KrustyKidd

Only Admin can do it from the Admin CP.

Well really. Why even make resolutions then? No need for them, just let Saddam do whatever he wanted. Of course they are going to be seized of the matter as it's something to be watched however, when they are engaged n the matter taking an active part you will note they are 'actively seized.' No resolution condeming the invasion speaks volumes. Not one case in the UNSC tabled by any member. When the US invaded Pnama it was imediately tabled condeming it as was the Russian invasion of Afganistan. Ya? Oh ya? Well, getting Saddam is proof it was legal. Like hey man lol.

Year before mine as well however, were you aware that Ed Witt (another former RSM and Patricia) and Fred Shwick (a Warrent Officer in 2 CDO) were both former Hitler Youth? Does that also make the CAR Nazi White Supremists?

So, he adhered to 1441? Not according to Blix in his March report. Therefore, the member states decided to use invasion and regime change to effect the resolutions demands. Instead, he says Iraq did not cooperate immediately and unconditionally. A thing they had to do to ensure they adhered to 1441 (which BTW was Iraq's final opportuinty) Actually, there was never a tabling of that resolution. If there were, they would have gotten the majority of eight but, required nine to make it defacto. Still killed a hundred thousand less than Saddam did on average but just to explain to you two, I understand where you are comming from but, this is a legal argument that you have brought forward. And, it was legal as per the wording of resolution 1441 and, the report Blix gave which he details the infractions. However minor you consider those infractions to be, the tolerance level was zero.

Thanks for your explanation. I take back my derogatory comment towards yourself. However, the Confederate flag is not a racist flag, just as the Civil War was not fought for blacks freedoms but rather to prevent the SOuth from seceeding for reasons among other things undue tariffs and of course the abolition of slavery. In a nutshell, the North bought agricultural goods ie cotton off the south much the way the Wheat Board buys wheat off western farmers for less than they sell it for on the world markets. In the US case, the South was not permitted to sell to foreign markets but were forced to deal with the North. The tax assignments went disproportionately to the North, who were intent on industrializing and building their infastructure leaving the South completely left out. Unwilling to reward but taking without fair reimbursement, the situation developed into a deep division within the country and anti North sentiment within the south. Added to this was the anti slavery movement which had come to a head in the North. Here, the South drew the line in this inequitable situation. The North, unwilling to pay fair prices for cotten was now intent on taking away the tools with which the South was using to produce it. The result was Rebelion and separation. Not for slavery but for the situation that developed. Slavery itself more than likely would have petered out on its own within twenty years as only the well off could afford them and to employ them so they could pay for themselves was growing increasingly difficult. Southern fears of modernization and Republican control The Confererate Flag RSM Bakker gave the Commando a verbal blast one day out on the parade Square back in '82 calling them (among other things) 'Rebels' for a dress and deportment issues along with some loose ends in the barracks he had found. I immediately afterwards, the Rebel Flag was being sported everywhere. It should be notoed the Bakker was also a Patricia. Now, in your mind, do you think 2 CDO began sporting the flag because they are racists or because they consider themselves rebels and non conformists in a unit where having the spirit ofthe rebel is considered large in battle? And, given the fact that about ten percent of the Regiment was black, Aborigional and of non English desent, why would they too carry this flag around, sporting it on their cars and motorcycles as well if they felt it meant the unit believed in slavery and white supremacy?

Idiot. Spent eight years there as pathfinder and HQ Sigs, in the entire time I only met one bigot and he was an immigrant from South Africa. Lord, you show your colors as a moron. Trap on, your posts are obviously spoken from idiocy. As for the need of an Airborne unit, better give them something to be Airborne with as without it, any hard ground soldiers will do. In the Airborne, they were light infantry, much the same as what the PPCLI was and is. Troopers were brought in from thier parent units for a two year hitch (and often extended if they wished) and then returned therefore diseminating the experience. What we have now is a less cohesive Special Force but nonetheless, it is intact in spirit and, will hopefully be reconstituted once again as a unified force. However, as I said, without air support and mobility, may as well send in ground troops. Did you know that the 101 Airborborne Divisin from the states is not a paratrooper unit but rather an 'Airmobile Division?' We used to call them screamers on a string as they were fast ropers, a method of getting on the gournd from a helecopter via a fixed rope very unlike rappeling. You might have seen it in 'Black Hawk Down' when buddy got wounded in the origional problem. Once on the ground, they were guys with a rifle period. Pretty much, you don't need airmobile battalions in Afganistan, you need mountain warfare experts coaching troops, desert warefare experts same and on and on. Troops are great, brave, motivated and this particular mission I can tell you does not need one frickin parachute. Killjoy is an idiot who knows not of what he or she speaks. As for calling names, he or she did a great diservice to people who defend us all and, to my past of which I am proud and, shall ever be. The rest of you are not off the hook though. JTF2 is an elite unit who are trained to carry out assasinations, snatches and sniper action. Not win battles. To portray them as the end to all ends is to discredit the troops who gain and hold ground, patrol it and risk life and limb to guard it. What is needed on the gournd is soldiers, brave and serious ones. In this, we know we have them in great qauantities and, when they come home they should be honored for their service not belittled for not being Airborne, JTF, Special Forces or whatever you think they should be but, because of your ignorence, are not. This is what is meant by 'supporting the troops' So many in this thread did just the opposite.

