PogoC7 Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 Are you actually being serious? simply take control of iraqi oil supplies? the gulf oil field does not belong to the US and they have absolutely no right to claim it as their own, thats the most aggressive expansionist crap ive heard since Hitler invaded the USSR for 'living space'... u criticise them for selling the most sought after resource in the world? in the same post as u claim a US colony would be beneficial to world peace?... As for your claim that by not having oil revenue, terrorism will cease, well im still laughing actually. so you'd reduce middle eatern nations to poverty stricken wastelands and let the US march in and steal the oil?... Look in the history books. When a group of people in a nation are repressed to a certain point, they revoult. This can not be more true in Iraq if the people were to live in an stricken wasteland. This is why it will be better for others if America was to gain control of the oil. Iraq citizens are smart, so they will not stand for America reaping all the benefits of Iraqi Oil. America knows this. Thats why America will rebuild the country under a Iraq central government (which is already highly evolved). This will lead to the bettering of the living standard. Iraq will no longer be wasting money on weapons to protect itself from America or other countries. They will not be buying radar systems to be blown up by ALLIED AIRCRAFT patrolling the No Fly-Zones. Now, protection will come from the U.S. The more people are happy, the less America has to worry about problems from those people. American rebuilding Policy. http://www.thinkaboutit.com The best thing to happen to a country (certain) is to be attacked and rebuilt by the U.S. P.S. To Say3. America is not the only bringer of pain to the Middle East in the past. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 17, 2003 Author Share Posted March 17, 2003 its ok to be wrong once in awhile faf ...that guy had an Indian accent.....but to be fair, Iraqi accents are hard to master. Thats a well-known Iraqi defector on the phone ;p Indian accents aren't so hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 list or security council resolutions 688 is right there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 17, 2003 Author Share Posted March 17, 2003 RESOLUTION 688 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2982nd meeting on 5 April 1991 The Security Council, Mindful of its duties and its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security, Recalling of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations, Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which led to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region, Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved, Taking note of the letters sent by the representatives of Turkey and France to the United Nations dated 2 April 1991 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22435 and S/22442), Taking note also of the letters sent by the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations dated 3 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22436 and S/22447), Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area, Bearing in mind the Secretary-General's report of 20 March 1991 (S/22366), 1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region; 2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected; 3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations; 4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities; 5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population; 6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts; 7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends; 8. Decides to remain seized of the matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 So you ARE suggesting a US colony? Well coming from britain i think im in a slightly better position to judge the benefits and disadvantages of imperialism than you. if you think America will play the role of the benevolent motherland, showering the iraqi people in love and flowers then thats bullcrap because if theres one thing the 20th century showed its that empires can decay just as fast as theyre built. and where do you stop? why dont u invade libya because you dont like the leader and russia because your scared of its decaying nuclear arsenal? The best thing to happen to a country (certain) is to be attacked and rebuilt by the U.S Were you living in a sack during the past 12 years? look at whats happened since the first gulf war. have u ever considered america perhaps changing its foreign policy to one that doesnt discriminate against 3rd world countries, that doesnt arm israel and and doesnt enrage the middle east? No, it would be easier to drive over them and rule them with an iron fist. i see your logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuTze Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone I told you Iwas using UNSCR 688 as support, if you're to lazy to find out information about it on your own, then I strongly suggest you stop talking to me before you give me a reason to suspended you again. OK then, some links for you. http://www.thewoottozone.f9.co.uk/unscr688.htm Key quote: - "There is a great deal of fog about this, the kind generated by the Foreign Office when its statements are challenged. There is no reference to no fly zones in Security Council resolutions, which suggests they have no basis in international law. To be sure about this, I went to Paris and asked Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General of the UN in 1992, when the resolution was passed. 'The issue of no fly zones was not raised and therefore not debated: not a word,' he said. 'They offer no legitimacy to countries sending their aircraft to attack Iraq.' 'Does that mean they are illegal?' I asked. 'They are illegal,' he replied." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/southern_watch.htm Nice explantion of operation 'Southern Watch'. It mentions resolution 688, which doesn't have anything about 'no-fly' zones in it. