Nuclear Deal Reached With Iran

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Jeannette, Nov 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. snakestretcher

    snakestretcher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,996
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Predictable deflection noted. Now, deny Israel is in violation of dozens of UN Resolutions-the same Resolutions it is bound by signing the UN Charter to uphold and obey. And you talk about hypocrisy?
     
  2. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So... source me the opinion of the UNSC of this.
    But you can not, can you?
    Their vid still says that the Holocaust the way Jews see it can not denied.
    Quiet childish of you to go on they deny the Holocaust even when they said that.
     
  3. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Don't have to in order to make my point and continue to destroy your foolish contention, the fact is Blix reported they did not. You need a translator for that or what?

    My goodness, you seem to be unaware of what you are arguing. The quote is;

    "the Jewish concept of a Holocaust cannot be denied."

    A person can deny the Holocaust all day long and this statement will still ring true as it only states that it is undeniable that the Jews believe the Holocaust to be what they state it is, not that the Holocaust is what they say it is. The possibility that they are wrong is completely open for discussion as depicted by the author in the rest of the video which, is why the vid is even on the internet my dear notme.

    And quite uninformed of you to not understand that revisionism is Holocaust denial.

    See you tomorrow!:roflol:
     
  4. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    25,730
    Likes Received:
    8,773
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Completely irrelevant. None of the resolutions gave legal authority for the invasion of Iraq. The resolution trail can be traced back to resolutions enforcing that Iraq withdrawl from Kuwait which they complied with.
     
  5. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Member states were authorized to use whatever means necessary to ensure Iraq complied with the ceasefire terms which is what Iraq was in violation of. After a decade of being in violation of those terms the coaltion chose regime change as the means to bring Iraq into compliance.
     
  6. trout mask replica

    trout mask replica New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    12,320
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope. Saddam's breaking of the ceasefire was not sufficient enough to warrant an invasion. For that to happen, the the UNSC needed the infamous second resolution which was never forthcoming. The invasion was illegal.
     
  7. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    25,730
    Likes Received:
    8,773
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The phrase, "all means necessary", used only in resolution 678 which references resolution 660 which only refer to Iraq withdrawing from Kuwait. The invasion was illegal due to the US not waiting for the required resolution, which they knew would be vetoed. (I note your use of the word coalition - Blair did not even know that the invasion had begun!).
     
  8. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yep

    When providing your proof of this statement please also include the resolutions that place a limit on the "all necessary means" which the member states were authorized to use to ensure Iraq complied with all the conditions of the ceasefire which include everything from human rights, war,/ecological reparations, return of foriegn nationals and WMD as well as adhering to inspections as from what it states, there is no limit as to what action they are authorized to take.

    As well, there doesn't seem to be any resolution stating they 'might/could/would be authorized providing this or that happened rather that they were authorized without any condition to take whatever actions they deemed necessary.

    Furthermore, the buildup of the coalition was a rather lengthy and public one with an obvious intent, at any time the UNSC could have met and contravened this authorization - they did not.
     
  9. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It is referred to in the preamble of seven other resolutions to remind all that this is still in effect so that is a false statement. I also notice you didn't bother to include a link or quote from the resolution itself which quickly would have revealed another your false statement which is that it only refers to Iraq withdrawing from Kuwait.

    I will;

    I would imagine that a subsequent relevant resolution would be the ceasefire conditions upon which the withdraw is based on wouldn't you? And, that is what the rest of the resolutions are about - ceasefire conditions from the Kuwait invasion.

    No "required resolution" was necessary as the Coalition already had the authorization of the Security Council to use all necessary means.

    No UK troops were on the ground? This is new to me. Please explain your confusion about the members of the coalition so I can steer you in the right direction as you seem a bit shaky in this regard.
     
  10. trout mask replica

    trout mask replica New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    12,320
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is all irrelevant. At the end of the day, what was required was a second resolution which wasn't forthcoming. It therefore follows that the invasion was, in the absence of the said second resolution, illegal. End of.
     
  11. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Well, you seemed to have earned yourself a fail for not providing any proof of your statement.

    Once again;

    When providing your proof of this statement please also include the resolutions that place a limit on the "all necessary means" which the member states were authorized to use to ensure Iraq complied with all the conditions of the ceasefire which include everything from human rights, war,/ecological reparations, return of foreign nationals and WMD as well as adhering to inspections as from what it states, there is no limit as to what action they are authorized to take.

    As well, there doesn't seem to be any resolution stating they 'might/could/would be authorized providing this or that happened rather that they were authorized without any condition to take whatever actions they deemed necessary.

    Furthermore, the buildup of the coalition was a rather lengthy and public one with an obvious intent, at any time the UNSC could have met and contravened this authorization - they did not.
     
