Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 104

Thread: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

  1. #91
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    I should ask mods, - if MZ takes my words rearranges and cuts them in a frivolous way so that the meanings I put in them is completely lost and perverted and then represents them as a quote of my words - and in his sig, - may I demand him or anyone else who does the same to be permanently banned from DP?
    Its a quote of yours! You can ask me to remove it of you do not find it justified.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  2. #92
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    No.. because I know its a technicality.. The UN security council didn't directly approve the Iraq war.. And to go to war against a sovereign state, such direct approval is necessary. I believe there was several rounds of talks where the security council didn't approve of the US going to Iraq, before the US actually did on their own with the coalition of the willing micro states. They did so by exploiting technicalities, thus the whole case about WMDs and it not being found, thus all the controversy around pre-emptive attacks, thus all the controversy around Iraq, thus not UN security council member France not going to Iraq, thus the whole row of excuses afterwards and US propaganda that going there to remove Saddam was a justified reason and so on..

    You just dont see the whole of it, just blindly cling to that technicality in the resolution that the US exploited, as if thats proper justification.
    Are you making up international law now? There are SEVERAL legal justifications for a war against a sovereign state.

    1. One is when you yourself are attacked either by the state or the state is shelter those who attacked you. I.E. Afghanistan. OR, are you saying the US invasion of Afghanistan was also illegal?

    2. UN approval through the passage of UN Security Council resolutions. The resolutions were passed. YOU are adding the idea that it has to be approved directly. However, the language in UNSC 678 clearly states that that and all subsequent relevant resolutions carry the authorization for force.

    You can make up international law all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the UNSC authorized force for 678 and all subsequent relevant resolutions. Sorry you can't accept that, but all you have to do is to read the resolution.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  3. #93
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Are you making up international law now? There are SEVERAL legal justifications for a war against a sovereign state.

    1. One is when you yourself are attacked either by the state or the state is shelter those who attacked you. I.E. Afghanistan. OR, are you saying the US invasion of Afghanistan was also illegal?
    In the strictest sense yes. Afghanistan never attacked you.
    So, if blackwater attacks people in Iraq, you think that is justification for an Iraqi war against the US, according to international law?
    If say a small group of extremists from the US attacks India, is that justification for India to go to war against the US? Is that what you are trying to say?

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    2. UN approval through the passage of UN Security Council resolutions. The resolutions were passed. YOU are adding the idea that it has to be approved directly. However, the language in UNSC 678 clearly states that that and all subsequent relevant resolutions carry the authorization for force.

    You can make up international law all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the UNSC authorized force for 678 and all subsequent relevant resolutions. Sorry you can't accept that, but all you have to do is to read the resolution.
    You completely overlook the facts that the US went on technicality, and not direct approval from the UN security council, you overlook the lies about WMDs, them not being found, you overlook the lies afterwards that removing Saddam was proper justification, you overlook the reality that France didnt go with the US to Iraq, which it certainly would have if it approved of the war and so on.....
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  4. #94
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    In the strictest sense yes. Afghanistan never attacked you.
    They were sheltering the terrorists who attacked the US. Once again, are you saying you are against the US invasion of Afghanistan?

    So, if blackwater attacks people in Iraq, you think that is justification for an Iraqi war against the US, according to international law?
    Is the US sheltering them? Iraq was a war zone. Blackwater employees were allegedly attacked. The two are not comparable.

    If say a small group of extremists from the US attacks India, is that justification for India to go to war against the US? Is that what you are trying to say?
    If the US shelters them, yes. However, do you think the US would do what Afghanistan's government did when they sheltered those responsible for the attack or do you think the justice systems in the US and India would cooperate to bring them to justice?

    You completely overlook the facts that the US went on technicality, and not direct approval from the UN security council, you overlook the lies about WMDs, them not being found, you overlook the lies afterwards that removing Saddam was proper justification, you overlook the reality that France didnt go with the US to Iraq, which it certainly would have if it approved of the war and so on.....
    You are completely overlooking and ignoring the fact that the legal authorization was there. You simply can't accept that. Can you read? What part of "all supsequent relevant resolutions" do yo not understand? Do you want to read it in French? It is there too. Sorry you can't accept the truth, but it is there.

    As for lies, the intel was flawed, but that does not mean there were lies. If Saddam was not researching WMDs, why didn't he give complete and unfetterred access to his facilities?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #95
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    You are completely overlooking and ignoring the fact that the legal authorization was there. You simply can't accept that. Can you read? What part of "all supsequent relevant resolutions" do yo not understand? Do you want to read it in French? It is there too. Sorry you can't accept the truth, but it is there.

    As for lies, the intel was flawed, but that does not mean there were lies. If Saddam was not researching WMDs, why didn't he give complete and unfetterred access to his facilities?
    Even if the war was justified on technicalities it only means that any future UN resolutions will never ever mention war again, until its imminent. It will be very tricky for the US to ever get such technical resolutions passed again, actually I believe the UN will never again accept any resolutions that can or theoretically can justify war again, unless imminent. Thats the only result of the US jumping into Iraq on technicalities and misusing resolutions.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  6. #96
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    Even if the war was justified on technicalities it only means that any future UN resolutions will never ever mention war again, until its imminent. It will be very tricky for the US to ever get such technical resolutions passed again, actually I believe the UN will never again accept any resolutions that can or theoretically can justify war again, unless imminent. Thats the only result of the US jumping into Iraq on technicalities and misusing resolutions.
    I am not disagreeing with this. However, it does NOT change the fact that the US-led invasion was LEGAL. You seem to be coming closer to accepting this. That is progress.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #97
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    I am not disagreeing with this. However, it does NOT change the fact that the US-led invasion was LEGAL. You seem to be coming closer to accepting this. That is progress.
    I never denied it was legal on technicality, but in reality and practice it wasn't justified nor properly legal.. Actually going to Iraq on a technicality was quite counterproductive by the US for any future intervention which will surely get far more difficult, if not almost impossible.

    Russia just saw right though the US exploitation and just jumped to Georgia without UN approval, because they saw what the US did as invalidating the UN security council, that was a second unhealthy side effect.

    Even if a man kills someone and his attorney get him of on a technicality, for example double jeopardy of some sorts, doesn't mean the murder was legal, does it?
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  8. #98
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Correct me if i am mistaken, but didnt the Americans go ahead without the consent of the UN? And did they not commit war crimes by using depleted uranium? If the war was legal but the manor it was fought in illegal, then i really dont think it makes any difference to the cause of the Americans. Whatever the case, the war in Iraq is absurd, thats all there is to it. Im sure most of us can agree to the fact.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  9. #99
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by kaya'08 View Post
    Correct me if i am mistaken, but didnt the Americans go ahead without the consent of the UN? And did they not commit war crimes by using depleted uranium? If the war was legal but the manor it was fought in illegal, then i really dont think it makes any difference to the cause of the Americans. Whatever the case, the war in Iraq is absurd, thats all there is to it. Im sure most of us can agree to the fact.
    Americans do not see this in their news.. Or they selectively forgot it.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  10. #100
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    Americans do not see this in their news.. Or they selectively forgot it.
    Bit of both i reckon.
    Incase you havent notice ive given up on debating with Americans, its pointless. There pan-Americanism always seems to get the best of them. With the added zionist magic dust, its almost like trying to come to terms with a brick wall. Cant wait to see the replies for this comment. Should be a laugh.

    (oh and scourge is living breathing evidence of my case, same goes for mr justone here.)
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •