blike Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone What are you talking about? You're wrong, sorry. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Sayonara³ No I didn't. I was talking about you, not the war. [2]So they can be shot in the back while doing so? You're still wrong. [3]No I didn't. I was talking about you, not the war. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) He's saying there is no such thing as a "voluntary human shield" in Iraq. If they say no and leave, they will be shot (hence, shot in the back). 3) The US is bound to UN laws as well, and that we cannot argue that we are going to war because Iraq broke UN laws [which it *technically isn't bound by (excluding its cease-fire)], because we are breaking UN law ourselves. Thats a good point, so I don't think we should be going around saying we're toppling saddam because he can't obey the "law". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone You conveniently disregard the facts that Iraq is executing POWs in cold blood. You conveniently disregard the fact that if people really didn't want to be human shields they'd move. is this honestly your point of view? I am astounded if it is. evidence of executions please. I don't just want to hear any old propaganda. they'd move? where to? since it is clear that trying to escape where they are (eg. basra) would only result in them getting shot. or perhaps their families would get shot. or perhaps if they refuse to do something that they are told they will get shot. perhaps attempting to cross through the medina division (while they were there) would have resulted in them getting shot. The fedayeen are very nasty people: do not underestimate the power of having a gun to your head in getting you to do things that you don't really want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone What are you talking about? You're wrong, sorry. How can you ask me what I am talking about and unilaterally claim I am 'wrong' in the same post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matzi Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 @blike: The analysis you posted is really great. It's right, weh cannot stop the war, that's sad, but it's the way we have to accept it by now. But how this war will be accounted for in future is really an interesting question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward is this honestly your point of view? I am astounded if it is. evidence of executions please. I don't just want to hear any old propaganda. they'd move? where to? since it is clear that trying to escape where they are (eg. basra) would only result in them getting shot. or perhaps their families would get shot. or perhaps if they refuse to do something that they are told they will get shot. perhaps attempting to cross through the medina division (while they were there) would have resulted in them getting shot. The fedayeen are very nasty people: do not underestimate the power of having a gun to your head in getting you to do things that you don't really want to do. GSWs to the head on footage of soldiers aired on Al-Jazeera; unlikely to be from battle (helmet? would at least make the wound less neat). It's clear at least one of them is still bleeding out, so it had to be recent. I'll send you the video if you'd like. And the brutality of groups like the fedayeen is even more of a reason to take out this regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone GSWs to the head on footage of soldiers aired on Al-Jazeera; unlikely to be from battle (helmet? would at least make the wound less neat). It's clear at least one of them is still bleeding out, so it had to be recent. I'll send you the video if you'd like. And the brutality of groups like the fedayeen is even more of a reason to take out this regime. no no, that's fine. just so long as there is evidence. I hear too many people making unsubstantiated claims about the war, and then can never back it up. and yes, groups like the fedayeen are exactly the sort of reason saddam should be removed, I was merely contesting your point that people would move if they didn't want to be human shields, by utilising the fedayeen as evidence that often they don't have that choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward and yes, groups like the fedayeen are exactly the sort of reason saddam should be removed, I was merely contesting your point that people would move if they didn't want to be human shields, by utilising the fedayeen as evidence that often they don't have that choice. The SAS and the Navy Seals would never shoot people in the head though, so they're OK and we can keep them about the place because they are handy. [edit - commentary on such groups, not on your post ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara? The SAS and the Navy Seals would never shoot people in the head though, so they're OK and we can keep them about the place because they are handy. [edit - commentary on such groups, not on your post ] Thats because its not painful enough, duh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ You conveniently disregard the fact that the US is a member of the UN security council and bound by the rules of the UN, rules it is currently ignoring, whereas Iraq is not a UN member and is not bound by those rules. WRONG. I began getting suspicious about this from the fact the "Iraq's ambassador to the UN" said the war was over today, so I checked it out. http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html Iraq IS A UN MEMBER, and has been a member since Dec. 21, 1945. Hence they are bound to all resolutions regarding their weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 nice find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 DAMN YOU! Well then I guess it's all ok. If Iraq can break the rules, then it's completely justifiable for