Author Topic: Iraqi losses ? (Read 2588 times)

Hristo · « **Reply #90 on:** March 22, 2003, 06:27:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
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?

IMO, it is. That's why Kosovo strikes weren't sanctioned.

Iraq aggression won't be sanctioned due to US influence on SC members, its allies and its right to veto.

Toad · « **Reply #91 on:** March 22, 2003, 06:33:53 AM »

Let me see.

I asked you "would you be in support of this war if there had been another UN SC resolution beyond 1441 authorizing the US to take action?"

And you said "yes".

You said don't support the current Iraqi operation because it is not sanctioned by the UN SC.

Then you say you supported the US action in Kosovo which violated the NATO charter and was also unsanctioned by the UN SC.

You supported the US action in Kososvo because it was a "humanitarian action" to stop the "loss of lives which was happening right there at the time".

Do I have all this right?

Basically UN SC sanction is unnecessary IF the action is to stop loss of lives which is happening right there at the time?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #92 on:** March 22, 2003, 06:52:42 AM »

Hristo has been sucked into the retarded no war for oil camp - all logic will henceforth lead him to the fact that this is wrong. He is beyond help....

Toad · « **Reply #93 on:** March 22, 2003, 06:56:09 AM »

Just trying to fully understand his position, Grun.

Monk · « **Reply #94 on:** March 22, 2003, 06:59:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Just trying to fully understand his position, Grun.

Impossible

Hristo · « **Reply #95 on:** March 22, 2003, 07:34:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Let me see.

I asked you "would you be in support of this war if there had been another UN SC resolution beyond 1441 authorizing the US to take action?"

And you said "yes".

You said don't support the current Iraqi operation because it is not sanctioned by the UN SC.

Then you say you supported the US action in Kosovo which violated the NATO charter and was also unsanctioned by the UN SC.

You supported the US action in Kososvo because it was a "humanitarian action" to stop the "loss of lives which was happening right there at the time".

Do I have all this right?

Basically UN SC sanction is unnecessary IF the action is to stop loss of lives which is happening right there at the time?

Yes, that's my position. If loss of lives is happening and immediate action is in order, then action before SC resolution can be justified.

Same for defending against an aggressor, or, as you said, helping an ally defend itself.

If there is no immediate threat or lives lost, then we should wait for SC resolution .

Toad · « **Reply #96 on:** March 22, 2003, 07:38:58 AM »

Thanks.

How many lives must be lost to justify immediate action? What's the threshold?

And, in what sort of timeframe?

And who would get to make that decision since the UN is out of it?

Hristo · « **Reply #97 on:** March 22, 2003, 07:59:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Thanks.

How many lives must be lost to justify immediate action? What's the threshold?

And, in what sort of timeframe?

And who would get to make that decision since the UN is out of it?

I think this has more to do with media coverage, elections and votes, in reality.

Ideally, if it is obvious such action is about to take place, the countdown until strike should start. Only a matter of efficiency of how many lives are saved then.

Who makes the decision. The nation most concerned about world peace, of course.

Toad · « **Reply #98 on:** March 22, 2003, 08:16:51 AM »

Well, let's use Kosovo as the example then.

How did the media determine it was "time", when "enough" lives were lost?

When did it become obvious the action was about to take place? What sort of countdown timeline was there?

Which nation was the most concerned about world peace?

Hristo · « **Reply #99 on:** March 22, 2003, 09:40:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Well, let's use Kosovo as the example then.

How did the media determine it was "time", when "enough" lives were lost?

When did it become obvious the action was about to take place? What sort of countdown timeline was there?

Which nation was the most concerned about world peace?

Time was already too late. Who determines is irrelevant, be it Reuters, CIA or Greenpeace. More like what is determined.

Again, no lives have to be lost. Somoene's intention for people to lose lives should be enough. In that case, it was Milosevic's military actions against the population of Kosovo.

Nations concerned may act. Who was most concerned about world peace back then ? No idea.

Toad · « **Reply #100 on:** March 22, 2003, 10:43:28 AM »

Well, let's examine it in detail. You seem to be ignoring some obvious flaws in your system.

You are saying the media determines when action will be taken. Then you say the media was too late in Kosovo. The UN didn't act at all.

So obviously, this "media" system doesn't work any better than the UN.

Now you tell me the "threshold" is actually zero. No lives have to be lost, merely the intention to take life has to be present. When the Serbs took military action against what amounts to their own population is used as an example of the "go" command.

You must realize this is also an unworkable standard, right? Intention to take life? Isn't that a bit..... ummmmm.... PREEMPTIVE? Isn't that EXACTLY what you are protesting now in Iraq? Preemptive action? And again, you run into the problem of who makes that decision. Clearly, the UN SC could not make the decision in Kosovo and according to your earlier statements, they're the only entity that truly has that "right".

