Attack or Self-Defense? - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-21-2003, 05:13 PM   #61
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,836
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Your rhetorical questions did not address the fact that you are not quoting accepted facts but stating your own opinion on the matter.

That is what I asked for, facts, not your opinion.

I did not infer that Saddam's 'blood toll' was 0, and the inference is insulting and disrespectful.

In my opinion Saddam Hussein can not be blamed for every last death in the Iraq/Iran war, of which the greater proportion of deaths are factored into your 'calculation'.

As for the other wars, its been awhile since I have researched these wars. I don't spend endless amounts of time investigating military strategies nor do I care to.

I'm not particularly obsessed with war nor do I believe it to be a viable means to acheive lasting peace.
__________________

__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 05:19 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:34 PM
Dreadsox,

So Iraq indeed is in Material Breech meaning 678( reaffirmed in 687) does apply, but, were giving them one last chance, despite having the obvious legal authorization to use all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance.

"The absence of necessary measures by the UN Security Council to maintain peace. Once the Security Council has taken these measures, the right to armed self-defense ceases. A state that takes measures of legitimate self-defense is obligated to inform the Security Council"

What measure have the UN taken to addequately defend the Iraqi people from Saddam's executions, torture chambers, and other human rights abuses?

How many people here feel that US actions in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo, unapproved by the United Nations Security Council, were illegal? How about Bosnia?

Is it illegal for another country to aid a people to overthrow a tyranical government? Was it illegal for the French to aid and militarly support George Washington in the Revolutionary War?

History I think has shown that it is not necessarily illegal and can be justified.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 05:29 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:34 PM
Gabrielvox,

Having looked at causalities figures for various events and actions from the past 24 years in and around Iraq, I have added up the most conservative estimates I could find to produce this figure. Its not an indisputable fact, but a widely accepted estimate. Whether you attribute these actions to Saddam or not is another factor independent of the figures.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 05:30 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:34 PM
My problem is 1441 does not specifically define what actions are to be taken. It specifically says in part 2 one more chance. This is just plain ugly. I do not see how we can go forward without a clear definition of two things:

1. What will constitute compliance?
2. What are the really bad things are we going to do?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 05:41 PM   #65
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,836
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Thats all fine and dandy, but it will be George Bush's blood if he invades Iraq right now, not SH.

Bush told Iraq to disarm or be invaded.

Iraq said 'chill dude, we already have'.

Bush said prove it.

Iraq grudgingly said, 'fine' and let inspectors back in.

Inspectors find NO WMD or evidence that they are close to having them, but report that Iraq is not giving them what they meant by full cooperation.

Iraq vows to up the ante with respects to cooperation.

Inspections continue.

Nothing continues to be found.

And yet Bush is set and determined to invade Iraq and probably will no matter what the UN, the inspectors, or his fundamentalist religious advisors tell him to do.

THEREFORE, at this point in time, if Bush does invade Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of lives that will be lost will be on HIS head, not Saddam Hussein's.

Take those figures and the million or two that will die because he failed to make good on his promises for AIDS between now and the time Bush IS VOTED OUT OF OFFICE, and he will go down as having been responsible for more deaths than Hussein ever was.

Add that to the tally.

My final word.
__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 06:19 PM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by gabrielvox
Thats all fine and dandy, but it will be George Bush's blood if he invades Iraq right now, not SH.

Bush told Iraq to disarm or be invaded.

Iraq said 'chill dude, we already have'.

Bush said prove it.

Iraq grudgingly said, 'fine' and let inspectors back in.

Inspectors find NO WMD or evidence that they are close to having them, but report that Iraq is not giving them what they meant by full cooperation.

Iraq vows to up the ante with respects to cooperation.

Inspections continue.

Nothing continues to be found.
Gabriel......Iraq has already been found in Material Breech with a vote of 15-0. That is a fact. They have been given another chance. That is a fact. The Security Council has yet to determine if they are in compliance.

I could link you to many articles saying that Iraq has NOT been cooperative. I do believ Blix's own spokesperson alluded to this over the past 24 hours. It still remains to be scene what the next report will say, but it does not look like there has been any more cooperation.

That said, other nations have disarmed before. The UN Inspectors know what it is supposed to look like and there has been no ringing endorsement to indicate that what is going on with Iraq looks at all like they are complying.

Let's just all agree, that Iraq is doing enough to make us have hope that he is complying, and has not yet done so little as to make us think he is not.

We will know if inspections are working soon.

