Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 73

Thread: Golan Heights move UN headquarters

  1. #31
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,454
    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Question: Was there any point in time where the US proclaimed the mission to eliminate Assad's CW's had been successfully completed?
    No. If you can make pesticides, you can make biochems and Syria has more than one pesticide factory.

  2. #32
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    This is one of many sites that present contrary evidence on Assad's use of CW's.

    https://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-...-people-801542

  3. #33
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,454
    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    I disagree. There is at least as much contrary evidence being found that there was no use of chemical weapons at the site of the US bombing.
    There were four targets. Which one are you talking about? The targets on the base were weapons delivery and has been identified as chemical weapons delivery. The chems may be removed but the special facilities needed to house and to deliver them were destroy. Assad may still have the chems but his abilities to deliver were serverely compromised.

    As for the pesticide factory. Yes, you will find chem traces no matter who says what.

    As for proof, could we 100% verify that Assad did use chems? No but this is not a court of law. It is the best decision possible based on the best intel available. The intel was we have over 100 bodies with zero visible trauma and pale white skin and Syrian helicopters delivering cannister munitions with non-lethal explosive force. The delivery took days which is consistent with required chemical weapons operations and the resulting effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Yes, CW's can be termed as the poor man's nukes or WMD's which is a more popular term. In my opinion they are neither and haven't been used to any great effect in modern warfare. Iraq's use of CW's being a possible exception, which has been hotly debated by Stephen Pelletiere. My main point being on your suggestion being that it's essential in any demonization of the enemy to place some significant weapon in his hands. Iraq was the exampe of that effort, which was later proven to be false.
    Have no idea of what you're trying to say but let's be clear. It was Saddam who convinced us he had large stockpiles of chems readied to be used. He even issued weapons released orders to his generals. We only learn after the war that his generals had no clue what he was talking about. Do not place blame when we chosed to believe the man's words that he had chems.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    I would agree. But there is every reason to believe that Assad would be very pleased to have the conditions imposed on him, and have every reason to comply and recieve the US blessing on the deal being completed. The use of chem/bio weapons is firmly condemned by all countries, even though there is always the possibility of the condemnation bein only words to that effect. And of course the ability to avoid the condemnation far outweighs the value of using chem/bio weapons in any way that can be proven beyond any doubt.
    Are we talking about same Assad here? The man who had no qualms about allying with ISIS?

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Assad would have been walking into an obvious trap if he resorted to the use of chem/bio weapons. They are as you suggest, the poor man's weapon and are much more likely to be used by terrorist/freedom fighter entities, as opposed to being used by any state.
    You're looking at this as a Canadian and not as a Syrian. Saddam's chems scared the Iranians shittless into stopping the Iran-Iraq War. The same is true in the areas that Assad chemed. His enemies are running away.

    Reports of chem use is still continuing. Trump's lesson to Assad is not do not use chems. It's don't get obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Thank you for your comments. But I'm more interested in your views on whether Obama knew that his red line speech would be so devastating for his country's future plans in the ME. or he unwittingly and stupidly walked into the trap that was being set by Putin/Assad?
    Obama was a moral coward. I have absolutely zero problems with his red line. He decided that Assad's usage of chems was intolerable. I would have questioned is it our place but he's the Head Hancho. He wanted and got handed the tough job. Those are the tough decisions that come with the job. He thought the red line was the right decision and I can understand his decision.

    However, when the Brits backed out from joining the strike and the lack of Congressional Support is when he cowarded out. If it was the right moral decision with popular support, why is it the wrong moral decision without popular support. Morality is not popularity. I don't know anything about a Putin/Assad trap. Frankly, I believe Putin saw an oppertunity and seized it.

  4. #34
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    There were four targets. Which one are you talking about? The targets on the base were weapons delivery and has been identified as chemical weapons delivery. The chems may be removed but the special facilities needed to house and to deliver them were destroy. Assad may still have the chems but his abilities to deliver were serverely compromised.

    As for the pesticide factory. Yes, you will find chem traces no matter who says what.

