Author Topic: Iraqi losses ? (Read 2302 times)

Toad · « **Reply #75 on:** March 21, 2003, 08:57:11 PM »

Hristo:

OK, understand. No military action anywhere in any circumstance without UN SC authorization, unless in immediate self defense. (I assume "self-defense" would include helping an ally, if for example a NATO ally were attacked, other NATO countries would send military aid.

Now, second question:

What is your position on the March 1999 NATO airstrikes against Yugoslavia that went on for weeks? These were, of course, not authorized by the UN Security Coucil.

Were these justified or not?

Hangtime · « **Reply #76 on:** March 21, 2003, 09:00:16 PM »

EagleCZ..

i'm sure you realize your comments are not winning any converts to your cause.

in fact, by your commentary; you are coverting the opinions of folks that regard the czechs as a worthwhile freedom loving group of folks worthy of american respect and consideration as equals in a world determined to rid the planet of murdering dictatorships and the sponsors of terror.

since you are well aware we're all a buncha war-mongering cowboys intent on the destruction of the planet, your commentary to that effect is accomplishing not a single thing.. masturbation would have to be significantly more gratifying than trying to tweek the noses of americans that have no intrest in your dogpatch sympto-suckass commie politics.

As a result, it's now my intent to make sure you understand that you are, in my humble opinion at least, a disgusting worthless piece of **** unworthy of the duct tape it would take to patch your ****ed up SQL server up to amiga standards to enable your 1 line reply.

it's also my privledge to invite you to stuff your head back up your bellybutton and suffocate post haste. we'd love a picture of the event, but i'm afraid we'll not be sending you any crayons and old shopping bags for your dog to draw it on.

should you find that you are not quite double-jointed enuff to accomplish the above suggestion, you might try taking a long walk off a short plank stretched off the side of the tallest building in your three street 1 car three light bulb commie leftover town of 10,000.

in short.. go **** yerself. and do it someplace else.

Hristo · « **Reply #77 on:** March 21, 2003, 09:05:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Hristo:

OK, understand. No military action anywhere in any circumstance without UN SC authorization, unless in immediate self defense. (I assume "self-defense" would include helping an ally, if for example a NATO ally were attacked, other NATO countries would send military aid.

Now, second question:

What is your position on the March 1999 NATO airstrikes against Yugoslavia that went on for weeks? These were, of course, not authorized by the UN Security Coucil.

Were these justified or not?

Formally illegal. It was mixing into country's internal affairs.

However, as they were targetting an army engaged against civilians, they were silently left unsanctioned. But still illegal.

Hangtime · « **Reply #78 on:** March 21, 2003, 09:13:21 PM »

Hristo, the UN is shreckless. Unable to even resolve to take action against an ARMY ENGAGED AGAINST CIVILIANS.

The hell with the UN.

It gets no respect from americans because they have no respect for the diffrence between right from wrong.

the sooner the UN is dismantled, the better.

Toad · « **Reply #79 on:** March 21, 2003, 09:29:31 PM »

I agree. Totally illegal, I'd say. Not only did they not have UN SC resolution to go in, but it was also CLEARLY a violation of the NATO Charter itself.

Now, given that it was totally illegal, should they have stayed out?

If you say yes, please explain your view of the "ethnic cleansing" that was going on. Should it have been allowed to continue? Should the rest of the world, absent a UN resolution, just stood by hands folded and let the Kosovars be driven out and/or suffer and die?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #80 on:** March 22, 2003, 02:43:28 AM »

Hristo how can you have any respect for the UN after how they acted in our country?

Hristo · « **Reply #81 on:** March 22, 2003, 02:46:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
I agree. Totally illegal, I'd say. Not only did they not have UN SC resolution to go in, but it was also CLEARLY a violation of the NATO Charter itself.

Now, given that it was totally illegal, should they have stayed out?

If you say yes, please explain your view of the "ethnic cleansing" that was going on. Should it have been allowed to continue? Should the rest of the world, absent a UN resolution, just stood by hands folded and let the Kosovars be driven out and/or suffer and die?

As I said, illegal, but tolerated.
Was it needed ? Yes, that's why it was tolerated.

Just the same as driving Saddam out of Kuwait. Or hitting him when he was killing Kurds in Iraq. That was needed.

But now, there simply is no reason. Saddam is not even a shadow of a threat he used to be. None of the alleged terrorist connection is proven either. If he was allowed to survive in 1991, I just don't see how he became the target now.

Is Saddam a tyrant ? Perhaps, to Western standards. Many leaders in the world would qualifiy , accoring to those standards. But what about Iraqi standards ? Maybe Saddam qualifies as best by Iraqi standards.

Who is US to decide what is best for Iraqi people ? Maybe they don't know any better. Maybe they dont deserve any better. Maybe they don't want any better.

If these attacks are just preventive, to hit whatever WMD is there, it holds no water. A number of other countries should be attacked as well then, including US itself. Afterall, it was them who supplied some of WMDs to Saddam and other countries. Including Israel, whos actions are often far from defensive and justified. Aside, US has long history of supporting dictators and supplying them with arms, even military intervening to keep them in power. Chile is one of prime examples.