As for GW Bush, they are introducing another Resolution at the UN. They are still moving towards a multinational operation.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 07:09 PM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:34 PM
Gabrielvox,

If Iraq fails to prove they no longer have WMD, they are in violation of Resolution 687 which affirms and invokes 678 which authorizes the use of all means necessary to achieve compliance. Bush has authorization to take military action. Saddam does not have authorization to do anything. He is obligated to comply with 17 different United Nations Security Council Resolutions. If he fails to do so, any serious consequenses that result from his non-compliance are on him, not anyone else.

At the end of the day, inspections only work if Saddam lets them too. Inspectors are not armed and do not have the strength to take on T-72 tanks that Saddam can put in their way, if by chance they do find something, or are getting close.

30,000 Bio/Chem capable munitions, thousands of tons of Anthrax, thousands of tons of VX Nerve Gas. Where is it? Failure to prove where or what has happened to the above items is a material breech of 687.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 07:17 PM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Gabrielvox,

If Iraq fails to prove they no longer have WMD, they are in violation of Resolution 687 which affirms and invokes 678 which authorizes the use of all means necessary to achieve compliance.
Only if the Security Council determines this. Not the independant states who agreed to 678.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 07:20 PM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:34 PM
The Security Council has already determined that Iraq is in material breech.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 07:28 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:34 PM
I've already stated before that the Security Council in 678 gave Authorization for military action(which is affirmed again in 687) IF the Security Council finds Iraq in material breech of its obligations under any of the UN resolutions passed against it. The legal bases for military action is there. That does not mean though that the USA will not try to get a new resolution or give Iraq another chance for the goal of building political legitamacy for any military operation.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 07:33 PM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Here we go again. The 1441 says:

1) Iraq is in material breach.
2) Iraq has another chance
3) It does not define what actions will be taken. Specifically it does not authorize the use of force.
4) It consistently throughout reinforces the Cease Fire resolution which is mentioned numerous times throught 1441. 678 is mentioned once.

Yesterday, you AGREED that the Cease-Fire was still in effect and only the security council can declare it ended. THEY HAVE NOT 1441 GIVES IRAQ A CHANCE TO COMPLY.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 07:42 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:34 PM
I sincerely give up. I am in full support of removing this SOB from Iraq with the UN. The Security Council is the governing body. They have NOT declared Iraq in violation of 1441. They specifically give IRAQ a second chance at compliance in 1441. The other resolutions have not a thing to do with diddly until Iraq is found in violation of 1441.

I am pretty much through debating this with you. When you have something new to say, with something other than your opinion I will gladly debate this with you. I have provided ample sources throughout the this debate to make my case. You may not agree with it, and that is fine. I am just plain tired of this debate.

PEACE
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 07:46 PM   #73
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,836
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Instructions on a common bottle of shampoo:

Rinse. Lather. Repeat.






__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 07:55 PM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:34 PM
Dreadsox,

"Yesterday, you AGREED that the Cease-Fire was still in effect and only the security council can declare it ended. THEY HAVE NOT 1441 GIVES IRAQ A CHANCE TO COMPLY."

That is not what I said. I said that as long as Iraq is not found in material breech of the resolutions, that blocks legal basis to act on 678. By the way 678 IS AFFIRMED IN 687. There fore ever mention of 687 is a mention of 678. I agreed only the security council can declare Iraq in material breech of their obligations. They have done so. That means member states are legally authorized to take military action per resolution 687 that affirms 678 in which the Security Council gave such authorization.

As to 1441:

"Specifically it does not authorize the use of force."

Specifically it does not prevent the use of force either if Iraq fails to take its "one last chance". IT in fact threatens serious consequences. What do you think Serious consequences are? It is stated that the USA must consult the Security Council again, but there is nothing that says the USA must have a second resolution to authorize the use of force.

Again, the USA will continue to do things for political support, not because it lacks a legal bases to move ahead.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:11 PM   #75
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,836
Local Time: 02:34 PM
BREECH:

The lower rear portion of the human trunk; the buttocks.

A breech presentation or delivery.
A fetus in breech presentation.
breeches
Knee breeches.
Informal. Trousers.
The part of a firearm behind the barrel.
The lower part of a pulley block

Given that definition, Iraq is guilty guilty guilty. Especially the first one.

BREACH:

An opening, a tear, or a rupture.
A gap or rift, especially in or as if in a solid structure such as a dike or fortification.
A violation or infraction, as of a law, a legal obligation, or a promise.
A breaking up or disruption of friendly relations; an estrangement.
A leap of a whale from the water.
The breaking of waves or surf.

Just thought I'd clear that up.




__________________

__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com