    As for proof, could we 100% verify that Assad did use chems? No but this is not a court of law. It is the best decision possible based on the best intel available. The intel was we have over 100 bodies with zero visible trauma and pale white skin and Syrian helicopters delivering cannister munitions with non-lethal explosive force. The delivery took days which is consistent with required chemical weapons operations and the resulting effect.

    Have no idea of what you're trying to say but let's be clear. It was Saddam who convinced us he had large stockpiles of chems readied to be used. He even issued weapons released orders to his generals. We only learn after the war that his generals had no clue what he was talking about. Do not place blame when we chosed to believe the man's words that he had chems.

    Are we talking about same Assad here? The man who had no qualms about allying with ISIS?

    You're looking at this as a Canadian and not as a Syrian. Saddam's chems scared the Iranians shittless into stopping the Iran-Iraq War. The same is true in the areas that Assad chemed. His enemies are running away.

    Reports of chem use is still continuing. Trump's lesson to Assad is not do not use chems. It's don't get obvious.

    Obama was a moral coward. I have absolutely zero problems with his red line. He decided that Assad's usage of chems was intolerable. I would have questioned is it our place but he's the Head Hancho. He wanted and got handed the tough job. Those are the tough decisions that come with the job. He thought the red line was the right decision and I can understand his decision.

    However, when the Brits backed out from joining the strike and the lack of Congressional Support is when he cowarded out. If it was the right moral decision with popular support, why is it the wrong moral decision without popular support. Morality is not popularity. I don't know anything about a Putin/Assad trap. Frankly, I believe Putin saw an oppertunity and seized it.
    Lots of meat in that reply but not enough time right now. I'll get back to it later. But just to preview some of my comments, I'll be referring to the evidence of the White Helmets faking of a chemical attack. (s)

  5. #35
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,454
    That was considered and evaluated to be unlikely. Again, best decision possible based on the best intel available.

    The Battle Area was judged too big for the Syrian rebels to cover. Their meagar facilities could not possibly hope to produce that much chems to cover this area. For the number of bodies involved and their production capacity, the victims would have been gathered up and put into a single room to be gassed. The disappearance of so many families from an area would have been noticed as they would have to be put onto trucks. Those same trucks would have to bring the bodies back.

    This would have been noticed by our satellites.

    To give you context, this chemical attack lasted 5-6 days. That is how long it took to deliver the quantity needed to produce such casualties in such an area. The intel of Syrian helicopters delivering non-lethal explosive canisters matches this timeline.

    Could the rebels have done it? Yeah, they could but that doesn't explain Syrian helicopters and non-lethal cannisters. Why do you risk such expensive assets if you're not there to kill the enemy? The answer was of course, they were there to kill the enemy.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 02 Apr 19, at 21:11.

  6. #36
    Regular m a x's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Sep 12
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    The UNSCRs for all practical reasons are nothing more than toilet paper
    The United Nations Security Council Resolutions are the International Law. Surely, in any social setting there are certain elements ready to wipe their asses with the Law

  7. #37
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,454
    Quote Originally Posted by m a x View Post
    The United Nations Security Council Resolutions are the International Law. Surely, in any social setting there are certain elements ready to wipe their asses with the Law
    Yeah? How's the Golan Heights working out?

  8. #38
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    First off, on my question on Syria's chem weapons being destroyed, I'm of the opinion it was accepted as being done.
    https://www.france24.com/en/20180414...a-france-idlib

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    There were four targets. Which one are you talking about? The targets on the base were weapons delivery and has been identified as chemical weapons delivery. The chems may be removed but the special facilities needed to house and to deliver them were destroy. Assad may still have the chems but his abilities to deliver were serverely compromised.
    We can talk about any allegation you choose.

    As for the pesticide factory. Yes, you will find chem traces no matter who says what.
    Saying something is factually true does not make it so. Producing evidence can strengthen your case but then you'll have my evidence to the contrary to deal with. In this case where you expect me to take the US/Nato word for it, I don't feel compelled to say anything more than it's not true. This is something we can both pursue further with evidence if you think there's some value in doing that.

