC resolutions against Iraq which contained the right for Member States to use force to enforce those resolutions. There were no such resolutions regarding Georgia. Your rhetoric is nothing more than :spin:, not an honest analysis of the facts.
The part where I didnt read the whole resolution.. Just a summary.
More so propaganda then US people actually thinking the Iraq war was justified and legal?
I intensely followed the news before the Iraq war, and during it. I actually supported it at first out of ignorance about the reality and because Fox news was the channel I watched at the time.. I came to my senses when I got other news media, Fox is just so incredibly bias and unrealistic, thats its amazing how such a channel can even be legal. Its just propaganda, nothing else.
Now that you have read the entire resolution (not that it was very long) are you willing to admit your error?
I should ask mods, - if MZ takes my words rearranges and cuts them in a frivolous way so that the meanings I put in them is completely lost and perverted – and then represents them as a quote of my words - and in his sig, - may I demand him or anyone else who does the same to be permanently banned from DP?
No.. because I know its a technicality.. The UN security council didn't directly approve the Iraq war.. And to go to war against a sovereign state, such direct approval is necessary. I believe there was several rounds of talks where the security council didn't approve of the US going to Iraq, before the US actually did on their own with the coalition of the willing micro states. They did so by exploiting technicalities, thus the whole case about WMDs and it not being found, thus all the controversy around pre-emptive attacks, thus all the controversy around Iraq, thus not UN security council member France not going to Iraq, thus the whole row of excuses afterwards and US propaganda that going there to remove Saddam was a justified reason and so on..
You just dont see the whole of it, just blindly cling to that technicality in the resolution that the US exploited, as if thats proper justification.
Are you making up international law now? There are SEVERAL legal justifications for a war against a sovereign state.
1. One is when you yourself are attacked either by the state or the state is shelter those who attacked you. I.E. Afghanistan. OR, are you saying the US invasion of Afghanistan was also illegal?
2. UN approval through the passage of UN Security Council resolutions. The resolutions were passed. YOU are adding the idea that it has to be approved directly. However, the language in UNSC 678 clearly states that that and all subsequent relevant resolutions carry the authorization for force.
You can make up international law all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the UNSC authorized force for 678 and all subsequent relevant resolutions. Sorry you can't accept that, but all you have to do is to read the resolution.
In the strictest sense yes. Afghanistan never attacked you.
So, if blackwater attacks people in Iraq, you think that is justification for an Iraqi war against the US, according to international law?
If say a small group of extremists from the US attacks India, is that justification for India to go to war against the US? Is that what you are trying to say?
You completely overlook the facts that the US went on technicality, and not direct approval from the UN security council, you overlook the lies about WMDs, them not being found, you overlook the lies afterwards that removing Saddam was proper justification, you overlook the reality that France didnt go with the US to Iraq, which it certainly would have if it approved of the war and so on.....
You are completely overlooking and ignoring the fact that the legal authorization was there. You simply can't accept that. Can you read? What part of "all supsequent relevant resolutions" do yo not understand? Do you want to read it in French? It is there too. Sorry you can't accept the truth, but it is there.
As for lies, the intel was flawed, but that does not mean there were lies. If Saddam was not researching WMDs, why didn't he give complete and unfetterred access to his facilities?
Even if the war was justified on technicalities it only means that any future UN resolutions will never ever mention war again, until its imminent. It will be very tricky for the US to ever get such technical resolutions passed again, actually I believe the UN will never again accept any resolutions that can or theoretically can justify war again, unless imminent. Thats the only result of the US jumping into Iraq on technicalities and misusing resolutions.
I am not disagreeing with this. However, it does NOT change the fact that the US-led invasion was LEGAL. You seem to be coming closer to accepting this. That is progress.
Correct me if i am mistaken, but didnt the Americans go ahead without the consent of the UN? And did they not commit war crimes by using depleted uranium? If the war was legal but the manor it was fought in illegal, then i really dont think it makes any difference to the cause of the Americans. Whatever the case, the war in Iraq is absurd, thats all there is to it. Im sure most of us can agree to the fact.
Americans do not see this in their news.. Or they selectively forgot it.
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?