wyly Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Fifty-four forty or fight, in U.S. history, phrase commonly used by extremists in the controversy with Great Britain over the Oregon country. Again, it was a controversy with Britain, not Canada. And it was a phrase used by extremists, not the U.S.. And the territory was "in dispute," so Britain claimed it and the U.S. claimed it. A treaty between the two nations settled the dispute. extremist?? an american who doesn't know american history eeeew..."54 40 or fight" was the slogan James Polk used to get elected President....the Columbia river basin was firmly the administrative control of British Columbia...You do understand the difference between "Fenians" and "the United States," right? The fact taht the president had "many" of them arrested should further clarify that it wasn't the U.S. "attacking Canada."it was a proxy invasion the US government knew the invasion would take place, by not taking a direct role and apprehending raiders after their defeat gave the government plausible denial...Yep. Every other nation waging war right now has "legitimate cause." Only the U.S. doesn't have any legitimate cause. Which means, of course, our allies are justified for their attacks/their involvement; only the U.S. isn't deflection....how many nations attack other nations???? civil wars are internal....in attacks on other nations no other nation can approach the record of the US, the USA is right up there with Nazi Germany... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
waldo Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 No, but seeing the UN opposed Bush's war in iraq, the US never had authority to attack. And since Hussain had nada to do with 9/11, it was an act of agresion. By all accounts, it was an illegal invasion.Please direct me to the UNSC motion that either forbade the US operation or condemned it.Take as much time as you need. The UN Charter is not criminal law. There is ample wiggle room for a country to invoke self defence or pre-emptive defense. If it doesn't pass the political test, then the UNSC will step in...but with the US and the UK sitting on the UNSC as well as those who through self interest would abstain, it was never tables. On top of that, US law which in the end governs the actions of the US mandated the action.As far as Annan went, his opinion conveyed the legal weight of steam. Machjo… don’t sweat it… he can dance, that Dancer! Dancer speaks of “wiggle room” – he challenges you to present the UNSC motion that forbade/condemned the U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. However, one simply needs to take the dance lead away from Dancer and challenge him to present the UNSC resolution that supported the U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq… in kind, as he so smugly stated, give Dancer “as much time as he needs” to produce that supporting UNSC resolution. But don’t say they didn’t try for that UNSC support resolution… cause they (U.S & UK) did… they tried – big time! Who can forget the Colin Powell WMD dog & pony show before the UNSC – pathetically “brilliant”… but all for not! In the end, it was convenient to lay the blame for failing to secure that UNSC support resolution on the threatened French veto; however, in actuality, there was no where near the required 9 out of 15 UNSC member votes to support the “drafted resolution”… only 4 members, the U.S., UK, Spain and Bulgaria, supported it. All the intense lobbying of the UNSC members, the threats, the enticements… none of it worked in securing the required 9 UNSC member votes – go figure! International law provides 3 justifications for the use of force; (1) self-defence, (2) to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe and, (3) a supporting UNSC resolution. Clearly, by international law, none of the 3 justifications for the use of force applied in the case of the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. Whaaa! Then Dancer trots out the Bush Doctrine in all its pre-emptive war eminence… and beaks off about, as he states, “US law which in the end governs the actions of the US mandated the action”. … well, I guess so… rogue nation Bush law trumped international law and the UN, don’t ya know! But wait – there was a new dawn, a new light shining through at the UN yesterday… Obama giving a most refreshing speech before the UN – a speech being widely characterized as “un-Bush like”… "striking a contrast with Bush policies". Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) . However, one simply needs to take the dance lead away from Dancer and challenge him to present the UNSC resolution that supported the U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq… in kind, as he so smugly stated, give Dancer “as much time as he needs” to produce that supporting UNSC resolution. The UNSC resolution that aiuthorized force against Iraq? How simple is that? Shall we start with resolution 1441? Work your way backwards from there. All that being said, there doesn't need to be a UNSC resolution to authorize force once the UN charter's right to self defense is invoked. Edited September 24, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Army Guy Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Waldo: shape... of course... is relative - is subjective.what's the reference used, the reference needed... to determine that relative, subjective - "shape"? what's the military role... your military role... for Canada to play, both domestically and internationally? Those are good questions ? sorry for the delay but i needed some time to do some research, that and i was in the field doing some training... The references used are the taskings that has been assigned the military by our very government and the people of Canada, those taskings are listed below in the offical statements of our role....and what is expected of our military... To get an idea of our current SHAPE read the same link which also lists the number of personal used to complete those tasks and there location within our country....you'll quickly come to the conclusion that there simply not enough pers, or equipment to complete all or most of them... * Note At the top of