    As for proof, could we 100% verify that Assad did use chems? No but this is not a court of law. It is the best decision possible based on the best intel available. The intel was we have over 100 bodies with zero visible trauma and pale white skin and Syrian helicopters delivering cannister munitions with non-lethal explosive force. The delivery took days which is consistent with required chemical weapons operations and the resulting effect.
    At best it's the opinion of the US/Nato. And this is not the level of debate to which I am accustomed.

    Have no idea of what you're trying to say but let's be clear. It was Saddam who convinced us he had large stockpiles of chems readied to be used. He even issued weapons released orders to his generals. We only learn after the war that his generals had no clue what he was talking about. Do not place blame when we chosed to believe the man's words that he had chems.
    The US/Nato has no more legal or moral right to attack on the basis of what Saddam 'said' than another nation would have a right to attack the US on the basis of the US possessing the largest chem/bio stockpile of weapons in the entire world. This last ditch effort to lay blame on Iraq is in my opinion the equvalent to suggesting the the people of Iraq deliberately went out and stood under US/Nato bombs.

    Are we talking about same Assad here? The man who had no qualms about allying with ISIS?
    Indeed! Former US allies morphed into a different identity from the terrorisst who were America's friends when the S.U. attempted to own Afghanistan. The US/Nato fight in Syria is not concentrated on ISIS/ISIL, it is concentrated on Assad.

    You're looking at this as a Canadian and not as a Syrian. Saddam's chems scared the Iranians shittless into stopping the Iran-Iraq War. The same is true in the areas that Assad chemed. His enemies are running away.
    I'll just repeat that Assad didn't 'chem' his enemies and I'll leave it to you to put your accusation into some context of time.

    Reports of chem use is still continuing. Trump's lesson to Assad is not do not use chems. It's don't get obvious.
    I'm interested in your theory on Trump secretly ignoring chem weapons use by Assad. But I'm far, far from accepting it without something to back it up. I won't say it's not possible but I'll say it's highly unlikely to be true. Nevertheless?

    Obama was a moral coward. I have absolutely zero problems with his red line. He decided that Assad's usage of chems was intolerable. I would have questioned is it our place but he's the Head Hancho. He wanted and got handed the tough job. Those are the tough decisions that come with the job. He thought the red line was the right decision and I can understand his decision.
    You've neither denied or accepted by theory on Obama being complicit in planning with Putin to cut the US/Nato plans for war on Syria, off at the knees. And yes, Obama must have seen the red line decision as the right decision, and then celebrated his victory of preventing the impending war on Syria. And so once again, where do you really stand on the compelling reason for peace that Obama and Putin created and accomplished.

    However, when the Brits backed out from joining the strike and the lack of Congressional Support is when he cowarded out. If it was the right moral decision with popular support, why is it the wrong moral decision without popular support. Morality is not popularity. I don't know anything about a Putin/Assad trap. Frankly, I believe Putin saw an oppertunity and seized it.[/QUOTE]

    I'm totally convinced that Putin saw an opportunity and pounced upon it. But that speaks nothing to my allegations on Obama presenting his 'red line' speech specifically meaning for Assad and Putin to gleefully accept Obama's demands. And then of course the huge gravity of the outcome in which Russia was enabled and justified to enter Syria and set up his tents permanently.

  9. #39
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    That was considered and evaluated to be unlikely. Again, best decision possible based on the best intel available.

    The Battle Area was judged too big for the Syrian rebels to cover. Their meagar facilities could not possibly hope to produce that much chems to cover this area. For the number of bodies involved and their production capacity, the victims would have been gathered up and put into a single room to be gassed. The disappearance of so many families from an area would have been noticed as they would have to be put onto trucks. Those same trucks would have to bring the bodies back.

    This would have been noticed by our satellites.

    To give you context, this chemical attack lasted 5-6 days. That is how long it took to deliver the quantity needed to produce such casualties in such an area. The intel of Syrian helicopters delivering non-lethal explosive canisters matches this timeline.