'Mass bombings of cities' is not exactly what happened. More like pinpoint strikes carried out within the capability of the US forces. If mass bombings then there would not be anything left of Iraq save a glass parking lot so please, stay within the realm of reality. Now, since you are in agreement that intervention was necessary (or are you?) then what exactly does 'any means necessary' mean to not do? Considering you are attempting to stop a man who uses a country as his personal sex dungeon, personal ATM, torture chamber, ego fulfiler and, as a born survivor will do anything to retain his hold on it including stalling fourteen resolutions from the highest legal body on the planet for a dozen years. All the while, allowing hundreds of thousands of his own people to die or be killed by himself or circumstances brought on by himself?

Try understanding what makes it tick and much of your ideas will change. Pakistan is a country that wishes to remain one, much the same as any other one in the world and not seeking to re create the Claliphate as many of it's people wish. While seemingly less prone to falling into the 'Caliphate thingy' as you put it out of lack of knowledge, it has, even though it is less central to the Caliphate thingy been in the forefront because of it's need to survive. Russia to the north, India, it's sworn enemy and earlier ruler to the east it is a supporter of the Taliban simply becuase is didn't wish a pro Soviet government to the west and would have supported anything to enable that. The US garnered their support against the Taliban when Jihadists bombed the Indian parliament and India threatened Nuclear war unless Pakistan reigned in the miltents. The US seeing the opportunity acted as 'intermediaries' and, Mushariff eargar to stop any escalation of a war he couldn't win was all ears. And, ultimately allowed the US to post CIA operatives within it's nuclear facilities in order to stop what might have been an Indian attack which would have destroyed his country. Another bonus was the begining of the cleansing of the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence service who's members did not change as fast as the policy of the ruler. Mushariff scared of India, the US acting as verifiers of it's nukes and, cooperation in the war on terror. Not much of a threat to anybody. Sides, if they were, not strong enough to withsatnd a preemtive stirke from any medium nuclear power. Iran on the other hand, able to sway regional policy and carry out assasinations worldwide, even if they couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag outside their own borders.

Yes indeed. In your world it is simple. Guy in charge of country will simply volunteer to surrender rather than use his armed forces, propaganda machine, secret service and state terrorism to stop people from arresting him, making any force unecessary. As you think force was never necessary did you ever, just once wonder why Saddam never just simply surrendured rather than urge his people to fight to the death while he hid in a hole in the ground with packaged underwear. And, why the direct count (including military losses to Iraq) was counted as less then ten thousand? Seems the deaths are occuring not from the US side but from the Saddam, Jihadist and Militia side rather than the US. So much for the hand grenade and spraying the place with bullets from the US side. BTW. What does that have to do with legalities anyhow as the US was authorized to take whatever action was necessary to ensure Saddam met the requirements of the ceasefire?

He is not the leader of the UNSC. Rather, he is the head administrator of the UN. As such, he follows the orders of the UNSC and, while qualified to post agenda and seating arangements at dinner parties is certainly not empowedered to determine or rule if they are, in fact, right, wrong or indifferent. Iraq was in vioaltion of a ceasfire and was not adhering to at least five of the terms including raparation of war damages, payment for ecological damages, repatriation of foreign nationals, improving human rights within their borders and proving they had adhered to the terms reguarding WMDs. To ensure they do this, how do you do it without actually going inside that country? Saddam had been asked nicely by the US, then asked nicely by the UN. Demanded by the UN for a dozen years and then threatened but still nothing. I think that invasion was a means necessary to acheive the cooperation for those terms he neglected to be fulfiled as would any reasonable person given the cooperation he displayed. Yes there is. When they don't comply, you have to arrest them, even if that means going into their house to do so. And, if there is a vicious dog guarding the place, you have to use force. You sure you're not right wing?

