Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 104

Thread: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

  1. #61
    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
    When did I say there was no controversy? I only said it was completely legal. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is controversial. Similarly, just because it is controversial, it doesn't mean it is not legal.

    Understand?
    It was not legal, nor approved by the security council..

    Just because people are allowed to use guns in the US, doesn't mean murder by them are legal.
    You know just as well as me the US exploited the defense part of the UN resolutions.
    The US found no evidence of WMDs, which was their so called justification to go to Iraq in defense, s the war was illegal. Even if they had found WMDs, the US use of the resolutions would be incredibly shady and worthy of bad states(and memory of NAZI Germany) at best.

    You did know NAZI Germany went to Poland in defense as well?
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  2. #62
    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
    It was not legal, nor approved by the security council..
    It was perfectly legal. Didn't you read the relevant UNSC resolutions I cited earlier?

    The US found no evidence of WMDs, which was their so called justification to go to Iraq in defense, s the war was illegal. Even if they had found WMDs, the US use of the resolutions would be incredibly shady and worthy of bad states(and memory of NAZI Germany) at best.
    Wrong. Sure, no evidence was found, but there were still violations of the resolution. Iraq's government did not give full cooperation in implementing 1441, which was part of the resolution. Furthermore, there were multiple violations of earlier resolutions, all of which were also linked to UNSC Resolution 678.

    If Saddam didn't want to be invaded, he should have complied with the relevant resolutions. However, for you to defend the regime of such a murderous dictator is entirely consistent with your defense of despicable regimes like this in Tehran and Moscow.

    You did know NAZI Germany went to Poland in defense as well?
    ad hominem
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  3. #63
    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
    It was perfectly legal. Didn't you read the relevant UNSC resolutions I cited earlier?
    No, it wasnt perfectly legal.. You know that. You know all the controversy, yet you continue to defend the US abuse of UN laws to get into Iraq on defense clause when there was no reason for it, except fabrications..


    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Wrong. Sure, no evidence was found, but there were still violations of the resolution.
    Tons of countries are in violations of tons of resolutions.



    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    If Saddam didn't want to be invaded, he should have complied with the relevant resolutions. However, for you to defend the regime of such a murderous dictator is entirely consistent with your defense of despicable regimes like this in Tehran and Moscow.
    I dont defend them.. I just take their side when its justified like people like you who always take any side against them, no matter what, because you hate them and do not understand anything about them and blindly listen to propaganda against them.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  4. #64
    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, it wasnt perfectly legal.. You know that. You know all the controversy, yet you continue to defend the US abuse of UN laws to get into Iraq on defense clause when there was no reason for it, except fabrications..
    Sure it was legal. Iraq violated 1441 and various other resolutions. The authorization for the use of force was in 678 and it applied to all subsequent relevant resolutions, of which 1441 was one of many. Sorry you can't connect the dots, but there they are.

    Tons of countries are in violations of tons of resolutions.
    How many with the authorization with the use of force connected to Chapter 7?

    I dont defend them.. I just take their side when its justified like people like you who always take any side against them, no matter what, because you hate them and do not understand anything about them and blindly listen to propaganda against them.
    Sounds like defending them to me.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #65
    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
    Sure it was legal. Iraq violated 1441 and various other resolutions. The authorization for the use of force was in 678 and it applied to all subsequent relevant resolutions, of which 1441 was one of many. Sorry you can't connect the dots, but there they are.



    How many with the authorization with the use of force connected to Chapter 7?



    Sounds like defending them to me.

    You are so incredibly naively blind pro-US and just a slave of US government agenda.. it seems you have no opinions of your own..

    Its incredibly sad to see the way things are developing.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Sure as MZ cannot point to any legal documents or refute the documents and basic questions he reserves to a primitive ad hom.

    Once I went through the documents - the US followed all legalities in spite of all the propaganda trying to impose the opposite. One has to read the documents. Moreover following legalities Bush risked lives of American soldiers and was putting them in disadvantage. If Sadam was not sure that could buy his way through bribing Europeans and usual tradition of the UN not to follow its own resolutions he could throw all his force on the US when the soldiers were just unloading and not ready for an immediate battle, - that was his only chance in the military conflict like Hitler did with Stalin.

  7. #67
    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
    You are so incredibly naively blind pro-US and just a slave of US government agenda.. it seems you have no opinions of your own..

    Its incredibly sad to see the way things are developing.
    This is not about OPINION. THis is about the passage of UN Security Council resolutions and how they provided LEGAL AUTHORIZATION for the use of force.

    You seem to have no opinions save to defend dictators and tyrants.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  8. #68
    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

    The UN security council never approved WAR with Iraq.. A war like that is something that has to be approved by the UN security council, and it never was..

    You cant just go to war with a sovereign state without the UN security council approval. Perhaps you should read up on the UN laws instead of focusing on the technicalities the US eagerly jumped to go to Iraq.. There was NO WMDs, which was the stated reason the US went and the justification for 1441.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  9. #69
    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
    This is not about OPINION. THis is about the passage of UN Security Council resolutions and how they provided LEGAL AUTHORIZATION for the use of force.

    You seem to have no opinions save to defend dictators and tyrants.
    I dont defend them, I defend international laws and norms. I also defend anyone against unjust attacks. Russia is frequently a victim of such from people from the US, and therefor I often choose to stand on the side of Russia in unjustful attacks against it. Had it been legitimate attacks I would not defend it, but when its because of general hatred and ignorance I do.
    I do not defend Saddam at all, but Saddam was not the reason the US went to war, but an excuse they used afterwards to justify it when it became public knowledge that their little montage to fulfill 1441, and jump to war with Iraq without approval by the UN security council, was not fulfilled.

    You know as well as me that the result of Iraq and the US jumping to war on technicalities will prevent the UN security council to ever even mention war in any future resolutions, even on technicalities.
    Last edited by Maximus Zeebra; 02-08-09 at 07:22 PM.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  10. #70
    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
    The UN security council never approved WAR with Iraq.. A war like that is something that has to be approved by the UN security council, and it never was..

    You cant just go to war with a sovereign state without the UN security council approval. Perhaps you should read up on the UN laws instead of focusing on the technicalities the US eagerly jumped to go to Iraq.. There was NO WMDs, which was the stated reason the US went and the justification for 1441.
    Have you ever read UNSC Resolution 678?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •