KrustyKidd

Yes it does. You have shown yourself to allude to me giving some sort of extreme slight to yourself saying I am not honest when, if one can even find it the ONE peice of proof you think is it, it is nothing I am sure. You said post #171 and when I went to it found nothing but you saying that you believe the US is a perpetrator on the UNSC and that you also belive the UNSC is controlled in their vote. You said their vote was not fair on those grounds. So, what did you mean if not that? How many votes does he have on the UNSC? And, what type of law does he practice? Is he the dictator of the UN or the head administrator? In your world does the speaker of the house run the counrty? As I said to a few people, probably even you "oh ya? My cleaning lady says it's legal" both have equal power on this matter. Oh, is tying Myata's posts together dishonest and my arguments not logical? He works on pure emotion continuing to throw in rants with legal arguments to cloud the issue. It is obvious that Myata intended to mean that the US controls the UNSC as he said the council was controlled and that the perpetrator was a member of it who voted. I asked who they were controlled by and there was no reply. As for the questions, they had no meaning other than to make a point thus, when I countered with how fairness is not a prerequisite of the definition of a court and therefore can skip those as they are redundent/ He has still not answered mine. He can find them by going to the tread in question and looking for them as he doesn't belive in presenting evidence. In all though, it is a minor point which he has blown up in order to escape a losing argument. You think that being accused of arguing in bad faith is nothing? Then why don't we all just accuse each other of being clowns, assholes, niggers, bastards and so on and forth and save thought and argument altogether? When somebody can bring up bullshit like this to escape having to back up an argument with proof and fact, then we may as well give up on this forum as a place to find honest and logical thought.

Taking on the War on terror while the world disproved duing a time when the US was in a Viet nam Syndrome is courageous both personallyand politically. This is not a fight that threatened you now but rather your children and grandchildren. He nipped it in the bud or, is attempting to. Churchill if allowed could have save the western world had Russia actually carried out their plans which included nuclear attacks on European cities and circumventing them to acheive control of outlying areas. Could they have done that? They planned in it. Can Wahhabist Jihadists achieve the Caliphate? They can if we don't stop them.

Except the Iraqi people. I was hoping for less military solution and more political such as pressure on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria to shut down the 'Rat Lines' etc combined with more money put internationaly into Iraq to pay for Iraqi soldiers and police to pay for wages and better equipment. Withdrawing suddenly leaving the Iraqi people and government in the lurch is not on anybody's timetable.

I have been accused of cheating in an argument and desire some proof of it. Here is that statement that was presented to me by one of the people opposed to my arguments in the thread Saddam, resolution 1441 , and weapons inspectionsHere is what is given to me in place of an argument for a point given; Myata Myata's proof to date I ask this person to provide proof and they don't seem to have any yet continually tell me to find it (the proof myself) so, possibly, other members can find the proof for me. Thanks.

No. From what I understand, he had no orders to give as he was in shock so the other officers had to take over. Jobbin, as you seem to think errors have occured. please tell us exactly what you think should happen right now in Iraq if you were in charge of the whole show?

Not at all. Just showing how Ghandi wasn't a picture of pure humanity, just as guilty of hurting others because he was in a leadership role. He saw an opportunity to do good and took it along with the bad. Same as any true leader does.

That's why the phrase 'stay the course' has meaning that so many don't understand.

The poll is misworded and bull as is. Risked his presidency by taking action against popular opinion in order to take aggressive action in the War on Terror. Lincoln? He killed a million Americans over a totally unnecessary war and is remembered as one of the finest presidents ever. Yes Ghandi. Go out and get yourself beat up because that is what I say is the best way. Long as I am in charge. How many people did he kill who would not have been killed?

Yes, agreed. Mistakes occured and problems had to be rectified in the best way possible. However, if you have noticed, the whole plan has remained the same - train Iraqi troops, support Iraqi government until they can fend for themselves. No matter what party is in charge or whomever speaks out. Whatever. It will not be a withdrawl that is immediate leaving Iraq to insurgents. It will be a gradual withdrawl with the timeline dependent on the Iraqi capability to govern and defend themselves, same as the origional plan only with different window dressing.

I sure do as the strategy was to withdraw right from the very beginning. It is in what way and under what conditions and what state the Iraqis are left in that is the point. That is provided by reading the quotes in context rather than the sensational headlines that always say somethibng similar like "General says: US withdrawl imminent' or whatever. Of course there is no denying that Iraq is not going the way he had hoped. So, other than just saying something in general, what are their suggestions? The US is not intent on protecting the country but rather keeping it alive long enough so that they can do it themselves through training . The solution in my opinion is to do exactly what the US is doing, putting the Iraqi government on notice that they willnot be there for eternity but rather withdrawing and scaling down bit by bit so they know they have to get it toghether whatever way they can. I have no idea of what the future will bring however, it won't be a complete withdrawl as that would be virtual capitulation in the war on terror as well as spelling out to the nations of the middle east that the Viet Nam syndrome is still alive in the USA and that nothing has changed.