    Could the rebels have done it? Yeah, they could but that doesn't explain Syrian helicopters and non-lethal cannisters. Why do you risk such expensive assets if you're not there to kill the enemy? The answer was of course, they were there to kill the enemy.
    A photo or ten hovering over some unknown village can't be considered evidence of a chemical attack. And the high probablility that Assad would be solidly condemned by the entire world if he resorted to chem/bio weapons use, makes it unlikely.

    the deal that was arranged to eliminate Assad's chem/bio weapons would have been hugely positive in his best interests. The WMD justification that was used for the US/Nato phony war against Iraq was immediately eliminated for Syria. And thusly, Syria's future was changed and it's very likely that the Russia presense is forever.

    Assad used barrel bombs against his own people. Oy vey the humanity!!
    What the hell is a barrel bomb? An oil barrel full of scrap steel and dynamite?
    Last edited by montgomery; 03 Apr 19, at 02:02.

  10. #40
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,454
    And here I thought you would get behind some real facts and now you spout out the old propaganda.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    First off, on my question on Syria's chem weapons being destroyed, I'm of the opinion it was accepted as being done.
    https://www.france24.com/en/20180414...a-france-idlib
    The mission objectives were achieved. Eliminating Assad's chemical manufacturing was never the mission objective. The targets were destroyed. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    We can talk about any allegation you choose.
    I just did. All of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Saying something is factually true does not make it so. Producing evidence can strengthen your case but then you'll have my evidence to the contrary to deal with. In this case where you expect me to take the US/Nato word for it, I don't feel compelled to say anything more than it's not true. This is something we can both pursue further with evidence if you think there's some value in doing that.
    It's a pesticide factory. What's in a pesticide factory? Poison.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    At best it's the opinion of the US/Nato.
    First off, NATO is not involved and 2nd, it is actionable intel, not an opinion. An opinion is something you write up.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    And this is not the level of debate to which I am accustomed.
    You're in a military dominated forum. We do not go by hearsay.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    The US/Nato has no more legal or moral right to attack on the basis of what Saddam 'said' than another nation would have a right to attack the US on the basis of the US possessing the largest chem/bio stockpile of weapons in the entire world.
    Again, it is not NATO. Unless you have the correct facts on the ground, your posts are complete nonsense. You're posting things you want them to be instead of what they are.

    And yes, the US DID HAVE THAT LEGAL RIGHT. It's called the Terms of Surrender signed by Iraq after the Kuwait War. Saddam's words violated those terms which automatically return Iraq to a state of war.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    This last ditch effort to lay blame on Iraq is in my opinion the equvalent to suggesting the the people of Iraq deliberately went out and stood under US/Nato bombs.
    Again, NOT NATO. As for the people of Iraq. Yes, they did. It's friggin war. What did you expect? The targets are in the cities and cities have people.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Indeed! Former US allies morphed into a different identity from the terrorisst who were America's friends when the S.U. attempted to own Afghanistan. The US/Nato fight in Syria is not concentrated on ISIS/ISIL, it is concentrated on Assad.
    Yes, you got that right. We bombed the shit out of a Russian thrust against our lines.

    Know what? The rest is bullshit. None of it matches the facts on the ground and the intel picture that was presented. You have absolutely no clue on how we read facts. Yes, a photo of a helo tells us a million things you can't see including munitions and range and the units involved.

    Putin is in Moscow. I think he goes barefeet when he does Judo. You can kiss his feet then.

  11. #41
    Regular m a x's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Sep 12
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Yeah? How's the Golan Heights working out?
    Quote: „the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect“ -- https://undocs.org/S/RES/497(1981) . Adopted unanimously. You can print it on your toilet paper, but this is not soft law. For all practical reasons it is meant to guarantee peace and security. I know there are people who oppose

  12. #42
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,454
    Quote Originally Posted by m a x View Post
    Quote: „the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect“ -- https://undocs.org/S/RES/497(1981) . Adopted unanimously. You can print it on your toilet paper, but this is not soft law. For all practical reasons it is meant to guarantee peace and security. I know there are people who oppose
    Here's the thing about UNSCR. All laws written says what happens if you don't obey, ie a penalty. There are NO PENALTIES listed. The UNSC made sure of that. If you want to FORCE the country to comply or even PUNISH the country for not complying, you need another UNSCR and that's when the veto comes in. Yes, there's a UNSCR saying Israel should give up the Golan Heights BUT THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES if she does not.