  12. trout mask replica

    trout mask replica New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    12,320
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Illegal invasions such as that committed against Iraq are offences known by two names in international law: the crime of aggression and a crime against peace. It is defined by the Nuremberg Principles as the “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”

    http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/390

    This means a war fought for a purpose other than self-defence: in other words outwith articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter.

    http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/

    That the invasion of Iraq falls into this category is indisputable. Blair’s cabinet ministers knew it, and told him so. His Attorney-General warned that there were just three ways in which it could be legally justified: “self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UN Security Council authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case.”

    http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

    Blair tried and failed to obtain the third.

    His foreign secretary, Jack Straw, told Blair that for the war to be legal, “i) There must be an armed attack upon a State or such an attack must be imminent; ii) The use of force must be necessary and other means to reverse/avert the attack must be unavailable; iii) The acts in self-defence must be proportionate and strictly confined to the object of stopping the attack.”

    http://downingstreetmemo.com/iraqlegalbacktext.html

    None of these conditions were met. The Cabinet Office told him “A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers’ advice, none currently exists.”

    http://downingstreetmemo.com/iraqoptions.html

    Without legal justification, the attack on Iraq was, by definition, an illegal act of mass killing which ranks among the greatest crimes the world has ever seen.

    Blair’s diminishing band of apologists cling to two desperate justifications. The first is that the war was automatically authorised by a prior UN resolution: 1441. But when it was discussed in the Security Council, both the US and UK ambassadors insisted that 1441 did not authorise the use of force.

    http://www.undemocracy.com/securitycouncil/meeting_4644#pg003-bk01

    The UK representative stated that “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.”

    http://www.undemocracy.com/securitycouncil/meeting_4644#pg004-bk01

    Two months later, in January 2003, the attorney-general reminded Blair that “resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of military force without a further determination by the security council”

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/21/tony-blair-chilcot-inquiry

    Yet when Blair ran out of options, he and his lieutenants began arguing that 1441 authorised their war. This totally disingenuous argument is still used today by the apologists such as Lord Falconer who tried it out on Radio 4:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/bh

    Perhaps he had forgotten that it has been thoroughly discredited.

    The second justification, attempted again by Blair is that there was a moral case for invading Iraq. Yes, there was one. There was also a moral case for not invading Iraq, and this case was stronger.

    But a moral case (and who has launched an aggressive war in modern times without claiming to possess one?) does not provide a legal basis. Nor was it the motivation for the attack. In September 2000, before they took office, a project run by future members of the Bush administration – including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz – produced a report which said the following: “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi

    Their purpose, they revealed, was “maintaining American military preeminence”

    The motivation for deposing Saddam Hussein was no more moral than the motivation for arming and funding him, two decades before.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/dec/31/iraq.politics
     
  13. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Israel's 'fears' will never alleviate until they have absolute power in the region - ie their irrational fears will never dissipate.
     
  14. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Please show when the authorization to take whatever action was deemed necessary was rescinded.
     
  15. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's quite appalling the US so blatantly violates international law, and has continually done do so for so long and so often.
     
  16. trout mask replica

    trout mask replica New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    12,320
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Indeed it is.
     
  17. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I find the US disregard for the findings by the International Court of Justice showing the US had engaged in a barbaric and despicable war of terrorism in Nicaragua during the 80s quite disturbing.
     
  18. trout mask replica

    trout mask replica New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    12,320
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That the US is the world's principal rogue state is beyond doubt.
     
  19. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Undeniably.
     
  20. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Imagine the nerve of them enforcing UNSC Resolutions. Golly.
     
  21. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's certainly strange, hypocritical and lacking authority, if that's what you mean.
     
  22. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    25,730
    Likes Received:
    8,773
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Resolution 1441:

    Note, only 678 is referenced with respect to "all necessary means". All relevant resolutions refers to 660 which only refers to kuwait withdrawl.

    Resolution 660:


    Resolution 660 requirements all complied with by Iraq. Invasion by the US illegal..

    You then use the word "imagine". That would be thrown out of any court.

    Policeman " I imagined that he was going to enter the house and murder the occupants so I arrested him and charged him with attempted murder"
    Judge while laughing "case dismissed"
     
  23. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
     
  24. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    1441 is a subsequent resolution as it refers to 678 as a "previous relevant resolution" by those who made these resolutions
     
  25. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,330
    Likes Received:
    1,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And periodic radar locking our aircraft that were authorized by the UN to patrol Iraq no-fly zones? What about Saddam's massing of troops on the Kuwait border again in 1994? It seems to me that the world just expected the US to expend its efforts and money to contain Saddam, and as soon as we got sick of doing that, the world cried foul when we removed him. What a joke.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page