Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="canon" data-source="post: 167254" data-attributes="member: 8423"><p>So who drafted the Resolutions outlining the consequences Iraq faced if they didn't follow the resolutions? UN Security Council. The resolutions drafted by the security council provided the means for enforcement, thru "any means necessary". And you can't say we entered this unilaterally when we had a coalition of UN countries. Some say the attack violated law, others say it doesn't. The whithouse position on the matter: </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because according to international law, we are responsible for the security until such a time as the new govt can defend itself. If they want to civil war after we leave, so be it. Until then, those trying to "undo" the current govt will be faced with the current security force, USAF included.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I already acknowledged the post 9/11 positions switched from a reactionary posture to a pre-emptive. We saw the results of our old system in New York.</p><p></p><p>As stated before, the violations of resolutions justified the actions as per the Security Council resolutions. Obviously this will be a point to be hashed out in courts and we'll have to agree to disagree. "Phony" intelligence is an attempt at argument, as you can't prove <u>all</u> the nations involved with their <u>own</u> intelligence also faked it. Inaccurate? I can accept that to some degree.</p><p></p><p> And <em>immenent</em> is a term relative to wars including militaries which would mass at a border. We're dealing with state sponsored terrorists which use our own freedoms as a means to bring down buildings. In the case of those terrorists and the governments that fund them, the enemy has already massed, and crossed the border. A handful of cowards did what an army would suffer dearly to achieve. Again, the enemy knows the way in, tactics have to change to accomodate those weaknesses.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, since I'm not a knowledgeable person, I went to my secret source for über knowledge: wikipedia.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hindsight is 20/20. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You say it's a war of choice, and I agree. You say it shouldn't have happened at all and blame Bush for a bad choice. I think we (as in united nations) should have done more during the time between the wars at the first sign of violations. So for me I'd have to say Clinton made a bad choice in not pressuring adherence when he was in charge.</p><p></p><p>We've definately brought the first rounds of democracy, as we've seen in the voting (I've already said I don't think they know what freedom is). So that leaves your position to argue that the people weren't actually oppressed? I guess that depends on who you ask:</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Source:<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/world/middleeast/30saddam.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=127f4259e190b2fe&ex=1325134800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/world/middleeast/30saddam.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=127f4259e190b2fe&ex=1325134800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss</a></span></p><p></p><p>When we're dealing with nuclear weapons, "thinking" we'll be better off not attacking is a monumental mistake if you're wrong. I still say it is best if countries will not play by the rules, they don't get to play at all. Out of curiosity, what would it take to change your opinion? Couple million deaths on the west coast? I'm not willing to bet others lives to accomodate "fairness" for some rogue leaders who already show contempt for human life and racial/religious tolerance. Maybe it's easier for someone who lives in Nowhere, Idaho to shrug off the possibility of being the first targeted. I wouldn't know.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'll take your word for it. </p><p></p><p>I'm still going to vote for the one who I think will best defend America.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="canon, post: 167254, member: 8423"] So who drafted the Resolutions outlining the consequences Iraq faced if they didn't follow the resolutions? UN Security Council. The resolutions drafted by the security council provided the means for enforcement, thru "any means necessary". And you can't say we entered this unilaterally when we had a coalition of UN countries. Some say the attack violated law, others say it doesn't. The whithouse position on the matter: Because according to international law, we are responsible for the security until such a time as the new govt can defend itself. If they want to civil war after we leave, so be it. Until then, those trying to "undo" the current govt will be faced with the current security force, USAF included. I already acknowledged the post 9/11 positions switched from a reactionary posture to a pre-emptive. We saw the results of our old system in New York. As stated before, the violations of resolutions justified the actions as per the Security Council resolutions. Obviously this will be a point to be hashed out in courts and we'll have to agree to disagree. "Phony" intelligence is an attempt at argument, as you can't prove [U]all[/U] the nations involved with their [U]own[/U] intelligence also faked it. Inaccurate? I can accept that to some degree. And [I]immenent[/I] is a term relative to wars including militaries which would mass at a border. We're dealing with state sponsored terrorists which use our own freedoms as a means to bring down buildings. In the case of those terrorists and the governments that fund them, the enemy has already massed, and crossed the border. A handful of cowards did what an army would suffer dearly to achieve. Again, the enemy knows the way in, tactics have to change to accomodate those weaknesses. Well, since I'm not a knowledgeable person, I went to my secret source for über knowledge: wikipedia. Hindsight is 20/20. You say it's a war of choice, and I agree. You say it shouldn't have happened at all and blame Bush for a bad choice. I think we (as in united nations) should have done more during the time between the wars at the first sign of violations. So for me I'd have to say Clinton made a bad choice in not pressuring adherence when he was in charge. We've definately brought the first rounds of democracy, as we've seen in the voting (I've already said I don't think they know what freedom is). So that leaves your position to argue that the people weren't actually oppressed? I guess that depends on who you ask: [SIZE="1"]Source:[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/world/middleeast/30saddam.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=127f4259e190b2fe&ex=1325134800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss[/url][/SIZE] When we're dealing with nuclear weapons, "thinking" we'll be better off not attacking is a monumental mistake if you're wrong. I still say it is best if countries will not play by the rules, they don't get to play at all. Out of curiosity, what would it take to change your opinion? Couple million deaths on the west coast? I'm not willing to bet others lives to accomodate "fairness" for some rogue leaders who already show contempt for human life and racial/religious tolerance. Maybe it's easier for someone who lives in Nowhere, Idaho to shrug off the possibility of being the first targeted. I wouldn't know. I'll take your word for it. I'm still going to vote for the one who I think will best defend America. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top