BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      01-08-2007, 03:32 PM   #23
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaws
There are lots of UN security council declarations that are never acted upon. The UN did not sanction the Iraq war. They did, however, endorse Afghanistan. Of which I am fully supportive off. You probably still think it was a good idea. What an uniformed opionion.
A couple of points: No nation is required to ask the UN for permission before acting in what it considers necessary for its own defense. A member nation can appeal to the Security Council if it has been the target of another nation's military action and the SC can determine if the military action was justified and then take action to reverse it. Think Korean War.

Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII are considered binding and enforceable under international law. All the resolutions against Iraq beginning with the invasion of Kuwait were issued under Chapter VII. In UNSCR 1441, Iraq was found to be in material breech of the numerous resolutions on which the cease-fire agreement was based. No further authorization was necessary.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-08-2007, 04:36 PM   #24
dr335is
Brigadier General
 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,973
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
A couple of points: No nation is required to ask the UN for permission before acting in what it considers necessary for its own defense. A member nation can appeal to the Security Council if it has been the target of another nation's military action and the SC can determine if the military action was justified and then take action to reverse it. Think Korean War.

Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII are considered binding and enforceable under international law. All the resolutions against Iraq beginning with the invasion of Kuwait were issued under Chapter VII. In UNSCR 1441, Iraq was found to be in material breech of the numerous resolutions on which the cease-fire agreement was based. No further authorization was necessary.
Then, how do we know Saddam did not act on Kuwait in 1991 considering thar it is for Iraqi defense???
That is a load of crap, that is why there is the UN. Otherwise, the USA (and China soon) could claim any country they wanted...

And, lets say you are right...we claimed there was a threat. Then it clearly showed that there was absolutely NO threat before we attacked, we killed many people, we destroyed the infrastructure, we invited the terrorists and "insurgents", we made a complete mess in Iraq. Should we be then obligated to rebuild it, clean it (i.e. send a 1/2 mil troops over there and restore order)??? Or, it is up to us (cowboy thinking) to pack our shit and just leave it in ruins???
dr335is is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-08-2007, 04:46 PM   #25
Jaws
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Jaws's Avatar
 
Drives: 2006 325i mt
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Edmonton

Posts: 1,736
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
A couple of points: No nation is required to ask the UN for permission before acting in what it considers necessary for its own defense.
So the US was under immediate threat from Iraq? Don't think so. IMHO Iran is a bigger threat than Iraq ever was since the original Gulf war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII are considered binding and enforceable under international law. All the resolutions against Iraq beginning with the invasion of Kuwait were issued under Chapter VII. In UNSCR 1441, Iraq was found to be in material breech of the numerous resolutions on which the cease-fire agreement was based. No further authorization was necessary.
In no way did the UN authorize the current Iraq war. It's funny to me that so many people who are so clearly anti-UN try to twist UN resolutions to justify the invasion of Iraq. In the next breath they slam the UN.
__________________
2006 325i - Sparkling Graphite
2000 S2000 - New Formula Red
2007 Chev Silverado crew cab Z71
Jaws is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      01-08-2007, 06:35 PM   #26
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaws
So the US was under immediate threat from Iraq? Don't think so. IMHO Iran is a bigger threat than Iraq ever was since the original Gulf war.
No, it wasn't. Neither I nor anyone in the administration claimed it was.

Quote:
In no way did the UN authorize the current Iraq war. It's funny to me that so many people who are so clearly anti-UN try to twist UN resolutions to justify the invasion of Iraq. In the next breath they slam the UN.
I did not twist any resolution nor did I bash the UN. The facts in this matter are simple and require no twisting. The UN Security Council passed UNSCR 1441 in Nov 2002 unanimously. This resolution found Iraq to be in material breach of it obligations under UNSCR 687. Under 1441, the Security Council demanded Iraq provide, "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles..." and to cooperate “immediately, unconditionally and actively” with UN inspectors (UNMOVIC). The final report by UNMOVIC submitted prior to the invasion found that Iraq had NOT complied with the requirements of 1441 and therefore Iraq remained in material breach of 687. From a legal standpoint, no further UN resolution was required to resume the activities authorized by UNSCR 678 since Iraq had not complied with UNSCR 687 which suspended those activities. As a political matter, many world leaders like Tony Blair wanted another UN resolution to provide domestic political cover but the lack of one does not equate to a violation of the UN Charter or any other treaty to which the US is obligated.