    Toilet Paper.

    Even UNSCR 1441, the one the US used to invade Iraq. All it really said was Iraq to comply or else. The US used that or else as legal justification after failing to get a detailed UNSCR.

  13. #43
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    And here I thought you would get behind some real facts and now you spout out the old propaganda.

    The mission objectives were achieved. Eliminating Assad's chemical manufacturing was never the mission objective. The targets were destroyed. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    I just did. All of them.

    It's a pesticide factory. What's in a pesticide factory? Poison.

    First off, NATO is not involved and 2nd, it is actionable intel, not an opinion. An opinion is something you write up.

    You're in a military dominated forum. We do not go by hearsay.

    Again, it is not NATO. Unless you have the correct facts on the ground, your posts are complete nonsense. You're posting things you want them to be instead of what they are.

    And yes, the US DID HAVE THAT LEGAL RIGHT. It's called the Terms of Surrender signed by Iraq after the Kuwait War. Saddam's words violated those terms which automatically return Iraq to a state of war.

    Again, NOT NATO. As for the people of Iraq. Yes, they did. It's friggin war. What did you expect? The targets are in the cities and cities have people.

    Yes, you got that right. We bombed the shit out of a Russian thrust against our lines.

    Know what? The rest is bullshit. None of it matches the facts on the ground and the intel picture that was presented. You have absolutely no clue on how we read facts. Yes, a photo of a helo tells us a million things you can't see including munitions and range and the units involved.

    Putin is in Moscow. I think he goes barefeet when he does Judo. You can kiss his feet then.
    I completely understand your position and the reason why you are opposed to debating on a civil level, and rather you dictate your opinions to me as having to be the truth and the final word. The military mind is directed, starting way back at basic training to accept orders unconditionally as those orders are passed down through the ranks from the top. In the case of the US, the orders originate at the Pentagon, the source, and are based on political decisions. And in the case of Canada's military, decisions of consequence are passed over the border to those with military authority.

    Nothing I suggest to you can be accepted if it differs from that which you have accepted from the source. If you are incapable of finally accepting the sad truth of US illegal and unwarranted aggression against Iraq then you remain in the very small % of people who are stuck in the fringe with denial.

    And for that reason I'm not going to waste anymore time on debating your notions of the truth which are set in stone. Present something in detail in a polite way without:

    The rest is bullshit.
    You're posting things you want them to be instead of what they are.
    Putin is in Moscow. I think he goes barefeet when he does Judo. You can kiss his feet then.
    Fact: The Gulf War against Iraq was promoted for false reasons and it's no coincidence that it coincided with the fall of the Soviet Union so closely. It was the start of US aggression that was intended to allow the US to lay claim to the contested ME. Wesley Clarke revealed the PNAC plan to the world. But the US and it's Nato puppet failed to complete the mission before the window of opportunity was slammed shut by Russia and China.

    And Obama's hands were on that window, along with Putin's.

    That's my version of events for anybody who chooses to challenge it.

  14. #44
    Regular m a x's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Sep 12
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Here's the thing about UNSCR. All laws written says what happens if you don't obey, ie a penalty. There are NO PENALTIES listed. The UNSC made sure of that. If you want to FORCE the country to comply or even PUNISH the country for not complying, you need another UNSCR and that's when the veto comes in. Yes, there's a UNSCR saying Israel should give up the Golan Heights BUT THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES if she does not.

    Toilet Paper.
    UN Security Council has been established to prevent another world conflict, upon the outcome of WW2. The veto power, by design, made them incapable to block regional conflicts, with one or more permanent members involved. This left the major players field to continue hot war between themselves on various terrains using other populations and infrastructure as either targeted or collateral damage. It is still unregulated area, when law with necessary agreement can not be achieved. The International law that can be achieved by UNSC however differs substantially on principles and subjects from national laws. It regulates sovereign states recognized to know and understand the law in detail by its complexity, with designated rights to take part in creation of the law, or without even an opportunity for representation in due process. Most importantly it is based on principle of pacific settlement of disputes through diplomacy. Whenever necessary and possible UNSC authorizes use of force. No state or group of states, members and permanent members of UNSC are legally justified to enforce the law by military means against other state without explicit authorization. When the law is adopted in one or more resolutions, and there is no authorization to enforce this law, it is left on time and developments, sticking to the pursue of peace and security, for the law to be enacted by the states involved. Neither time, nor refusal of states to enact the law make it wastepaper. More and more time is given for law to take effect as sustainable solution with priority to avoid escalation of conflict and war