Whoever said they were a fair court? That wasn't the argument. I said they were the highest court in the world and you said they were not a court because they were biased and such. In reality, it is the UN and all countries are out for themselves. Uh, any idea of which post? Maybe a link or a quote from it? I mean, if you don't have time to go back to your own posts as you said before, even though you know exactly what you are looking for so why would you expect people who don't have a shmick of what you are trying to say to wade through post after post of yours to try and figure out if they found it or not? You said that the UNSC was a 'controlled highly influenced body' Possibly now you might set this straight by telling the forum who you feel they are controlled by. Would it possibly be (as you refered to the US in another post describing why the UNSC is not a court) the 'alledged perpetrators'? A point, is this the only evidence of misrepresenting, misquoting and twisting what you say that you can provide? If so, then I would have to say you are simply being frivolous instead of presenting an actual refutation to my points. If you have something, bring it forth, if you do not then I don't expect an appology, just a retaction of the accusation itself in which you said Myata's accusation of not aguing in good faith on this thread Myata's proof to date I can say that it's legal by default as the body that authorized it has not condemned or ruled against the action which so many people say was not authorized by that body. You do not know for sure that the UNSC did not intend for action to be allowed to be taken yet, it was with no condmnation. That actually is a minor point as the major one you have conceeded in saying that it was not illegal as yet. Thank you for conceeding the argument. My intent was to prove that it was not illegal and you have agreed. Now that personal matter. Please settle it.

I read that to be a normal political process unlike what Cretien had in place for twelve years. Discussion on what to do with a situation rather than just up and pulling out en masse overnight is not revolution in a party but rather healthy and, still acknowledges that the US is commited. You seem to pull stuff out of the press for pure sensation and read whatever into it based on a quote or, simple headline. Not your fault as that is what the press does to sell papers but wish you would get into the issue more before you place this as some sort of poof of something.

Myata Your Reasons Open and accesible? Not impartial? Externalpolitical considerations? Like since when did I say it was pefect? It is, as per the definition below, a court. Not that any of this matters anyhow as nobody has even botheed to officially show displeasue with the US action in this body as they nomally do so, your mock indignation is meaningless. Definition of Court Myata Whatever, you still need the UNSC to show that the action the US took was not what they intended. Myata And, fo the x....... and not last time, that court would still need to have somebody declare that the action was not what the UNSC intended or allowed. Hence, you need that condemnation that I keep speaking about. In this case, even if the US vetoed it, the nine to six vote against the US would be necessary for that to occur. Myata Not sure, is this what you are talking about? Your quote fom post #77 Myata Myata You were obviously speaking about the USA as I said they had been condemned eight times in the past fifteen yeas to which you replied; Myata So, unless you meant 'contolled' to mean the alternative to chaos, I took that to mean the US contolled the UNSC. To which you confirmed this with; Myata Just so we all know how you term things, your following is a demonstration from earlier on This cannot be what you were talking about is it? I mean, the following quotes from you are pretty sure about what was done wrong to you by myself; Myata I took many of the questions to be irelevent to the discussion and simply ommited them as I believed I covered them in other areas of the posts which I responded to. for example, it matters not that the UNSC is a court in any sense of the word or not. I do believe that you hit it on the head by calling it an 'executive body' however, what it is or is not is unimportent to the argument. They made a resolution and we all have to know if the US acted within or without of that esolution. Nobody but they can answer that question be they a court or an executive body. Now, if there are other questions that you would like answered, I am more than willing to do so here. However, I need you to retract or to prove I misquoted, represented or whatever you and Bradco first. As you find it such a chore to look up old posts I doubt that will happen.

A grand! Wow, I'll quit my day job and stat batching and pouring a million dollars worth of concrete to make that. Call you in a few years once I have a twenty something story highrise that I can destroy (without using any demolitions of course).

Great, now I get to show you what context is all about. No, he is not talking about withdrawing. The aim of the US has always been to withdraw, when the Iraqis get their act together. What he is talking about is changing the present strategy (or seemingly visible strategy) to push Iraqis to do more for themselves so that withdrawl can occur.

"Needs to change" Ok, once again, no context. Do you mean he thinks there ought to be more troops, less, pull out yesterday or what? You need the context or it's meaningless as it is not a known.

Classic!!!!!! I worked siesmic with a bunch that was heavy into dubies and known to be a crack crew but had no idea ....