the USA to break the rules as well. Wow, The US are just like a rogue cop pushed too far, driven to avenge the brutal murder of their wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 The US are just like a rogue cop pushed too far, driven to avenge the brutal murder of their wife. Haha, that sounds like it could be a plot to a crappy "cop wants justice" movie.. oh wait, it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Iraq IS A UN MEMBER, and has been a member since Dec. 21, 1945. Hence they are bound to all resolutions regarding their weapons. so is the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matzi Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward so is the US. Right. And did the UN forbid any preventative wars? I mean, the coalition forces freed the Iraqi people, that's really great. Saddam's deeds and his cruelty might justify such a war. But the other reasons accounting for a war fought by the US do not seem to apply. I mean, if this war was really thought in order to secure national security of the US this was an preventative war and that is not jstified, it's even worse. Thus the US is in the same situation the Iraq was in: Disobeying UN decisions. What I am trying to say is that the many reasons the US used as accountance for a war are mostly senseless and some even worse. The only, really applying reason is the intention to establish a freed Iraq. This is - in my eyes - justified, I mean, we did so in Kosovo and other countries as well. However, this does not really justify the means. Cluster bombs are certainly not that perfect weapons for freeing a state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 just a couple of things... what UN decisions has the US disobeyed exactly? from what I can see, the US has been upholding UN decisions by inflicting serious consequences on Iraq because it didn't comply with resolution 1441. furthermore, why the consistent focus on cluster bombs? afaik they have not been used that often this time round, and not often near civilian areas. I have only heard reports of them being used twice. Is the German Press going on about them or something? despite living here I don't actually read any German papers or watch the German news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matzi Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Isn't it mentioned in the UN charta that preventative wars are not allowed? I've seen reports on use of cluster bombs more than once. But anyway, I want use this only as example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 1441 authorized serious consequences for non-compliance. this conflict is not forbidden, merely contested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matzi Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Ok, but then there still is some discrpancy which I find very paradoxical. I mean, 1441 should certainly not disregard the regulations of the UN charta regarding this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 The UN has passed resolutions authorizing conflict in the past. Furthermore, allowing a country to disregard cease-fire agreements is an insult to the integrity of the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matzi Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Hm, then they have been acting in this manner for some time? That's not really that good. I mean imagine, a state would decide to do something which is against important regulations in the country's constitution (human rights etc). Wouldn't be that great, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Originally posted by Matzi I've seen reports on use of cluster bombs more than once. But anyway, I want use this only as example. your empahasis on it though makes it sound as if cluster bombs have been reining down over residential neigbourhoods for the past three weeks.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matzi Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward your empahasis on it though makes it sound as if cluster bombs have been reining down over residential neigbourhoods for the past three weeks.... 1) Can you prove the opposite? 2) Such things happen when you emphasize something, that's the use of an emphasis and everybody does so. I mean, was the world (and especially American national security) really threatened by Saddam's alleged ABC weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 1) of course not, I can't prove anything. but it has not been widely reported in any media I have seen, so I strongly doubt it. 2) I don't believe it was threatened, no. But that is not the point, the point is that he wasn't complying with UN resolutions. Everybody knows he used to have them, and if he unilaterally destroyed them, like he said he didn, then why didn'T he just point this out in the first place? If he did, then right now, he could be passing his load into a gold plated toilet in one of his opulent palaces, knowing that his secret police are merrily going about their business torturing poor people because they pray too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matzi Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 You are right. Thus an UN involvement would have been justified if decided. However, the US mostly accounted for this war with "national security". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 that is about my position. I disagree with the reasons we went to war, however the war itself was not really a bad thing, in that it Got rid of saddam. Now the hypocrisy starts though, beceuse we* won't be going to war with any other equally bad regiemes that need getting rid of, and we will still be paying them large lumps of money in order to opress their people. *we this time, being the west as a whole - both those for and against the war. 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