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect4.html Your own Government's explanation of 688, which also doesn't mention anything about 'no-fly' zones. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18079.pdf The actual text of 688, which also makes no mention of 'no-fly' zones. You have read it, haven't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deslaar Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Hmmm...no mention of no-fly zones....no mention of U.S. authority to bomb targets in Iraq.....looks like fafalone is completely wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 17, 2003 Author Share Posted March 17, 2003 Not to change the subject or anything, but http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81303,00.html WASHINGTON — Iraqi troops south of Baghdad are armed with chemical weapons, Fox News has learned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 It doesn't say no-fly zones are not permitted; and with their purpose being to enforce item 4, they have some basis. You have read our explanation of how we interpreted the resolution to allow for this type of action, haven't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deslaar Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone I told you Iwas using UNSCR 688 as support, if you're to lazy to find out information about it on your own, then I strongly suggest you stop talking to me before you give me a reason to suspended you again. Why don't you just ban everyone who doesn't share your views. It would save you the embarassment of being repeatedly proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Or i could just ban you, since you're the only user on the boards that i have a problem with. notice all the other people whose view differs from mine? notice how they're not considered trouble makers like you are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deslaar Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone It doesn't say no-fly zones are not permitted; and with their purpose being to enforce item 4, they have some basis. You have read our explanation of how we interpreted the resolution to allow for this type of action, haven't you? It also doesn't say that nuking Bagdad is not permitted...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 17, 2003 Author Share Posted March 17, 2003 stop bickering, you two are like a married couple. just agree to disagree before it gets fugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deslaar Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Or i could just ban you, since you're the only user on the boards that i have a problem with. notice all the other people whose view differs from mine? notice how they're not considered trouble makers like you are? ROFLMAO!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Well that would be an act of war and illegal; but the no-fly zones are to protect the Kurds. We only bomb targets in response to them firing at our aircraft first (until a couple more days now ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuTze Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone It doesn't say no-fly zones are not permitted; and with their purpose being to enforce item 4, they have some basis. You have read our explanation of how we interpreted the resolution to allow for this type of action, haven't you? I'm defering judgement on this one to the former secretary general of the UN. Besides which, it also doesn't say invading iraq isn't permitted - could this be justification enough for the war we'll be starting on Wednesday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Deslaar ROFLMAO!!!!!! Laugh it up cretin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 17, 2003 Author Share Posted March 17, 2003 ....................................... ^ flaming stops there, carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by LuTze I'm defering judgement on this one to the former secretary general of the UN. Besides which, it also doesn't say invading iraq isn't permitted - could this be justification enough for the war we'll be starting on Wednesday? Originally posted by fafalone Well that would be an act of war and illegal; but the no-fly zones are to protect the Kurds. We only bomb targets in response to them firing at our aircraft first (until a couple more days now ) Yes, invading Iraq is illegal under UN law; but no-fly zones are definately in a gray area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuTze Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Well that would be an act of war and illegal; but the no-fly zones are to protect the Kurds. We only bomb targets in response to them firing at our aircraft first (until a couple more days now ) They wouldn't be firing at your aircraft if they weren't inforcing an illegal no-fly zone. This is fun, it could go in circles forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Right, they'd be dropping bombs on the Kurds instead, which would be in violation of the UN resolution the no-fly zones enforce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Would you say the no fly zones have achieved their purpose, whether officially sanctioned by the UN or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Yes, the central groups have not launched any more large attacks on the kurds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deslaar Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 I fail to see how attacking anti-aircraft sites is protecting kurds....I don't think kurds can fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 But is there not only a kurdish population near the turkish border? If so, what is the purpose of the southern no-fly zone? Incidentally it should be mentioned that allied patrols usually announce their presence in advance before patrolling the zones so iraq shooting at them is somewhat agrressive in this circumstance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now