the link it provides the total number of pers within Mobile command or the Army componet of the forces, these numbers are somewhat confusing , for one if you where to add up all thenumbers in each Area, IE west central, Quebec, and atlantic areas you'll find there are approx half that number available in Combat units.... Where they get the total number is from what we call purple trades ie support trades wearing the army uniform which are scattered across the forces, ie Navy, Airforce, Artic Rangers. the true number is less than half those numbers, with the exception of the reserve numbers which are pretty close.... What does this mean it means that the Army componet of the military really only has between 18 to 20 k reg force pers with 18 to 20 k res pers to carry out the bulk of those tasks assigned our military....and our combat componet, or fighting troops is only a third of that which includes Inf, Armour, Atry, Cbt Engs....the Inf componet or the guys that take ground and holds it is a third of that number and that is being very generous.... to give that some context lets take a look at hurricane katrina, where some 40 to 60 k US army pers where deployed and we all know how that turned out, experts have quoted that they needed double that to effectively handle that turn of events. the Small Ice storm a few years back in Que,Ont and NB not only used all available army units within Canada but also dipped heavily into the Airforce and Navy numbers as well...and this was a small turn of events when compared to katrina....and this is only one tasking we are assigned with.... Role and Deployment TOP The Canadian Army is tasked to generate and maintain modern, combat capable, multi-purpose land forces to meet Canada's defence policy objectives. According to the 2005 Defence Policy Statement the following objectives fall under the army's overall responsibilities: Protecting Canada and Canadians: This objective aims to deter potential threats to and defending Canadian territory, the upholding of Canadian sovereignty and provision of military support to civil authorities. The emphasis is on readiness for natural disasters, civil emergencies and terrorist incidents. Defending North America: This objective calls for defence of the North American continent in co-operation with the military forces of the US in accordance with standing continental Canada-US Basic Security Plan. Contributing to International Peace and Security: This objective calls for participation in multilateral land or joint operations anywhere in the world under the auspices of the UN or NATO, or as part of a bilateral or multilateral coalition. There are also provisions for the army to participate in humanitarian aid and relief efforts, restoration of stability, or participation in arms control and other confidence building measures. Specific land forces planning objectives include providing trained and equipped units, personnel and assets to Canadian Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM), Canadian Expeditionary Force Command (CEFCOM), Canada Command (Canada COM) and Canadian Operational Support Command (CANOSCOM). In terms of capacity, this translates into deploying and sustaining indefinitely two land task forces in two different theatres of operation, while providing a smaller, third task force to reinforce an ongoing mission or to provide a short-term contingency deployment. Other objectives include enhancing capacity to respond to domestic emergencies such as a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear (CBRN) attack and supporting sovereignty and security operations in the Arctic. Role ? In that relative sense, with Canada having apparent difficulty, today, putting together an effective troop deployment of... what... 2500 (or so) troops, what ambitions do you foster with your "getting in shape" expression? Do you hearken for the days of sending double that troop deployment number?... triple sized?... perhaps a 10,000 troop deployment capability into the world's next shithole? I get the impresion that you think 2500 soldiers is a large number, to put that into contect even the Taliban are able to muster 3 to 4 times that number, and they are not a G-8 country, in fact they are not even a country....So the ability to deploy 10,000 soldiers for a long period of time is not so unrealistic....But currently while we are able to handle 2 to 3 k troops it leaves our other tasks very short, of everything.... What's your pie-in-the sky monetary projection to be able to actually handle internal domestic requirements coupled with presumptions of grandeur incursions into foreign lands? How much... to get in shape... and more significantly... to maintain that shape, renewed - year in, year out..... for a country of 33 million? How much, for "shape"? So what does shape look like currently shape looks like 70 k reg force pers and 30 k res force pers still well below our numbers to do all the tasks assigned....other military experts has suggested that our numbers grow to 100k reg force pers and 40 to 50 k res force pers...i think once you compare those numbers with other western world contries and the size of our nation you'll find they are not so large after all...For a country of 33 million, there is more cops in toronto, than ground forces in our military...I'd say that is a problem....when ones nations military could fit into the home of the toronto maple leafs and still have thousands of seats left over theres a problem.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Some folks have clearly thought this out. It is true that the situation relative to international law almost precludes the existence of a standing army under the control of the United Nations. Perhaps the way around this is for one nation to offer its military to the UN. I would suggest that the idea of wearing "blue" get forgotten in a hurry. Quote