As to the last, first you tell me "The nation most concerned about world peace" should/will make the decision.

Next you say "Nations concerned may act."

Yet you appear mystified as to who was most concerned about "world peace" when deciding to act in Kosovo.

By your logic, it's pretty simply, isn't it? The nation(s) most concerned about world peace made the decision. The nation(s) concerned acted.

You do remember who that was, don't you? After all, you supported the action.

Hristo · « **Reply #101 on:** March 22, 2003, 12:07:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

You are saying the media determines when action will be taken. Then you say the media was too late in Kosovo. The UN didn't act at all.

Not always media, anyone who can be trusted. In Kosovo media wasn't late, only intervention.

Quote

So obviously, this "media" system doesn't work any better than the UN.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I wouldn't disregard both anyway.

Quote

Now you tell me the "threshold" is actually zero. No lives have to be lost, merely the intention to take life has to be present. When the Serbs took military action against what amounts to their own population is used as an example of the "go" command.

If an armored column heads for village and imposes an ultimatum to the people to leave or die, that's proven intention.

Quote

You must realize this is also an unworkable standard, right? Intention to take life? Isn't that a bit..... ummmmm.... PREEMPTIVE? Isn't that EXACTLY what you are protesting now in Iraq? Preemptive action? And again, you run into the problem of who makes that decision. Clearly, the UN SC could not make the decision in Kosovo and according to your earlier statements, they're the only entity that truly has that "right".

Action against tanks ready to open fire at people can be considered preemptive. Action against fleet sailing into territorial waters can be considered preemtpive.

Action against a country accused for having WMD and terrorist connections, while no proof has been found is aggression.

Decisions should always be done by SC, whenever possible. Only situations of utmost urgency would be the exception.

Quote

As to the last, first you tell me "The nation most concerned about world peace" should/will make the decision.

Next you say "Nations concerned may act."

Yet you appear mystified as to who was most concerned about "world peace" when deciding to act in Kosovo.

By your logic, it's pretty simply, isn't it? The nation(s) most concerned about world peace made the decision. The nation(s) concerned acted.

You do remember who that was, don't you? After all, you supported the action.

I don't see the problem here. NATO intervened.

Back then there were concerned nations. If the US, who was both concerned and able to strike, was the most concerned, is beyond me.

Toad · « **Reply #102 on:** March 22, 2003, 12:29:32 PM »

Then there is no "system" or "process" to determine when to act.

Obviously, the UN, which has authorized military action twice... Korea and Iraq 1, has clearly shown an inability to act militarily and that situation will persist if not get worse. Using your examples of triggers, it's clear that the UN SC would react to none of those. They never have. The only two instances of the UN authorizing military force were both mass invasions of another country. One of those was only possible because Russia was boycotting and clearly would have vetoed it. So you really have one example.

The media is unreliable. We both agree. It's rather a nebulous concept anyway. Any talk about using the "media" as a yardstick is actually, well, rediculous, to quote a famous BBS poster.

Your system gives ANY country the right to act militarily if ANY country's tanks point their weapons at their own population or a neighboring population and then issue an ultimatum to "get out"?

Want to think about that one for a while or just revise it now?

NATO intervened?

You must be aware of the entire history of the intervention. Tell me this..... which nation prodded NATO to act, eh? Nothing happened until.......... ......... got involved? Just can't bring yourself to say it can you? It's ok. We're used to it.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #103 on:** March 22, 2003, 12:59:46 PM »

You see Toad he is so wrapped up in the "no amreekan war for oil" bs that he cant even bring himself to admit america was the country that organized an initiated 3 key military campaigns that helped resolve the really 10 years of civil war in our old country and set up conditions to push miloshevic the butcher out for good - all without any help from the UN security council. Not to mention the peace agreement was signed in Dayton Ohio on an Airforce base and not in some swanky UN coffe house debating society...

BTW Hristo as a friend and countrymate of yours please stop this ridiculous twisting and reforming of your argument around all the logical flaws Toad points out just to keep reaching your predetermined belief that this is an evil war for amreekan oil.

Drop this flawed logic and come up with something else if you realy beleve this idea..

Molim te

Hristo · « **Reply #104 on:** March 23, 2003, 06:42:30 AM »

Toad, US did major effort in Kosovo strikes. It pushed the decision, as well as carried out vast majority of actions. I supproted that.

That really is not a problem for me to state and never was.

They reacted in Bosnia, although too little, too late. But, then again, better than nothing.

Now for Iraq. If Iraq was peoven having WMDs and UN ordered destruction of it and Iraq refused, then I could see i reason of attacking it. If Iraq was harboring a wanted terrorist and it was a proven fact, I could support military actions (limited to bringing the terrorist to justice). Now, I am aware nothing of mentioned happened or was proven.

Now, after answering to your questions, Toad, answer me this, please.

What is the official reason of US attacking Iraq ?