View Single Post
      03-24-2008, 09:52 AM   #48
Major General

Drives: F80
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
So, the sanctions failed to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

Let's take a look at those "other goals" and see how well they faired.


Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait. - FAILED


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities." - FAILED

Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. - FAILED

Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others. - FAILED

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War. - FAILED


Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population. - FAILED

UNSCR 1115

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview. - FAILED

Are you advocating the invasion of the nuclear armed, US allied Pakistan?

You need a standing military to have a field of battle???

You want to leave a failed state in the heart of the middle east in the hands of our sworn enemies and my view is short sighted?

No one claimed our soldiers are fanatics. They volunteered for this fight, with rare exceptions they believe in this fight. They do not want to surrender and leave the Iraqi people to extremists who chop off the heads of those who oppose them. Claiming their losses as justification for surrendering IS using their sacrifice for political ends.

Care to give a few examples of successful UN military operation?
What you FAIL to understand and connect is that you APPLY the pieces and inserts of the UN resolutions as you wish.

If you're so stuck to it, and use it to prove your point and how the USA is doing it all according to the rules, then -- point us also to other cases, for example:
- UN Resolution 1244 where Serbian trerritorial sovereignity is protected, buty the USA recognized separation of its territory (Feb 17, 2008) -- FAILED
- No UN approval and SC agreement was issued on the attack on the sovereign country called Iraq! -- FAILED

and so on...

It is clear that the US is acting as it wishes and no UN resolution is important to it. Only a few countries can actually do it -- Russia (Checnia example where US looked the other way while Russians did exactly the same thing as Serbians did in Kosovo, then 100x worse!); China in Tibet and other possible regions where US cannot do anything. But of course, They can easily mess with Iraq, or Serbia or other little shit countries that obviously cannot defend themselves...
Or maybe it was LESS obvious that NK may be developing the Nukes??? Or you (and people like you) think that NK leaders hate us just a little bit less than Saddam did??? Or maybe they did not break that many UN resolutions??? Iran???

IF, and only IF you really believe the causes behind the invasion are what you claim, then explain to me WHY this carrying country did not act in the other cases I explaines (Ruwanda, Somalia, Russia, China, NK, Iran...)?