The crux of this argument is whether or not UNSCR 678 was still in force. The text of this resolution and all the subsequent resolutions dealing with the Iraq issue suggest that it was. UNSCR 678 clearly states that member states are authorized to use all necessary means to uphold and implement UNSCR 660 and all subsequent resolutions. (emphasis mine) This enduring authorization under 678 was used to justify Operation Desert Fox by the US and UK in Dec 1998. This contention was not disputed by the Security Council or the Secretary General.

In other instances where the Security Council has authorized all necessary means it has either expressly terminated the authorization in a subsequent resolution (e.g. 1031 relating to Bosnia) or by setting a time limit upfront in the authorizing resolution (e.g. 954 relating to Somalia).

I understand you oppose the war in Iraq but you obtain no support for your position by involving the UN.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-08-2007, 08:40 PM   #27
Jaws
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Jaws's Avatar
 
Drives: 2006 325i mt
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Edmonton

Posts: 1,736
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil

I understand you oppose the war in Iraq but you obtain no support for your position by involving the UN.
I am not looking for "support" for my opionion. My opinion certainly has more than enough support. The Iraq war is a debacle with no end in sight.
__________________
2006 325i - Sparkling Graphite
2000 S2000 - New Formula Red
2007 Chev Silverado crew cab Z71
Jaws is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      01-08-2007, 08:53 PM   #28
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaws
I am not looking for "support" for my opionion. My opinion certainly has more than enough support. The Iraq war is a debacle with no end in sight.
Then I suggest you stop trying to buttress your arguments with inaccurate information.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-08-2007, 10:38 PM   #29
dr335is
Brigadier General
 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,973
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
Then I suggest you stop trying to buttress your arguments with inaccurate information.
Actually, there was no Resolution AUTHORIZING the attack. There was a resolution saying that he was in breach, blah, blah, blah... Show me/us anywhere that it said: "if...then you can level Iraq, kill 500,000 people there, hang someone..." and so on. Clearly there is absolutely NO resolution authorizing the WAR!

Therefore, lets leave the UN out of this and the only blame for getting the World into this situation should take the US + UK (and only the leaders)! Soldiers and others that put their lives on line should get all possible benefits.

Another Q for ganeil:
How is it that for all bad things that happened in former Yugoslavia only leaders took the responsibility (and the commanders, but mainly Milosevic, Karadzic, Mladic...), and for bad things in Iraq Saddam did take the responsibility, etc...even though we cannot prove that Milosevic ever pulled the triger or lit up the house himself. And also we do know some of the names that may have dome the bad things.

However, in Iraq, some soldiers did some bad things, and they are in court, but NO leader is in front of the justice???

Why?
dr335is is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2007, 10:51 AM   #30
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i
Actually, there was no Resolution AUTHORIZING the attack. There was a resolution saying that he was in breach, blah, blah, blah... Show me/us anywhere that it said: "if...then you can level Iraq, kill 500,000 people there, hang someone..." and so on. Clearly there is absolutely NO resolution authorizing the WAR!
Actually, there was. UNSCR 678 reads in part:
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions...;

2. Authorizes Member States...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;

3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution...
Quote:
Therefore, lets leave the UN out of this and the only blame for getting the World into this situation should take the US + UK (and only the leaders)! Soldiers and others that put their lives on line should get all possible benefits.
Who is assigning blame? For what?

Quote:
Another Q for ganeil:
How is it that for all bad things that happened in former Yugoslavia only leaders took the responsibility (and the commanders, but mainly Milosevic, Karadzic, Mladic...), and for bad things in Iraq Saddam did take the responsibility, etc...even though we cannot prove that Milosevic ever pulled the triger or lit up the house himself. And also we do know some of the names that may have dome the bad things.