This war is aggressive. I see it very similar as when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991. To enter another country which was not a threat to himself, overthrow the government, install puppet leadership and stay there to feed on oil. That's what US is doing there now. The rest is just windowdressing.

Hristo · « **Reply #82 on:** March 22, 2003, 02:51:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Hristo how can you have any respect for the UN after how they acted in our country?

I have to. I see no other alternative.

But I could argue about its role back then. Yes, extremists might say they tried to legalize Serbian gains. IMO, they helped us.

They allowed Croatia to take breath. If fights continued, I am not sure how long we would last. Even if we would, many lives would be lost. UN imposed a ceasfire, much needed by our side. (This was also official standing of Tudjman government, remember).

After Krajina lost great deal of political and military support and Croatia gained more military power (4 years after UN peackeepers arrived), we got green light to attack. UN peacekeepers just left and our army was free to advance. This was impossible in 1991 and would result in much more casaulties.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #83 on:** March 22, 2003, 02:52:36 AM »

Dont be an idiot hristo. The argument that we cannot go after saddam for having wmd just becausev the usa does is one of the most retard things i have ever heard. Donr forget it was the usa that helped win our war in 1995 and frankkly a bunch of drunken krajina serbs were absolutely no threat to the usa.

Hristo · « **Reply #84 on:** March 22, 2003, 03:03:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Dont be an idiot hristo. The argument that we cannot go after saddam for having wmd just becausev the usa does is one of the most retard things i have ever heard. Donr forget it was the usa that helped win our war in 1995 and frankkly a bunch of drunken krajina serbs were absolutely no threat to the usa.

The question is, would you go after Saddam if Iraq had no oil ?

OK, go after Saddam. But be sure to go after Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, former Soviet republics, France, Britain etc. They all have WMDs, some of them have very unstable leaderships.

US helped driving Krajina rebels ? Well, maybe, but I don't see how they helped more than Argentina, for example. Or Hungary. Maybe I am missing something.

I am strong supporter of UN ways. I am very afraid of what would happen the other way. Simply, too much power is concntrated in the hands of too few.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #85 on:** March 22, 2003, 03:10:08 AM »

If we wanted his oil we would just drop the sanctions and buy it from him. Trust me has no problem selling to the USA an in fact he does it through UN/Russian/French middlemen and their oil for food program - thats why they are so oppused the war. They want "no war for oil."

Plus Saddam has made the decion that his wmd program is more valuable than oil sales which means that he sees posseision of wmd as a greater source of power than billions of oil dollars, otherwise he would have complied with demends to disarm and have the oil sancxtions removed at some point in the 12 years since the gulf war.

eglecz · « **Reply #86 on:** March 22, 2003, 04:29:06 AM »

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82494

Toad · « **Reply #87 on:** March 22, 2003, 05:46:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
As I said, illegal, but tolerated.
Was it needed ? Yes, that's why it was tolerated.

Let's stick to the main question here.

You oppose the present action in Iraq because it is illegal without UN SC sanction.

You "tolerate" the NATO action in Kosovo which was:

1. Absolutely NOT sanctioned by the UN SC.

2. Absolutely in direct violation of the NATO charter.

So what exactly does "tolerate" mean to you? Does that mean you supported the NATO action without UN SC sanction? Can you be more specific about what "tolerate" means? Were you "for" it or "against" it?

Hristo · « **Reply #88 on:** March 22, 2003, 06:00:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Let's stick to the main question here.

You oppose the present action in Iraq because it is illegal without UN SC sanction.

You "tolerate" the NATO action in Kosovo which was:

1. Absolutely NOT sanctioned by the UN SC.

2. Absolutely in direct violation of the NATO charter.

So what exactly does "tolerate" mean to you? Does that mean you supported the NATO action without UN SC sanction? Can you be more specific about what "tolerate" means? Were you "for" it or "against" it?

I opose present actions. Loss of lives for no obvious reason.

Action in Kosovo was an intervention to stop loss of lives which was happening right there at the time, also to avoid humanitarian disaster. That's why it is OK to be tolerated.

I supported that action.

Action in Iraq is not stopping anyone from killing people, forcing their out of their homes or anything similar. It is certain, though, that it will result in severe loss of human lives and humanitarian crisis for years to come.

Tolerated ? SC wasn't supporting it, but surely wasn't against it.
Iraq ? SC isn't supporting it, but many are against it (members of SC also). The US vote will block anything UN tries to stop it though. That's sad.

I won'r even touch terrorism consequences of US actions in Iraq. Let's just say nobody in Arab world is happy about what's hapenning now.

Toad · « **Reply #89 on:** March 22, 2003, 06:02:01 AM »

So, then UN SC sanction really isn't a determining factor in doing what is "right" in all cases, is it?

Is that what you just said? Or did I misinterpret?