Army Guy Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) A better question would be, what is your expectation? Whatever it is, he is stuck with trying to make it work with what you give him. Don't dodge it, his question was apt. What do people who want to expand the military want? The ability to defend our sovereignty? To project force abroad? I think it's a good question one that needs to be answered as well , we after all live in a coutry where the peoples vioce is some what heard and acted upon....it will also go along way into seeing just how much the people of Canada understand what our military does and what it needs to do the tasks assigned. Well, considering the first question, the defence of sovereignty, considering our neighbours (Russia and the US), the notion that Canada could raise a force being able to defend our borders from something like that is absolutely ridiculous. Canada simply doesn't have the population. As for projecting force, Canada can already do that. Again, if people's notion of projecting force is fighters, tanks, artillery we've already got that. If you want Canada to deploy forces in the 10s of thousands, again, people have been sniffing glue. It's not about matching anyones military size, it's about meeting our defense requirements here in Canada, and meeting all those defense agreements our nation has signed.... As for projecting force i think you don't understand the true meaning of force prjection, our militayr does not have the means to project force for any length of time, and it has very limited means of putting boots on the ground.... The equipment we have now or the bulk of it is worn out, outdated, or is very limited in numbers.... No one argues that the forces DON'T need an upgrade, but people who think it should be more than a small, able, rapid reaction force in times of world peace need to define what they think their military should be. People can't just say, "it's not enough" and not come up with any solutions. People who do that merely use the soldiers as a political tool to win a debate which is just as bad in my opinion as not funding them at all. The miltary has already outlined in detail all of the tasks we are assigned, they also outlined in detailed what our shortfalls are , our current state the list of critical shortfalls have fallen on deaf ears for more than 20 years now and now this list far exceeds the matter of a few bil dollar fix but rather well into the 100's of bils to just maintain our current levels which is little more than 62 k troops in all 3 elements..... Edited September 24, 2009 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Smallc: How can brand new equipment (the Husky, etc) be semi modern? We've bought a great deal of brand new equipment since entering Afghanistan, and even you have to admit that. We weren't prepared when we got there, and things aren't perfect yet, but they're certainly a great deal better. The husky is not brand new it was orginally purchased in 1976, and those 27 we bought have just come out of life extension projects some 3 or 4 years ago, and are being slowly replaced with a new reworked Bisson MMV repair vehs....but even they are out dated when compared to whats available today.... Alot of equipment has been purchased, in limited qty's, for Afghan mission, one that is under Combat conditions, conditions that burn equipment out at 10 times the rate....so even if the mission ended today that equipemtn we would have not enough of and what we did have would be close to burn out.... How many do you want? There is so much new and upgraded equipment on order, I'm not sure how the country can afford much more. We're already spending $20B (more including procurements) per year. There's only so much money. I'll use the example of LAV III currently there is only enough Lav to outfit one maybe 2 companies with each BN, there is min of 3 companies per bn, plus a combat support company, leaving a shortfall of 2 companies per bn with 9 Inf bn's in the forces thats a short fall of 18 companies worth of vehs....not mentioning the LAV's used in Tank units which have no tanks so are using LAV's plus Cbt eng units, Arty units ....i think you get the piont . this is just LAV's....the CV-90 are being purchased for the 1 Brigade , which have still the old leopards...which leaves the rest of the army short on hvy assault veh's ...now if they deploy these vehs to say an Afghan type mission this brig will also be short .... I know there is only enough money....which is why it is imperative that during cuts that that cash flow continues as it does add up as we are seeing now we are well behind the bubble... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Smallc Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 The husky is not brand new it was orginally purchased in 1976, Wrong Husky Army Guy. The Husky mine clearing system was designed in the 70s, but we just bought new ones. As for the equipment being burnt out, well, most of it is already scheduled for replacement at the end with the new vehicle program. Also, I was under the impression that it was currently only the new leased leopards being used in Afghanistan. Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Wrong Husky Army Guy. The Husky mine clearing system was designed in the 70s, but we just bought new ones. AG is correct. The Husky has been with the SF since the early 80s. I rode in and trained with its variant, the grizzly. It's a recovery vehicle, nothing more. The fact that there are buying more is not bad, but not something that ranks as big news Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Wrong Husky Army Guy. The Husky mine clearing system was designed in the 70s, but we just bought new ones. Is it this husky? http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/eq....asp?product=62 or another? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Army Guy Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Wrong Husky Army Guy. The Husky mine clearing system was designed in the 70s, but we just bought new ones. I stand corrected hard to keep all the Eng equipment straight ... Also, I was under the impression that it was currently only the new leased leopards being used in Afghanistan Yes But the A6 are only available in Afghan....we still have not fielded any Leo II A4 yet, still using the C4 versions....the orginal 20 we leased are almost toast, hence why they are building up some of those A4 we purchased to A6 standards for replacements....thats on top of the 20 we still owe Germany for the lease.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Smallc Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Is it this husky?http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/eq....asp?product=62 or another? Another. http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_mrap_husky.php Quote
