To those against war on Iraq

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by PogoC7

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ ----FACTS

 

If you are going to post links to evidence, post decent ones. oh and try to keep the debate intelligent, you are failing so far.

[Matzi]

Originally posted by fafalone

Some people would lie to protect Saddam...

And thousands of Americans would do so for their president (and did for their presidents).

[Matzi]

Originally posted by PogoC7

The U.N. is a JOKE.

I tried to ignore you. But this statement is actually gone too far, I think. By saying this you disrespect every single nation existing. This is the most horrible think to be done. How can you do that? You really think you could exist alone? You really think you can do what your nation - and only your nation or better one damn alcoholic happening to be your government - wants? That is what I would call dictatorship. Saddam is restricting his to his country, you apparently aren't.

 

America in the No Fly Zone IS LEGAL. Protecting others who live in Iraq from Saddam is a 24/7 hour, 12 year mission (Turkish-Kurds).

So, tell me, where does it state? Which law says so? Which judge passed this verdict? What would say if other countrys' aircrafts fly over your country to protect you from your president?

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Matzi

So, tell me, where does it state? Which law says so? Which judge passed this verdict? What would say if other countrys' aircrafts fly over your country to protect you from your president?

 

The no-fly zone patrols were created by the UN.

[Matzi]

Ok, thanks for your information fafalone. But one thing I don't understand: Why do you accept such a decision passed by the UH and on the other, why do you not accept the newly established international court? Why claiming the UN is a joke and in the same post using them as basis for your own argumentation?

[Deslaar]

Originally posted by fafalone

The no-fly zone patrols were created by the UN.

 

The no-fly zones were created by the U.S.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2492413.stm

 

and

 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aauniraq2.htm

 

specifically:

 

"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"

[blike]

This is great stuff..

 

edit: hrm, i'll fix it shortly

 

Edit #2: Let's trying again http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

[LuTze]

Originally posted by fafalone

The no-fly zone patrols were created by the UN.

For a 'Hater of Ingorance' you're sure doing your best to promote it.

 

They are created by the US and are patrolled by both the US and UK with no UN mandate, end of story.

[Deslaar]

Originally posted by LuTze

For a 'Hater of Ingorance' you're sure doing your best to promote it.

 

They are created by the US and are patrolled by both the US and UK with no UN mandate, end of story.

 

Just noticed your avatar.....

[fafalone]

You're wrong, end of story.

[blike]

I see this quickly devolving into flaming. he provided links, faf, your turn to counter with links ;p

[fafalone]

UNSC Resolution 688 gave us the authority to establish these zones; now I'll admit that it was pushing it, but it's far from completely illegal and unsanctioned.

[blike]

The US and UK created the no fly zones.

 

"But the "no-fly" zone was never specifically mandated by the UN Security Council, and was rejected from the outset by Iraq as a violation of its sovereignty. Iraq's objections were backed by Russia and China, and in 1996 France withdrew its participation. "

 

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html

 

"The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in what was described as a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north.

 

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm

[blike]

but it's far from completely illegal and unsanctioned.

 

Its unsanctioned, but not illegal. I believe the security council agreed it was not in violation.

[Deslaar]

Originally posted by fafalone

You're wrong, end of story.

 

A compelling argument but could you explain to be how patrolling no-fly zones that your government implemented, not sanctioned by the U.N, and bombing targets in those zones is reaffirming a commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq?

[Deslaar]

Originally posted by blike

This is great stuff..

 

edit: hrm, i'll fix it shortly

 

Edit #2: Let's trying again http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

 

LOL...that guy had an Indian accent.....but to be fair, Iraqi accents are hard to master.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Deslaar

A compelling argument but could you explain to be how patrolling no-fly zones that your government implemented, not sanctioned by the U.N, and bombing targets in those zones is reaffirming a commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq?

 

 

Maybe you should do some research into resolution 688.

[PogoC7]

Originally posted by Matzi

I tried to ignore you. But this statement (PogoC7: The U.N. is a Joke) is actually gone too far, I think. By saying this you disrespect every single nation existing. This is the most horrible think to be done.

 

Anyone else finds it funny that France, Germany, Russia and China are telling the US that it must go the multilateral route on the Iraq issue, yet say that the US alone must engage in direct talks with North Korea?

 

Intelligent:

Ummm, OK. The war is about oil. Fine. Lets look at the Middle East. Do these people see themselves as belonging to a Nation (Iraqi, Iranian, Afghan...)? No, they associate themselves through religion. Either one is an Iranian Shi'ites, Iraqi Sunnites, Saudi Wahhabis (Shi'ite Muslim or Sunni Muslim). The great evil here is Saudi Arabia and their monopolistic Opec. By now (if you can look past popular belief) it is clear that the Saudi government is the center of all the conflict and terrorism in the Middle East. Wahhabis, such as those held responsible for the police murders, are the followers of the teachings of the 18th century Islamic scholar al-Wahhab. Financed by wealthy Saudi families, Wahhabi missionaries have been sent to various areas of the Islamic world.

Think of Saudi Arabia as America; they are just as rich, but the rich fund extremist groups and run the country to teach Islamic fundamentalism to children (Osama the Goat Lover). Saudi Arabia is a religious dictatorship not much different that that of the Taliban. Does that seem to bother the United States? Not really. Occasionally we make peep or a small squawk here or there about an issue, but really, our government is too concerned about keeping the peace with the Islamic fundamentalists. If the oil flow gets cut off, our lifestyle will be changed.