However, in Iraq, some soldiers did some bad things, and they are in court, but NO leader is in front of the justice???

Why?
Maybe because in the cases you mentioned the leaders gave the orders to commit the crimes while no one has alleged the same for the others.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2007, 02:47 PM   #31
dr335is
Brigadier General
 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,973
iTrader: (4)

Resolution of 1990 should have NOTHING to do with this war. It was written to protect Kuwait. There was clearly no threat from Iraq this time and it would be insane to authorize the resolution like that in 2003!

Now, if you tell me there was the resolution on Somalia... We just went into the sovereign country again and bombed the targets that we received from the same intel that told us about the WMD in Iraq. Who gave us the right to do that now? I am trying to clarify why the world hates us and why they should hate our leaders not us, ordinary citizens...

In my mind the biggest threat to the World piece in last 5 years is W and no one else.
dr335is is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2007, 03:23 PM   #32
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i
Resolution of 1990 should have NOTHING to do with this war. It was written to protect Kuwait. There was clearly no threat from Iraq this time and it would be insane to authorize the resolution like that in 2003!
Whether you think it should or not is irrelevant. It did have something to do with this war. The resolution was clearly still in effect and applicable. It formed the foundation for the weapons inspections and the sanctions which no one at the time questioned the legitimacy of.

Quote:
Now, if you tell me there was the resolution on Somalia... We just went into the sovereign country again and bombed the targets that we received from the same intel that told us about the WMD in Iraq. Who gave us the right to do that now? I am trying to clarify why the world hates us and why they should hate our leaders not us, ordinary citizens...
Our action had the permission of the current Somali government. Whose permission do we need to defend ourselves?

Quote:
In my mind the biggest threat to the World piece in last 5 years is W and no one else.
You know what they say about opinions.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2007, 04:01 PM   #33
dr335is
Brigadier General
 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,973
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
Whether you think it should or not is irrelevant. It did have something to do with this war. The resolution was clearly still in effect and applicable. It formed the foundation for the weapons inspections and the sanctions which no one at the time questioned the legitimacy of.



Our action had the permission of the current Somali government. Whose permission do we need to defend ourselves?



You know what they say about opinions.
Enough of that "DEFEND OURSELVES" crap phrase!
The Texan Cowboy is burying our and our children's future deeper every day with his unlawful actions...

Everywhere people try to promote peace, clean air, save the World, the Cowboy is starting new wars daily, and making this place as dirty as possible.

How come no one is threatening Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Singapore, blah, blah, they all have great standards of living....

ENOUGH!
dr335is is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2007, 04:44 PM   #34
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i
Enough of that "DEFEND OURSELVES" crap phrase!
The Texan Cowboy is burying our and our children's future deeper every day with his unlawful actions...

Everywhere people try to promote peace, clean air, save the World, the Cowboy is starting new wars daily, and making this place as dirty as possible.

How come no one is threatening Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Singapore, blah, blah, they all have great standards of living....

ENOUGH!
What "unlawful" actions?

The nations you mention are immune to terror attacks?
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2007, 06:03 PM   #35
dr335is
Brigadier General
 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,973
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
What "unlawful" actions?

The nations you mention are immune to terror attacks?
Every war we did since 1991 is unlawful!
"You're either with me or against me on this..." the words telling me and the world that I really don't care about the law and resolutions, I made up my mind.
I read somewhere else (non - US media) that Somalia Gov't did not give us the green light. Could be wrong info, but if it is not, another one...

I did not say they are immune, they mind their own business, their kids get good education, their people have medical help, they have clean cities, they spend time with their families...why would anyone bother them if they do not try to police the world???
dr335is is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2007, 06:37 PM   #36
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i
Every war we did since 1991 is unlawful!
"You're either with me or against me on this..." the words telling me and the world that I really don't care about the law and resolutions, I made up my mind.
I read somewhere else (non - US media) that Somalia Gov't did not give us the green light. Could be wrong info, but if it is not, another one...