Smallc Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Yes But the A6 are only available in Afghan....we still have not fielded any Leo II A4 yet, still using the C4 versions....the orginal 20 we leased are almost toast, hence why they are building up some of those A4 we purchased to A6 standards for replacements....thats on top of the 20 we still owe Germany for the lease.... Yes, that sounds about right. The IIs on lease will have to go through a refit when they return, and after that we should have 40 2A6, a decent number of 2A4+ and some 2A4 units for training only. Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Another. http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_mrap_husky.php I can't find it listed in our inventory. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Argus Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Wrong Husky Army Guy. The Husky mine clearing system was designed in the 70s, but we just bought new ones. As for the equipment being burnt out, well, most of it is already scheduled for replacement at the end with the new vehicle program. Also, I was under the impression that it was currently only the new leased leopards being used in Afghanistan. Nice of you to focus on one single piece of eq and ignore everything else he's said. Tell me again why the Americans can afford 20,000 vehicles but we can only field 200? Last time I looked they weren't 100 times our size. And why we can't afford enough LAVs to equip our present tiny army? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Machjo… don’t sweat it… he can dance, that Dancer!Dancer speaks of “wiggle room” – he challenges you to present the UNSC motion that forbade/condemned the U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. However, one simply needs to take the dance lead away from Dancer and challenge him to present the UNSC resolution that supported the U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq… in kind, as he so smugly stated, give Dancer “as much time as he needs” to produce that supporting UNSC resolution. But don’t say they didn’t try for that UNSC support resolution… cause they (U.S & UK) did… they tried – big time! Who can forget the Colin Powell WMD dog & pony show before the UNSC – pathetically “brilliant”… but all for not! In the end, it was convenient to lay the blame for failing to secure that UNSC support resolution on the threatened French veto; however, in actuality, there was no where near the required 9 out of 15 UNSC member votes to support the “drafted resolution”… only 4 members, the U.S., UK, Spain and Bulgaria, supported it. All the intense lobbying of the UNSC members, the threats, the enticements… none of it worked in securing the required 9 UNSC member votes – go figure! International law provides 3 justifications for the use of force; (1) self-defence, (2) to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe and, (3) a supporting UNSC resolution. Clearly, by international law, none of the 3 justifications for the use of force applied in the case of the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. Whaaa! Then Dancer trots out the Bush Doctrine in all its pre-emptive war eminence… and beaks off about, as he states, “US law which in the end governs the actions of the US mandated the action”. … well, I guess so… rogue nation Bush law trumped international law and the UN, don’t ya know! But wait – there was a new dawn, a new light shining through at the UN yesterday… Obama giving a most refreshing speech before the UN – a speech being widely characterized as “un-Bush like”… "striking a contrast with Bush policies". The UNSC resolution that aiuthorized force against Iraq?How simple is that? Shall we start with resolution 1441? Work your way backwards from there. Simple? Yes, if you’re fabricating nonsense, it’s very simple. UN Resolution 1441, absolutely, did NOT authorize force against Iraq… and you can work your way back through as many other UN Resolutions as you’d like. No UN Resolutions exist to provide a justification for the use of force against Iraq, circa 2002 forward… to support the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Dancer, do you think you won’t be called on your BS? There was a long arduous process to gain an acceptance to Resolution 1441… much of the concerns raised during that process had to do with ensuring the language of Resolution 1441 did NOT, in fact, authorize force against Iraq. United Nations Security Council – Resolution 1441 (2002) Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security In the meeting to vote on the draft U.S./UK resolution, both U.S. and UK Ambassadors to the UN formalized the raised UNSC member concerns to the use of force and both Ambassadors acted to negate said concerns by reinforcing that the Resolution 1441 did NOT provide the language to authorize force against Iraq; specifically: As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have just adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. No Dancer… yours is a false assertion - the UN did NOT authorize force against Iraq… UNSC Resolution 1441 did NOT authorize/legitimize the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. I previously relayed details/aspects of the subsequent failed U.S./UK initiative to gain that final definitive UNSC Resolution to authorize force... the initiative that did not gain UNSC support. No authorizing UNSC Resolution Dancer! Dance Dancer, dance! Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 No authorizing UNSC Resolution Dancer! Dance Dancer, dance! Your case of tourettes and unlearned opinion notwithstanding.... On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, as declared by Resolution 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq new opportunities for compliance, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq (see 2003 invasion of Iraq). The USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nation...n_of_resolution Keep trying... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 ...the initiative that did not gain UNSC support. Correct, aside from 1441. No further discussion was needed, and given that there was no further resolutions regarding it, none were particulary wanted. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