 

It is high time that the United States takes a long look at the energy we receive from the very radicals that are so interested in our eventual downfall. It seems the Islamic nations would be interested in promoting peace in the region, as it is conducive to pumping more energy out and reaping the benefits, that is- more money in their pockets. It is an odd irony that these countries are overtly plotting (and funding) for our (and Israel’s) downfall. Without the money flowing in from the United States where would they be? Exactly where they are now. By this, I imply that the dictatorships and oppressive regimes of the Middle East are not great models of modernity and progress. They regularly oppress and imprison their own citizens, all for the slightest challenges to authoritative monarchies amid military oligarchies. The truth is that Middle East dictatorships, without our money, would change little the vast majority of people live in squalor not much different than they were living in hundreds of years ago. The wealth is overwhelming controlled by a few families that are intent on preserving the purse strings and the scepter that goes along with it.

America can go to war with Saudi Arabia now, but that would not be looked at by the international community in a positive manner.

 

So a solution:

Iraq's oil reserves nearly match those of Saudi Arabia's and with America "invading" Iraq; they will have control of the oil. America has already put bids out and American and British oil companies have plans to put out oil fires (started by Saddam), and take over production in Iraq. What does all this mean?

Opec's monopoly will begin to crumble. Countries what fund their group of Islamic terrorism will not have the resources to do so. Indirectly crimpling the Saudi's control over oil production in the Middle East and eventually leading to the destabilizing of intricate terrorist networks through out the Middle East.

Who better to control the oil then the number one oil consumers?

 

Free Markets Would Be OPEC's Undoing: http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=784

[Deslaar]

Originally posted by fafalone

Maybe you should do some research into resolution 688.

 

I have and you have yet to provide a link that supports your argument. "You're wrong, end of story" isn't quite enough for me.

[Sayonara]

Lol, the great Pogo logic comes full circle again.

 

After decades of being economically fucked over by the US the Arab nations formed Opec to protect their own financial interests in the oil market of the East - the US has been stirring up animosity among them ever since trying to break Opec apart, a reality you just demonstrated.

 

So how exactly does that help cast the US """foreign policy""" in a good light? Well done.

 

And don't try and tell me I'm wrong. The parents of my housemate of 5 years work for Occidental Petroleum Corp. in Qatar. They know what they're talking about.

[PogoC7]

It's sad that the American people have made the international community think of American politics as weak. During the Clinton admin. Countries laughed at us because Clinton got some yum, yum. America shouldn't have over reacted on such an irrelevant issue, while the Middle East was a boiling pot for hate.

Now after Bush was elected, people who openly criticised (freedom Iraq does not have) him for being a drug addict, alcoholic, ect... These people are those who feel they were cheated on election night. The American media got into it and in turn influenced the international community to think Bush is a bad and useless president. I believe that when Bush's term will be over, he will be remember as a president who overcame extreme doubt other then an useless puppet.

In America, it may look as if people are against this war and oppose Bush with a firey vengance, but the truth is. Our soldiers are in the Middle East and we support them 100%. We might not agree with our government, but we know that what is done is the best for the American people and whatever decision is made about any issue, the American people will support it. In a year we will be able to voice our opinions and bring a change if one is needed.

If the American people look at Bush as a leader, I believe the international opinion about war with Iraq and other BS would be much different.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by PogoC7

Countries laughed at us because Clinton got some yum, yum. America shouldn't have over reacted on such an irrelevant issue, while the Middle East was a boiling pot for hate.

You're quite right. They should have reacted like this:

 

"Oooh, all those people over there whose lives we've been screwing with for years are starting to dislike us. Better go and kill some of them quick."

[PogoC7]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

So how exactly does that help cast the US """foreign policy""" in a good light? (Reffering to America's crippling of the Opec monopoly)

People may not understand, but we don't know everything that happens in the hierarchy of the money world (not claming I do, for those one liners). If Opec was Microsoft and people who profited heavily off Microsoft were funding terrorism and pushing their belief on to other people in underdeveloped countries. Would it be ok? We wouldn't have to rid Microsoft, but the BAD SEED would have to be removed.

 

Saudi's abuse of oil money: http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1997/12/F.RU.971223151001.html

[greg1917]

Are you actually being serious? simply take control of iraqi oil supplies? the gulf oil field does not belong to the US and they have absolutely no right to claim it as their own, thats the most aggressive expansionist crap ive heard since Hitler invaded the USSR for 'living space'. the gulf oil field is the property of the sovereign nations that occupy it, and that isnt the US.

 

pumping more energy out and reaping the benefits, that is- more money in their pockets

 

u criticise them for selling the most sought after resource in the world? in the same post as u claim a US colony would be beneficial to world peace? In iraq and saudi arabia there is a large peasant population but there is also a popualtion of educated, middle class decent citizens. are you completely blind to this? they arent all terrorists living in caves or in huts in the desert, theyre ordinary people.

 

As for your claim that by not having oil revenue, terrorism will cease, well im still laughing actually. so you'd reduce middle eatern nations to poverty stricken wastelands and let the US march in and steal the oil? America wouldnt do this because it has morals, it has common interests with the middle east and it isnt as completely blind to cultural differences as you are.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Deslaar

I have and you have yet to provide a link that supports your argument. "You're wrong, end of story" isn't quite enough for me.

 

 

I told you Iwas using UNSCR 688 as support, if you're to lazy to find out information about it on your own, then I strongly suggest you stop talking to me before you give me a reason to suspended you again.