This is not a moral argument rather, a legal one and therefore cannot be decided by any other than those qualified to determine it. Orders of the UNSC superceede any charter as that is what it is designed to do - sort out irregularities that occur minute to minute day to day that the charter does not deal with. Basicly, the buck stops there. As for ambiguity, yes there certainly is. So, the US it seems along with their coalition are innocent until proven guilty. In other words, legal until proven illegal. I have had this argument on at least five different forums over the past three years and lost never. Reason is that I always state my position as in order to prove it illegal, first it must be proved to be not legal. Whereas all I have to do is to maintain the staus quo which by the way, only the UNSC can change in a determination. As you know, they have not even tabled the matter nor are they likely to ever. So, you can hypothisize all you want, find all sorts of pony tailed civil rights left wing lawyers who thnk it is illegal to trap off about it but, in the meantime, the matter is not illegal and, because of that, remains legal even if it might be, should be or even IS illegal unless the UNSC determines it. Ya ya and then when they all went down to the bar after for Miller Time the US ambassador says he thinks Iraq is a great country and it would be illegal for them to invade without a second resolution. Needs to be in the resolution, not in a side note as a protest. So it seems, maybe they should have made a better resolution. Like making a law so people can understand it and follow it the way it was intended to do rather than allow people to get through legal loopholes and such.

Many believe that the 'remain seized of the matter' phrase has deep meaning and that there must be a second resolution put forth to trigger action when in fact, this is not so. Of course the UNSC is going to remain seized of the matter. It's their bloody job to be watchful of events in trouble areas. However, they have been known when they plan to act to use terms such as 'remain actively seized' which in this case they did not as they had already set forth the orders in 686 and 687 as well as 1441. UNSC resolutions are not abstract thoughts thrown out on the floor for interpretation and theoretical discussion. Written in plain English, they are executive orders to be acted upon. If the council had to be the ones giving the orders for any of the actions to take place that they have set in motion with this order they would have said something like they would remain ‘actively seized.’ It recalls 678, and even reiterates the ‘member states’ clause. It details what Iraq has to do in order to be in compliance with the cease fire and then, ‘decides to remain seized of the matter.’ The orders given,(Iraq to comply, Member States to use whatever means necessary to ensure they comply) they are now going to keep this agenda on the hot plate like good dignitaries making six and seven figure incomes should. To file it away and forget about it while they go off on vacation would be irresponsible. Hence, they are going to keep their eye on this, or, in plain English UN speak ‘remain seized of the matter.’ You will note that when they are going to take an active part in whatever resolution they make, they use the term ‘actively seized.’ A difference. 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. Joking right? Twelve years of UN resolutions demanding, pressuring, forcing Iraq to comply and then giving them ne final chance and you are saying the UNSC needs to defend themselves? What about Saddam complying throughout those years? Don't take my word for it. Take the leaders and lawyers for every country that belonged to the coalition. Then, take the word of the UNSC who made the resolution giving Iraq that one final opportunity then, blame Blix for saying that the cooperation was not immediate and unconditional thus, triggering an infraction during that one last and final opportunity. Yes, blame Bush and Blair and the other countries who approved 1441 who said the coalition could use whatever means necessary to ensure Iraq complied. Then, try to read your world view into what is defacto. You actually thinkthat Kerry wouldn't have raised the issue as illegal if he had a shred of evidence? Of course he would have as would Rokerfeller but they didn't. Other than that idiot Annan, no world leader has come out to say it was illegal and certainly no quorum of the UNSC, the only body capable to decide that matter.