I did not say they are immune, they mind their own business, their kids get good education, their people have medical help, they have clean cities, they spend time with their families...why would anyone bother them if they do not try to police the world???
What law was violated? Who adjudicated it as such? You?

I am sure the Royal Canadian Mounted Police can rest easy now that you have assured them that no one wants to bother them.

Are you really that naive? We are not the cause of the attacks against us. Neither were the Indonesians, Spaniards, Brits, Israelis, Italians, etc...
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2007, 08:52 PM   #37
dr335is
Brigadier General
 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,973
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
What law was violated? Who adjudicated it as such? You?

I am sure the Royal Canadian Mounted Police can rest easy now that you have assured them that no one wants to bother them.

Are you really that naive? We are not the cause of the attacks against us. Neither were the Indonesians, Spaniards, Brits, Israelis, Italians, etc...
Ah, OK, I must be naive then...
Whatever W says must be true. They hate us for our great lives in the West...
dr335is is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2007, 09:04 PM   #38
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i
Ah, OK, I must be naive then...
Whatever W says must be true. They hate us for our great lives in the West...
So, we agree. No law was violated and you should should stop describing the the war as "unlawful" or "illegal" .

I personally do not care why they hate us. The simple fact that they use that hate to justify trying to kill us is enough for me to want to kill them first.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2007, 11:04 PM   #39
Jaws
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Jaws's Avatar
 
Drives: 2006 325i mt
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Edmonton

Posts: 1,736
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil

The nations you mention are immune to terror attacks?
We're talking about Iraq here. Do you still believe Iraq had anything to do with terrorism? I have yet to see one solid piece of evidence that Iraq had any connection to state-sponsored terrorism. Again, Saddam was a ruthless dicatator, but not a religious fanatic.
__________________
2006 325i - Sparkling Graphite
2000 S2000 - New Formula Red
2007 Chev Silverado crew cab Z71
Jaws is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      01-10-2007, 09:04 AM   #40
dr335is
Brigadier General
 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,973
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaws
We're talking about Iraq here. Do you still believe Iraq had anything to do with terrorism? I have yet to see one solid piece of evidence that Iraq had any connection to state-sponsored terrorism. Again, Saddam was a ruthless dicatator, but not a religious fanatic.
I don't think there is a point of discussing this. It is so obvious that Bush divided this nation to that degree that if you support him, he can shit on the hood of your BMW and you would take it as normal...

There are some very obvious and very conserning thihngs -- he lied to us, number one. The guy before him almost got busted for screwing an intern and trying to hide that from his family, but no one's doing anything to W. Bush is spending billions/trillions on this wasted war, just to prove that the Texan cannot loose, but our technologies, education, medical, Auto industry, Airlines...are falling apart. Other countries are catching up with us, and 15 years ago we were 50 years ahead of them.

I don't care what they say and how quickly they forget the truth, but Bush clearly told us that the reason we're going to Iraq is the WMD. Then he forced Powell to do the PPT presentation "proving" that that no other country bought. Then he just decided to go in, and 5 months later did his little aircraft carrier fiasco... Powell is a man of dicency and he quit because he was forced to lie to the world and he was embarrassed by that. Bush does not even realize that everything about him is very embarrassing...

All that he promised in the pre-election of 2000 (again lied to us) -- social security, education, an much more was over-shadowed by this never-ending war on terror that he uses as an excuse not to contribute to this country. Our lives are controlled by the terrorista and struggle to defeat them...and actually we keep creating them as the time goes.

Resolution, or not, who cares. Of course, there was no UN resolution since to be one the security council would have to support it and we all know where Russia, France, Germany, China...were on that. You can interpret any earlier resolution to your likings, but it has nothing to do with this war. We were alone in this war (with the UK) and we will remain that way.