waldo Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Correct, aside from 1441. No further discussion was needed, and given that there was no further resolutions regarding it, none were particulary wanted. LOL - are you saying the U.S. and UK Ambassadors to the UN lied in their statements given before the UNSC meeting... the meeting where Resolution 1441 was voted on? Are you saying the U.S./UK lied to the other UNSC members to secure their votes for Resolution 1441? As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have just adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. Dancer, were these U.S./UK lies? Dance Dancer, Dance! Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Dancer, were these U.S./UK lies? Dance Dancer, Dance! You should really have that stutter checked out. No then didn't lie. There were no hidden triggers...everyone knew (except you apparently) that the consequence and the action was imminent. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
waldo Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 No then didn't lie. There were no hidden triggers...everyone knew (except you apparently) that the consequence and the action was imminent. everyone knew? If "everyone knew": - then why all the discussion and raised concerns about force within the language of Resolution 1441? If "everyone knew": - then why does paragraph 12 exist within Resolution 1441? If "everyone knew": - then why the explicit language by Negroponte & Greenstock... language intended to secure UNSC member votes by specifically stating that Resolution 1441 carried no "automaticity" and no "hidden triggers" with respect to force? If "everyone knew": - then why the return back to the UNSC (per paragraph 12 of Resolution 1441) to attempt to secure the actual Resolution to authorize force? If "everyone knew": - what exactly was the intent of the failed draft U.S./UK Resolution... the resolution that failed to garner the required UNSC member support to actually authorize force against Iraq? If "everyone knew"... what was the need for this failed draft U.S./UK Resolution..... if "everyone knew"? Exactly who was the "everyone" in your "everyone knew" dance, Dancer? So, again... your assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution. Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 So, again... your assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution. Sure there was..resolution 1441, section 13 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; I would say invading was serious, and authorized. No further resolution was needed. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 - then why the explicit language by Negroponte & Greenstock... language intended to secure UNSC member votes by specifically stating that Resolution 1441 carried no "automaticity" and no "hidden triggers" with respect to force? If "everyone knew": Are you trying to say (a)the US and the UK didn't go back to council and raise the issue, as requested in the resolution, or are you saying (b)they needed a new resolution? If "b", plese find for me in 1441 were a new resolution is required. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Guest American Woman Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) extremist?? an american who doesn't know american history eeeew..."54 40 or fight" was the slogan James Polk used to get elected President....the Columbia river basin was firmly the administrative control of British Columbia... Eeewww... a Canadian who thinks an American doesn't know American history. Yes, It was the slogan of a presidential candidate. Evidently you don't realize "presidential candidates slogans" don't 'speak for the U.S.' Furthermore, that was just one of his campaign slogans. He "used" others to "get elected" ... by a narrow margin. Now if you think any slogan a PM uses in his campaign "speaks" for "Canada," so be it, but that's not how things work here in the States. it was a proxy invasion the US government knew the invasion would take place, by not taking a direct role and apprehending raiders after their defeat gave the government plausible denial... Ohhhh, I see. "Plausible denial." If you say so. deflection....how many nations attack other nations???? civil wars are internal....in attacks on other nations no other nation can approach the record of the US, the USA is right up there with Nazi Germany... Really? No other nation can approach the record of the US? And the US is right up there with Nazi Germany? And you accuse ME of not knowing history. Methinks you are in dire need of some history classes. Edited to add: the Columbia river basin was firmly the administrative control of British Columbia... Let's say this is true, just for argument's sake. How do you think British Columbia got "control" over that area? You think it was unoccupied before it became "British Columbia?" Or is "the US attacking Canada" worse than "Canada attacking First Nations people?" Because I'm thinking the First Nations tribes weren't greeting you with open arms and the deed to their land. Edited September 24, 2009 by American Woman Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 .....So, again... your assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution. No, his assertion is true. The dog and poney show for a "new" UNSC resolution was interesting but irrelevant, even as US/UK troops went for an extended camping trip in Kuwait (breaking the log jam on mere inspection and declaration compliance). The invasion was "legal" based on surrender instruments, and more importantly, did not invoke UNSC action or General Assembly resolutions condemning same and demanding immediate cessation of "hostilities". Smells like......Kosovo! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.