The reason why Al Queda is so popular in certain countries is because there is no release for dissention among the population. They turn to religion and support groups that call for Pan Arab nationalism which, also calls for the removal of Aposphate leaders. Hardly the support of free thining people rather, it is a movement composed of people already in a mind trap and wishing to expand their reach. The Taliban were terrible at feeding Afganistan but majorly good at controling them. And no, it will not be the end of the world as we know it but it sure will be the end of freedom for almost a third of it. Later, as they use the money they get to buy arms, provide aid to contries that they destroyed the infastructure of they add to their empire as that is the entire idea. I for one like Turkey, Dubai, Kuwait, Indonesia, Pakistan, Lybia and many other countries just the way they are and, while I wouldn't mind seeing more human rights there, know that whatever conservative Wahabbism brings cetainly won't be that. Instead of trading partners, you will find terrorist training and financing grounds. It's kind of like there being a popular movement within the country that is on the verge of being violent. To shut it down is to insite mass protests and possible insurrection. Better to allow it to simmer and bribe the more violent end of it into being quiet. That was their way of dealing with it. As well, when you refer to Wahabbists, I should inform you that the entire country is founded on the Wahabbist cult. The problem lies with the 'conservative Wahabbists' and that is the group that supports Al Queda and the Jihadists. Why would they have to change the way they dealt with the Conservative Wahabbists? Appeasement hd worked for so long and there, it was still working marvelously well for them.

'All necessary means' means anything deemed necessary to get the job done. There is no restrictin on what it means and, is understood by pretty much every human on earth to means force and violence. The action solved the problem of Saddam being in violation of the resolutions. I can also tell you that the first resolution (660) was a mandate to use force for the ceasefire. It was kept alive throughout the twelve years in each resolution and, was even worded out so in 1441 so that Iraq would understand the action could and would occur if they did not comply. Credibility? After twelve years and the same problem in front of them? Don't think htey had much to lose after 99.. Well at least now you agree that it was just that. Have a good night.

Yes, that embargo hurt them pretty bad. More than us. Now, imagine a regime that didn't care about the people selling oil for nukes. Then see who pays and what they do whith those nukes. Something like take over whatever country they feel like similar to Dubai, UAE or whatever. Increasing the finance to Jihadists in Indonesia or Pakistan More weapons to Lebannon's Hezbollah and Hamas. Whenm they become the USA of the Arab world complete with Taliban like morals I can see how this will benifit mankind. No worries though, not our problem, our childred will only end up fighting an entire soldified Taliban like world instead of a group that is fluid and only an ideal by half of the opprssed non democratic and regime led constrained polulace of the Islamic world.

The chances of it happening in Saudi Arabia have diminished vastly due to the hesitant actions of the Royal Family thanks to the pressure placed on them by the US having tanks on the other side of their border instead of being within them inflaming the Wahabbists as a rallying point. Nothing to be afraid of, they just c ut off heads and stone women to death. Quite reasonable compared to the policies of any western government if you are a Left Winger. They won't actually be in physical contact with you or yours for at least ten years if we let them do what they want to do. However, your RRSPs will thunder in and your taxes will skyrocket. Pretty interesting when relgious people control an oil based and global resourse. Stick with it, I'll make you a non right/left free thinker yet.

Of course I rea my own links. You did? I thought you were saying there was no such thing and that guys were not killing people in an attempt to recreate it. Glad you realize that half of Saudi Arabia is supporting Jihadists. The above quote shows that people other than you know about it and are actually willing to accept it. Welcome the Taliban morons. That's what the new Calipahte that you denied was possible or even a vision of Jihadists not even a day's posts ago.

Complex? Every Jihadist believes in the Caliphate. Hardly Shadowy. Half of Saudi Arabia supports it as did Saddam, Kadaffi and many others. The Caliphate is a more religious variation of the Pan Arab thingy. Instead of being an economic and political force, it brings in religion and race along with it. Chomsky, Time Magazine and many others know this. Here are a few links of millions about this subject that to you is 'shadowy.' The Gaurdian Knows About This Shadow So does the BBC So does the Washington Times (albeit through Oli North) New York Sun Oxford Reasearch Group

Your post is correct in that Islam is not inherently violent. However, it is more than cultural and many more than you suspect support the Jihadists without being violent. Jihadists, like most Arabs and Muslims seek to recreate a time when being Muslim was part of an enlightened society. In control and on the edge of philosophy, technology, religion and culture. Religion to Muslims is their entire life and how they live it in day to day activities, not just a Sunday worship thing. The Caliphate is not a pipe dream of a few nutbar individuals. The Pan Arab State has been dreamed of since the Huns destroyed it, the Dutch occupied it, the British used it and the US financed it.

You can't even do that in your own pathetic threads...so why should I humour you in mine...? ....it is enough that now the world knows that non muslims are bent on killing ........ Your point is not valid. You began this thread to show that violence is perpetrated by non Muslims much of the time which is true. However, Jihadists do not create violence out of personal anger but rather a global strategy to further their dream of recreating the Caliphate. A point which many in their hatred of the US and the West refuse to acknowledge as a goal for the Jihadists.