I didn't even address that factor in my thesis on this matter as I don't know the country myself.

Myata, I'm sorry for missing this one, I was engaged with Bradco at the time and didn't notice it. I will address this as it is prior to your problem with me personally which you STILL have not provided proof of. Provide proof of this please. Saying there are two instances but you can't or won’t find them is bullshit. For all intents and purposes, it is a court which decides international matters of the highest level. In this case, it made a ruling that it has never formally acknowledged as not being what it intended. I’m not to say the UNSC can make it illegal as we all know the US will certainly veto any resolution proposing that however, that is all it has to do is to introduce a resolution and have a vote. If nine of the fifteen members all say yes, they condemn the US for the action, then the US vetos it, we would all know that the UNSC certainly did not approve of the action. Then, that vote can be used in either a civil court as evidence in a class action suit on behalf of whomever that the US acted illegally and can award punitive damages. Or, have it brought up to The International Court of Justice using that fact. Until then, we don't know if that is what they intended or not. So, until then, nobody can even begin to argue that it was illegal. The International Court of Justice Ok, so we don't really know if the UNSC is ok with this or not yet, you are saying that they never intended the resolution to be read the way the US did? How do you know that for sure? Because people infomally came out and said they didn't like it yet they voted for it? At the end of the resolution they add a phrase saying what they think it all means yet they vote for it? You keep putting the cart before the horse. We don't even know whether the member nations would find that they didn't approve of the action much less rule they were against it until something is brought forward. And, you won't until a resolution saying that is put forth and voted on in the form of condemnation. What body that has authority over the UNSC has decided it is illegal and not what the UNSC intended or allowed for in resolution 1441? That is the logic you have to beat in order for this to be illegal. So, as you say, unless you come up with something meaningful that can address that fact, I'll bow out on this one for now with you. Now, please provide the proof of the personal matter. I will address that.

British nins, contractors or what though? I assume it is military but, will they scale down after training Iraqis or flat out pull pin and run? Will they remain in a specialized role or return once they get rested? What? That is why the context is relevent Jobbin, the comment is one thing without the context but may mean something completely different once you have it.

Myata Let's settle this right now please. Show us where I misreported your contentions please. While you are at ishow me where I did Bradcos too. As for addressing the rest of the post, I certainly will once we rectify this problem. To tell the truth, I quickly glossed over the whole thing but stopped when I saw the accusation. I take that personal so forgive me if I can't continue with you until we settle this. Thanks. Bradco Para 4 ""4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;"" Yes, they did report back and Blix said Iraq was in violation of the ceasfire terms as well as 687. The US took action as they were authorized. If you will note, there was no resolution deciding to take any action of any kind by the UNSC. Para 12 ""14. Decides to remain seized of the matter."" Does not say actively seized as it does when they are going to be managing the situation. Here is the authorization and proof that it is still in effect. Preamble ""Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,"" No acceptance as per 1441 so, no ceasfire. Really? My cleaning lady told me the other day that it was legal so there. Unless the UNSC does something then all claims are meaningless. Hogwash. Only a simpleton would pass a resolution then attempt to apply their own meaning to it by addenendum. Helloooooo! Remember me, the guy that brought this to your attention? In 1441, they were only ‘seized of the matter’ meaning they were not holding any position but giving orders. In 686 though, they show what the phrasing looks like when they are going to be in micro managing control of the resolution. 686 Do try to keep up, I posted the link to that last month for crying out loud. You have never addressed why they did it eight times befrore though. Here, they don't. Why is that? Instead, they run aoround with a bitch on instead of doing what they always do when the US has pissed them off - table a resolution and vote on it officially rather than sniping around. Hey. Get your act together. This is what you gave me The first is a bio of the guy with nothing to read. The second didn't work and the third was what I ripped apart. I went from the first down. If you can't post shit to substanciate your points so they can be easily found it's not our problem. I refuse to wade through reams of crap to find one that will work for you. That's your job. From your article; So, since when does a lawyer decide a case out of court? Never. A judge does not decide out of chambers either so, everybody can talk and yak about this and that. Point being is only one body can decide if it was illegal and they won't even condemn the invasion. Won't even voice their displeasure officially.

No. Differewnt battles in the same campaign against Jihadists. You can't attack Saudi Arabia and they certainly were not doing anything to quell the movement there so, Iraq was a perfect opportunity with a legal justification (or in your case, an ambiguous justification) to move in and have a large force of US power directly across the border from SA basicly tellingthe Saudis that if they didn't deal with the problem, the US could. If Bush thought Saddam was an actual threat, he would have gone in a long time before without UN resoutions. If they knew Saddam had WMDs ready to go there wouldn't have been much talking going on. EWspecially in the new reality of post 911.