    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Even UNSCR 1441, the one the US used to invade Iraq. All it really said was Iraq to comply or else. The US used that or else as legal justification after failing to get a detailed UNSCR.
    There was no legal justification for invasion of Iraq and no UNSC resolution provided such. Although the cases are not comparable in terms of land dispute and production of weapons of mass destruction, it is exactly the lack of legal justification that brought the devastating consequences on and beyond the region, with spread of terrorism, continuing instability and countless number of lost lives. Geopolitically at the outset USA have even helped their foes with this violation, cleaning way for Iran's influence, and supplying money for Vladimir Putin to renew Russia's might and strengthen his power with extra-prices of petrol and relevant energy resources
    Last edited by m a x; 04 Apr 19, at 00:55.

  15. #45
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,454
    Quote Originally Posted by m a x View Post
    UN Security Council has been established to prevent another world conflict, upon the outcome of WW2. The veto power, by design, made them incapable to block regional conflicts, with one or more permanent members involved. This left the major players field to continue hot war between themselves on various terrains using other populations and infrastructure as either targeted or collateral damage. It is still unregulated area, when law with necessary agreement can not be achieved. The International law that can be achieved by UNSC however differs substantially on principles and subjects from national laws. It regulates sovereign states recognized to know and understand the law in detail by its complexity, with designated rights to take part in creation of the law, or without even an opportunity for representation in due process. Most importantly it is based on principle of pacific settlement of disputes through diplomacy. Whenever necessary and possible the UNSC authorizes use of force. No state or group of states, members and permanent members of UNSC are legally justified to enforce militarily the law against other state without explicit authorization. When the law is adopted in one or more resolutions, and there is no authorization to enforce this law, it is left on time and developments, sticking to the pursue of peace and security, for the law to be enacted by the states involved. Neither time, nor refusal of states to enact the law make it wastepaper. More and more time is given for law to take effect as sustainable solution with priority to avoid escalation of conflict and war
    Warsaw Pact in Hungary and Czechoslavkia, NATO is Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, not to mention all the Arab-Israeli Wars, the African and Cambodian bloodlettings that made Hitler's Gas Ovens looked humane. No one cares anything what the UNSC says. UNSCRs are routinely ignored and are mainly used for propaganda/public relations.

    Quote Originally Posted by m a x View Post
    There was no legal justification for invasion of Iraq and no UNSC resolution provided such. Although the cases are not comparable in terms of land dispute and production of weapons of mass destruction, it is exactly the lack of legal justification that brought the devastating consequences on and beyond the region, with spread of terrorism, continuing instability and countless number of lost lives. Geopolitically at the outset USA have even helped their foes with this violation, cleaning way for Iran's influence, and supplying money for Vladimir Putin to renew Russia's might and strengthen his power with extra-prices of petrol and relevant energy resources
    UNSCR 1441 states that Iraq is in violation of the Terms of Surrender from the Kuwait War. The UNSC has not found Iraq has return to compliance with as demanded by 1441. As such, a State of War was returned. However, there was no authorization to enforce 1441. By the same token, enforcement of 1441 was also not prohibited. Was it legal? I don't know but I do know it is NOT illegal? Why? Because the UNSC has not found the US wrong in enforcing 1441 (hint: US veto).

    Toilet Paper
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 04 Apr 19, at 01:21.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Should Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria?
    By Ironduke in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 05 Feb 09,, 09:29
  2. IDF prepares for Syrian attack on Golan
    By Ray in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04 May 07,, 21:20
  3. U.N. Chief Returns to Headquarters, Where Battles Await Him
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06 Feb 07,, 17:41
  4. Trump: Let Me Rebuild U.N. Headquarters
    By Shek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23 Jul 05,, 19:27

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •