• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

Have you ever read 678? How convenient of you to leave out the other parts of my post in your quote btw..

have you been reading the tread?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ary-russian-treaty-plan-7.html#post1057916765

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ary-russian-treaty-plan-8.html#post1057916917

UNSC Resolution 678 is one for the ## of resolutions which states that Iraq keeps on violating resolutions of the UN - and it lists ## iraq has viloted up to date.

''despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) ''


and the... relevant resolutions:''

''660 (1990) of 2 August (1990),
661 (1990) of 6 August 1990,
662 (1990) of 9 August 1990,
664 (1990) of 18 August 1990,
665 (1990) of 25 August 1990,
666 (1990) of 13 September 1990,
667 (1990) of 16 September 1990,
669 (1990) of 24 September 1990,
670 (1990) of 25 September 1990,
674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990
and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990. ''

You are boring...
 
Last edited:
I am not sure if any country needs....
 
I am not sure if any country needs....
Of course not. The discussion here was about the US and the 'legality' of going to war in Iraq.
 
On the basis of what has become international norms lately I do support Russian intervention in Georgia.
Georgia was in war with those provinces to keep them, and slaughtered its own people as a result, Russia intervened.

Only the classically blind to the truth could equate Georgia with Iraq. The situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia are far more analogous with the Kosovo/Serbia situation than with Iraq. Of course, the notion that Georgia was "slaughtering" its own people is more a result of RUssian propoganda than any point of fact.

If the US hadnt gone to Iraq the way they did, I would not have supported Russians intervention in Georgia without UN security council direct approval. But Russia also noted that the UN was worthless when the US could go to Iraq on technicalities and propaganda, so they just skipped all that and went directly to demonstrate a very valid point. That the US effectively made the UN security council invalid.

You simply can't read beyond your own pointedly biased point of view, can you. There were numerous UNSC resolutions against Iraq which contained the right for Member States to use force to enforce those resolutions. There were no such resolutions regarding Georgia. Your rhetoric is nothing more than :spin:, not an honest analysis of the facts.
 
Its a resolution valid to the first Gulf war against Iraq. Passed because Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Its NOT a justification for going to war 15 years later.

Iraq however complied with that resolution.

Iraq complied with that resolution with FORCE.

And it was NOT valid only to that resolution. It was valid for that AND ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS. Sorry your reading comprehension isn't quite there, but that is in the resolution. What part of this do you NOT understand?
 
Thats the kind of intelligent thinking which unleashed Russia.
to invade Georgia.
















That is correct, it would be crime against humanity for Russia to apply to the UN for a resolution #nnn about South Ossetia instead of stopping the attempt of genocide by Georgians.

It is a kind of unusual that you can come in agreement with common sense. I will record time and day.
 
Iraq complied with that resolution with FORCE.

And it was NOT valid only to that resolution. It was valid for that AND ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS. Sorry your reading comprehension isn't quite there, but that is in the resolution. What part of this do you NOT understand?

The part where I didnt read the whole resolution.. Just a summary.
 
Have you ever read 678? How convenient of you to leave out the other parts of my post in your quote btw..

Have YOU ever read 678, particularly operative clause 2?

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Please READ before commenting again.
 
Only the classically blind to the truth could equate Georgia with Iraq. The situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia are far more analogous with the Kosovo/Serbia situation than with Iraq. Of course, the notion that Georgia was "slaughtering" its own people is more a result of RUssian propoganda than any point of fact.

More so propaganda then US people actually thinking the Iraq war was justified and legal?


You simply can't read beyond your own pointedly biased point of view, can you. There were numerous UNSC resolutions against Iraq which contained the right for Member States to use force to enforce those resolutions. There were no such resolutions regarding Georgia. Your rhetoric is nothing more than :spin:, not an honest analysis of the facts.

I intensely followed the news before the Iraq war, and during it. I actually supported it at first out of ignorance about the reality and because Fox news was the channel I watched at the time.. I came to my senses when I got other news media, Fox is just so incredibly bias and unrealistic, thats its amazing how such a channel can even be legal. Its just propaganda, nothing else.

Its easy to say now after 5 years of bombardment of propaganda that the Iraq war was justified, but at the time the general opinion was that it wasnt.. This being a US forum, doesnt really convince me it was legal. But of course you people want to support your governments actions no matter what they do it seems.
 
Last edited:
More so propaganda then US people actually thinking the Iraq war was justified and legal?

I don't need US propoganda or anything else to read UNSC REsolutions and glean fact from them. Have you read the relevant resolutions yet?

I intensely followed the news before the Iraq war, and during it. I actually supported it at first out of ignorance about the reality and because Fox news was the channel I watched at the time.. I came to my senses when I got other news media, Fox is just so incredibly bias and unrealistic, thats its amazing how such a channel can even be legal. Its just propaganda, nothing else.

I don't even get Fox News.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
Now that you have read the entire resolution (not that it was very long) are you willing to admit your error?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?

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.....
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :roll:

(oh and scourge is living breathing evidence of my case, same goes for mr justone here.)
 
Back
Top Bottom