• 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

If they followed the US political line, they would already have pre-emptively bombed the US with nuclear weapons :roll:
Another meaningless stab at the US, devoid of reason or comprehension, that completely failis to actually address the substance of post.
:roll:
 
As of a while ago, it seems the plans will not move forward at all. Obama is not pushing this issue at all as far as I have understood.
This doesnt address what I said.

If the shield was placed in Turkey....
It would be less effective than is placed in eastern Europe - in fact, it might render the system completely ineffective.
Do you not understand what post-apogee midcourse/terminal phase means?

I think the US would react if Russia just put up short range missiles in Cuba for example. Or put up missile shields in central and south America...
Of course you do.
You also cannot explain how said interceptors would have any effect whatsoever on US deterrent.

I do not see the US as the root of the problems, but I see our own society as something that WE need to focus on, not focus on everyone else....
Then go somewhere and do that, rather than trying to interject this into conversations that have nothing to do with it.
 
You dont know anything about the Iraq war, so its worthless to debate it with you. Your memory in such case is incredibly short.

And you know nothing about international law and UN Security Council resolutions, so it would seem that debating with you is useless. You simply will not wake up and realize that there is a view to the world other than the liberal Euro-centric world you live in.
 
Another meaningless stab at the US, devoid of reason or comprehension, that completely failis to actually address the substance of post.
:roll:

Its not meaningless at all.. Its actually true.. If they did follow US political line, they would already have bombed the US with pre-emptive attacks.
 
And you know nothing about international law and UN Security Council resolutions, so it would seem that debating with you is useless. You simply will not wake up and realize that there is a view to the world other than the liberal Euro-centric world you live in.

Nice.. Really nice.. To try to drown out your ignorance about Iraq with putting a label on me.. Geez..

Labels do not stick on me.
 
Nice.. Really nice.. To try to drown out your ignorance about Iraq with putting a label on me.. Geez..

Labels do not stick on me.

Pot... meet kettle.

You are still showing abject ignornace regarding the wording of relevant UNSC resolutions and international law. That label, my socialist pro-tyrant friend, only sticks on you because it is true.
 
Pot... meet kettle.

You are still showing abject ignornace regarding the wording of relevant UNSC resolutions and international law. That label, my socialist pro-tyrant friend, only sticks on you because it is true.

Ok, so in your opinion then, there was no controversy surrounding Iraq, and the Security council approved of the war, and France came along with the US in the Iraq war..

Ohh, wait, non of those things actually happened in REALITY.
 
Ok, so in your opinion then, there was no controversy surrounding Iraq, and the Security council approved of the war, and France came along with the US in the Iraq war..

Ohh, wait, non of those things actually happened in REALITY.

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?
 
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?
 
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
 
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..


Wrong. Sure, no evidence was found, but there were still violations of the resolution.

Tons of countries are in violations of tons of resolutions.



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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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?
 
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.

Then why can't you understand that UNSC REsolution 678 gave authorization to use force to enforce that OR ANY SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT resolution?

Did you stand by Russia when it illegally intervened in Georgia's internal affairs and has now essentially torn two of its provinces away from it?
 
Then why can't you understand that UNSC REsolution 678 gave authorization to use force to enforce that OR ANY SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT resolution?

Did you stand by Russia when it illegally intervened in Georgia's internal affairs and has now essentially torn two of its provinces away from it?

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.

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.
 
Have you ever read UNSC Resolution 678?

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 however complied with that resolution.

A whole ## of resolutions state that Iraq did not comply and calls for the actions promised in the case it does not comply.
 
A whole ## of resolutions state that Iraq did not comply and calls for the actions promised in the case it does not comply.

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