Nope. Just want the context of the whoel thing. For example, when our officers say that "we cannot defeat the Taliban militarily" many take that to mean it is unwinnable when in effect, it means that social and economic aid also has to flow into the situation. That, enabled by the military portion. So, I would like to see the article thanks, or at least the transcript from the interview.

Where did I misquote? When I quote an opponent, I use the quote feaqture and cut and paste. Not misreading it. The US was authorized to take whatever action deemed necessary to ensure Iraq complied with 660 and all subsequent resolutions. It not a grandfathered clause but, reaffirmed in every one of them and, in the case of I believe 687 and certainly 1441 repeated outright. Saddam is given one final opportunity to comply immediately and unconditionally which Blix says he does not. The security council says they are siezed of the mater however, we all know that of course they have to be watching the situation. When they are actually waiting to do something themselves they are 'actively seized; meaning the ball is in their court. So, it reads that in absence of anybody doing anything, they will review inspections ad nausium until they make another resolution if necessary. In this case, they didn't have to as action was taken to rectify Saddam's transgression. Yes. Authorized to use any means necessary to ensure Iraq complies with 660 and all subsequent resolutions is very ambiguous. Wonder what it means? Thats in the resolution 1441 which superceeds international law? Never saw that phrase there. Actually, you can go to the resolution itself. It is in the commentary at the end after the resolution itself is passed. Assuming you don't live in a box of course you can access it by using any one of the links to 1441 that I provided. UNSC does the followoing; ""to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations; to take military action against an aggressor; to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas"" More Illegal. Blatent ignorence of their own resolution but nothing was said whatsoever? Strnage, they condemn the US all the time officially when it does something they dcon't like. Even when they know it will probably be vetoed. Yes, Hans Blix, former weapons inspector now entering his second carrear as an international lawyer. Is he also a brain surgeon as well? Second link under construction. Ok, you had your chance. An ator in a theator, oh, and what's this? ""The panellists include Professor Philippe Sands QC, a member of Cherie Booth's Matrix chambers" " Here though, it looks promising - " "Professor Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics"" So, is he an accountent or a practicing international lawyer who works with the UN on cases involving the security council? Nope. ""Jan Kavan, the president of the UN General Assembly and former Czech foreign minister"" Ooo. A real person. Might have something here Bradco...............nope, appears Jan is neither an internatinal lawyer nor is he an honest person. Wait though, here is an actual lawyer ""Another prominent speaker, Professor Burns Weston, a human rights lawyer at the University of Iowa in the US, fears that other countries might use the American decision to wage war illegally to justify their own unlawful wars. He is most concerned about India and Pakistan - two nuclear powers in dispute over Kashmir. "It is a very bad precedent for other countries that might seek, in their own lack of wisdom, to emulate the United States," he said."" Human rights lawyer? I've had enough thanks. The event, called "Liberation or War Crime" will be chaired by the former Radio 4 Today programme presenter Sue MacGregor and is expected to attract other prominent figures, including the playwright David Hare, the Booker Prize-winning Indian writer Arundhati Roy and the former foreign secretary Robin Cook." Did. Wondering, read this quote from it. ""In the first place, the general view is that security council authorisations of force are only for limited and specific purposes. In the case of resolution 678, the authorisation to use force terminated with the adoption of resolution 687. It cannot be revived in completely different circumstances some 12 years later."" Strange he should say this as the phrase is repeated and then with the qualification that it is applicable to all subsequent resolutions. Then, he fails to mention that the phrase is actually repeated in the body of 1441. Wherever does he get the idea that there is a time limit to a resolution that is still in effect? ""It is for the security council to determine how to deal with Iraq, not UN member states acting unilaterally."" Then why are they told twice n the same resolution that they are authorized to take action I wonder? Wondering still what any means necessary means if not exactly what it says. BTW, the US was athorized to do just that in that resolution but he does not address that, instead, he pretends that it was only mentioned twelve years before ONCE in 660. ""Even on the attorney-general's own arguments force against Iraq could be justified only to enforce Iraq's disarmament obligations. It provides no warrant for regime change, that is, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein."" Yes, any means necessary EXCEPT Regime Change. This is rich!! ""Any use of force against Iraq without a second resolution expressly authorising the use of force would be illegal."" Oh, ok. If you say so.

Then he would have to be the man that did a 100% turn around while maintaining a sure course. Probably would work on Liberals and Democrats but is suicide for right wingers. Hence, unless he is turing into a flip flop Kerry-like-Democrat, I'm sure that won't happen so don't lose any sleep or waste any bandwidth on it..