One thing is for sure -- this war made the area much more unstable than it was. Saddam was a dictator, and nothing else. He should have been punished by the Iraquis for isolating them for decades and for ruining their lives. He did not do anything bad to the USA, Bush or Blair. Neither did any of those 600,000 Iraquis killed in the war. There was no terrorism in Iraq before the invasion -- look at it now. Same for Bosnia, same for Kosovo. Everywhere we tried to police the area, we created a Hell. Bush has shown how ill-informed he is on the middle east area by doing that carrier fiasco a few years (and 3000 soldiers) back...
dr335is is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-10-2007, 09:47 AM   #41
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaws
We're talking about Iraq here. Do you still believe Iraq had anything to do with terrorism? I have yet to see one solid piece of evidence that Iraq had any connection to state-sponsored terrorism. Again, Saddam was a ruthless dicatator, but not a religious fanatic.
Of course Iraq had and has something to do with terrorism. If you want a solid piece of evidence, why don't you ask the Palestinian families that received cash payments for their child strapping explosives to themselves and blowing themselves and as many Jews as possible to bits? Do you know where Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, or Abu Musab al' Zarqawi were months if not years before the invasion? They were not there for the soothing waters.

Your implication that because Saddam and the Ba'athists were secular and would not associate or cooperate with Islamists is hopelessly naive. Even today there is evidence that the Iranian Shia regime is supporting both the Sunni insurgents and the Shia militias in Iraq as they slaughter each other.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-10-2007, 10:40 AM   #42
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i
I don't think there is a point of discussing this. It is so obvious that Bush divided this nation to that degree that if you support him, he can shit on the hood of your BMW and you would take it as normal...

There are some very obvious and very conserning thihngs -- he lied to us, number one. The guy before him almost got busted for screwing an intern and trying to hide that from his family, but no one's doing anything to W. Bush is spending billions/trillions on this wasted war, just to prove that the Texan cannot loose, but our technologies, education, medical, Auto industry, Airlines...are falling apart. Other countries are catching up with us, and 15 years ago we were 50 years ahead of them.
What lie? If you are referring to the presence of WMD, then his predecessor lied as well. Everyone, remember UNSCR 1441 was approved unanimously, believed that Iraq still had stores of WMD.

Quote:
I don't care what they say and how quickly they forget the truth, but Bush clearly told us that the reason we're going to Iraq is the WMD. Then he forced Powell to do the PPT presentation "proving" that that no other country bought. Then he just decided to go in, and 5 months later did his little aircraft carrier fiasco... Powell is a man of dicency and he quit because he was forced to lie to the world and he was embarrassed by that. Bush does not even realize that everything about him is very embarrassing...
If you took the time to read the speeches the President made prior to the Congressional vote authorizing the war and the actual Congressional Resolution authorizing it, you would see that WMD was NOT the only reason for the operation. WMD was what the media focused on. Why don't you inform yourself before you make statements that are so easily disproved.

Quote:
All that he promised in the pre-election of 2000 (again lied to us) -- social security, education, an much more was over-shadowed by this never-ending war on terror that he uses as an excuse not to contribute to this country. Our lives are controlled by the terrorista and struggle to defeat them...and actually we keep creating them as the time goes.
Unless you have forgotten, we were attacked. That rightfully changed the dynamic and I would hope that would have priority for our leaders.

Quote:
Resolution, or not, who cares. Of course, there was no UN resolution since to be one the security council would have to support it and we all know where Russia, France, Germany, China...were on that. You can interpret any earlier resolution to your likings, but it has nothing to do with this war. We were alone in this war (with the UK) and we will remain that way.
Are you incapable of reading the English language? Was UNSCR 678 still in effect? Of course it was. Unless you can show me where it was rescinded or when it expired you are talking out your fourth point of contact.

Quote:
One thing is for sure -- this war made the area much more unstable than it was. Saddam was a dictator, and nothing else. He should have been punished by the Iraquis for isolating them for decades and for ruining their lives. He did not do anything bad to the USA, Bush or Blair. Neither did any of those 600,000 Iraquis killed in the war. There was no terrorism in Iraq before the invasion -- look at it now. Same for Bosnia, same for Kosovo. Everywhere we tried to police the area, we created a Hell. Bush has shown how ill-informed he is on the middle east area by doing that carrier fiasco a few years (and 3000 soldiers) back...
I am not a fan of stability for stability sake. Maybe instability is exactly what that hell hole needs.