I accept your source. Iraqi Body count is a solid source. Fine. Then we can say that Saddam is responsible for all the violent death in Iraq during his tenure from '78 to 2002 including the million or so killed during the Iran Iraq war and as Amnesty International quotes as three hundred thousand people killed by Saddam's goons directly. The US in 44 months has indirectly (according to you) killed or has let be killed a thousand a month or so. On the other hand, Sadam has caused to be killed the same is over 21 thousand a month. Your point, as is is crap.

It matters not if they were found or there on the day the invsion started. Saddam's responsibility was to first, destroy them and second, to document their destruction for verification to the UNSC. As Blix said, 'it is not a game of catch and catch can.' No. After twoelve years, Saddam was offered a 'final opportunity.' He did not take that seriously and, rather than carry out the continual game for eternity, the US as one of the 'member states' used an action that they were authorized to do in order to 'ensure that Iraq complied' with all the applicable resolutions. Iraq has been confirmed as not inviolation of the resolutions now. You seemed to think it relevent to include in your rant and I felt it just as relevent to tell you that the US invaison has saved hundreds of thousands of live. Not to mention of course, their future offspring from tyranny and murder by Uday and his brother Quasay. It (1441 which is the one I posted) is not the origional Resolution but rather the final one in which Iraq is offered one last chance to come clean or face the consequenses. BTW, they did not come clean as Blix has testified hence the action taken by the member states as they were authorized to do. You know, 'whatever action necessary to ensure Iraq complies' and all. As per your origional question, the legality has noting at all to do with immediate danger and inspections making slow or fast progress rather the one simple fact that Iraq did not comply immediately and uncomditionally period to the final opportunity afforded. Hans Blix verifies this in his March 2002 report. The actions of the Coalition would have been legal had they invaded five years earlier. To examine this in a court of law there would have to be a convining of the UNSC which is the only body able to determine anything to do with this and, to date, not one nation has borught forward a resolution to make this illegal. The US was condemned for the invasion of Panama BTW so to bring forth a motion such as this is normal providing it has merit.

I would like to know your sources for those figures please. The US didn't kill those people. However, if you are going to blame them for it then, let's blame Saddam for the deaths during his tenure - including the Iran war in which over a million people were killed. In any case, the UN blames Saddam for over three hundred thousand deaths of his own countrymen. Far less than the US has been blamed for.

The insprections are making progress to Saddam's tune rather than the UNSC's. Proscribed weapons and activities were never proved to be destroyed and ceased as Saddam was responsible to do. Nice suggestion from Blix however he does not make decisions at the UNSC as he is hired to carry out inspections rather than make policiy. Certain leaders sat for twelve years giving peace a chance for Saddamto comply with the terms of a ceasfire which he did not. Weapons inspectors would have been more than happy to recive documentation from his goverment during that time unfortunately the time had run out in this cat and mouse game he was playing. As for killing tens of thousands of people, the US killed less people than Saddam did on average saving over a hundred thousand lives at least. Saddam was not a parolee. He was in violation of human rights abuses, war reparations, ceafire terms, had not repatriated thousands of foreign nationals and was supposed to prove that he had no WMDs but did none of the above. UNSC Res 1441 And Blix comes back saying the documentation is bogus and the cooperation is not immediate and unconditional. However, you feel that Iraq making an effort of sorts after twelve years on the eve of destruction is encouraging and should be nurtured. Yes, people like you are what kept Saddam from conplying for twelve years. In fact, he counted on it but, sad to say, after 911 the world changed.

None of them have a global movement which operates independently behind them financing them and supporting them. Hells Angels and Triads are into organized crime not attempting to recreate a Middle Ages super state. Knew you were just trash talking as invading Saudi Arabia was never on the table as it would be the absolute worst thing the West could ever do. So much so that there is no equal in sweeping groups such as Al Queda into power. Al Queda is only one group of many that seek the recreation of the Caliphate. Why is it that you discount this pivotal idealology when so many people who have never met each other are all willing to do any and everything including killing themselves to see it realized? As I explained over half of Saudis agree with this Caliphate recreation yet you think it is just a couple of hillbillys with belt bombs. The Caliphate: Islam's Challenge to Global Order?. It goes on to explain how and such. In case you figure this is a nut ball writing it try these other forty three thousand pages of information.