Now we are responsible for the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia? Get a grip!
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-10-2007, 10:55 AM   #43
dr335is
Brigadier General
 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,973
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
What lie? If you are referring to the presence of WMD, then his predecessor lied as well. Everyone, remember UNSCR 1441 was approved unanimously, believed that Iraq still had stores of WMD.



If you took the time to read the speeches the President made prior to the Congressional vote authorizing the war and the actual Congressional Resolution authorizing it, you would see that WMD was NOT the only reason for the operation. WMD was what the media focused on. Why don't you inform yourself before you make statements that are so easily disproved.



Unless you have forgotten, we were attacked. That rightfully changed the dynamic and I would hope that would have priority for our leaders.



Are you incapable of reading the English language? Was UNSCR 678 still in effect? Of course it was. Unless you can show me where it was rescinded or when it expired you are talking out your fourth point of contact.



I am not a fan of stability for stability sake. Maybe instability is exactly what that hell hole needs.

Now we are responsible for the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia? Get a grip!
Funny, how you believe media on one side but not on another (ethnic cleansing vs. Bush...)
And funny how you read what you want to read -- I said we ARE responsible for the mess in Kosovo NOW and terrorists living there NOW. I do not want to dig into the cause of the actual Kosovo war and whe pushed it and fueled it from the outside. And then, the whole ethnic cleansing thisn has nothing to do with my comments...

You see, you say that some resolution was written in 1990 and approved for the events then, but in your mind it is still valid 10 years later, although times have changed and the first war had nothing to do with the current one.
But then, Bushe's promise (lets associate it with the resolution) is not valid at all because of the 9-11 thing and we had to adjust to the "reality".

If we had to adjust to the reality after the 9-11, why didn't we adjust the 1990 written resolution to reflect the reality from the 2003???

Beacuse Bush did not care! Because it fit him just right. Obviously the resolution of 1990 was supported by the council, and the current war was not supported by the members -- therefore, it is obvious that the 1990 resolution SHOULD NOT apply to this situation!

Lets just look back at one part of Bush's address after the 9-11 -- Axis of evil -- Iraq, N Korea, Iran. That is what he said then. He said they all have the WMD programs and harbor terrorists.
When we went in in 2003, I don't remember hearing about any clashes with these so called terrorists, but only Iraqui soldiers and Republican Guard. Then, when we proclaimed victory, it all started -- we invited them in. Of course, no WMD was found.
Also, I clearly remember Powell's presentation at the UN -- it was all about the WMD plants and mobile labs...none of them existed.
So, now, we can say whatever we want, but the WMD thing assured Bush that the American public will give him a support. He lied to get the support.

But hey, it turned out, that the other two "evils" learned something from Iraqui experience and quickly built the nukes. And the mighty Bush Army cannot touch them any more... So, with his stupid policy, he again created more mess...
dr335is is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-10-2007, 11:12 AM   #44
Jaws
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Jaws's Avatar
 
Drives: 2006 325i mt
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Edmonton

Posts: 1,736
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
Of course Iraq had and has something to do with terrorism. If you want a solid piece of evidence, why don't you ask the Palestinian families that received cash payments for their child strapping explosives to themselves and blowing themselves and as many Jews as possible to bits? Do you know where Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, or Abu Musab al' Zarqawi were months if not years before the invasion? They were not there for the soothing waters.

.
Wow, big stretch. Could they have been in Syria? Please show me the money flow. The Bush admininistration has shown no evidence of a link. I get a kick out of how you think 1990 UN resolutions some how have any type of relevence to the current Iraq war. Another stretch.
I am done with this thread, as you are obviously blinded by ideology. My view of the world is quite different than yours.
__________________
2006 325i - Sparkling Graphite
2000 S2000 - New Formula Red
2007 Chev Silverado crew cab Z71

Last edited by Jaws; 01-10-2007 at 12:05 PM.
Jaws is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:03 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST