quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley It's actually spelt numpty Numpty (n):a numpty is a person who is, by their own actions or statements, demonstrably preoccupied, forgetful, naiive or stupid in some regard. It is perfectly possible to be highly skilled or educated to a greater degree yet a complete numpty when it comes to certain aspects of one's life. http://numpty.info/

So then, yes, it is in the neighborhood of nincompoopery.

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag then you're in the wrong place

lol! That may to true to some extent, but there is a good amount of moderates here.

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well you'll have to forgive my dismissiveness when i read stuff like: when you got UN resolution 1441 just hangin out there.

Which has what to do with the UN Charter? Well, if you want to change the subject, to Resolution 1441, let's delve into what it really meant.

Here is Mr. Negroponte's message to Iraq November 8, 2002, at Security Council meeting 4644.

Source
"To the Governments and peoples of the Arab world, including the people of Iraq: the purpose of this resolution is to open the way to a peaceful solution of this issue. That is the intention and wish of my Government. When the Baghdad regime claims that the United States is seeking to wage war on the Arab world, nothing could be farther from the truth. What we seek, and what the Council seeks by this resolution, is the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. We urge you to join us in our common effort to secure that goal and assure peace and security in the region."

What everyone would find out later was this.

Source
"Shortly after the invasion, the coalition sent in a 1,400 member international team known as the Iraq Survey Group (ISG). Their sole purpose was to search for the alleged weapons of mass destruction, any correlating research programs, and any infrastructure related to WMD development. The ISG picked up where the original UN weapons inspections teams (UNMOVIC) and IAEA left off. It must be noted that no inspections by the ISG, UNMOVIC, nor IAEA ever found weapons of mass destruction as alleged by the Bush Administration.
The findings of the ISG were reported on September 30, 2004 in the Duelfer Report (Duelfer, 2006). This final report on Iraq’s WMD programs indicated several things:

1. There was no active Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
2. No chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons were ever found.
3. Saddam’s main concern was mitigation of UN economic sanctions.

In January 2005, the ISG concluded its search stating, “We have not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003. There is a possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability." (Cornwell, Russell, Penketh, 2004). The implications of the Duelfer Report are strong indications of a major intelligence failure in the United States, or of a criminal manipulation of intelligence data to suit the means for an invasion."

Additionally, this resolution did not specify what the consequences for Iraq were for non-compliance. It just says, "...by all necessary means."source.

Have you even read the damn resolution, or how resolutions are enforced? Let's get back to the subject of sovereignty, as defined in the UN CHARTER. Obviously you're just throwing pot shot arguments for an illegal invasion that get slammed every time. Enforcement of Security Council Resolutions are decided by the Security Council as a whole. NOT UNILATERALLY. The US and UK don't represent the entire Security Council. Unanimous approval would be needed to invade Iraq, and there was none. France, Russia, and China would not have voted for an invasion. Did this stop the "coalition of the willing", no. Strange you don't hear that term anymore...

Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General at the time made clear my points today...

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." Source

Contrary to what you want to believe Q5echo, the UN DID NOT SUPPORT THE INVASION OF IRAQ.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Which has what to do with the UN Charter? Well, if you want to change the subject, to Resolution 1441, let's delve into what it really meant. What everyone would find out later was this.

ok, what happens after March 2003 is irrelavent to this argument.

the resolution outlines exactly what the entire UN and Security Council believed about Saddams WMD programs based on French intel, British intel, German even Russian intel in addition to it's material breach of all the previous resolutions passed against Iraq and findings by several human rights organizations. it was passed unanimously.

the basis of your argument presented to Freedomwatch.org is the violation of the UN's charter. the UN has every right to enforce provisions of that charter but it also has every right to deny those provisions to countries in "material breach" of UN requests and law.

now if you want to argue about the meaning of "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" or "all necessary means" or "serious consequences" then thats fine. but the premise of violating UN charter is absurd and really doesn't take into account the UN's own actions on the matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ok, what happens after March 2003 is irrelavent to this argument.

Uh no, the aftermath of March 2003 shows you the abject failure of the unilateral policy to begin with. Don't dance around the truth.

quote:

the resolution outlines exactly what the entire UN and Security Council believed about Saddams WMD programs based on French intel, British intel, German even Russian intel in addition to it's material breach of all the previous resolutions passed against Iraq and findings by several human rights organizations. it was passed unanimously.

What they believe is different from what they know. The reason there was no chance of a Security Council authorization for military action was because there was no concrete specific evidence for WMDs in Iraq. The unanimous passing of this resolution does not mean it authorized any military action at all. The resolution demanded Iraq provide proof that it destroyed it WMDs. Now, if Iraq was found to not be complaince with the resolution, then it is the body of the Security Council, NOT the US and UK, who decides the consequences for Iraq. Read my post again. The invasion was unilateral, illegal under international law, and was not endorsed by the UN. I made all this clear in my previous post..

quote:

the basis of your argument presented to Freedomwatch.org is the violation of the UN's charter. the UN has every right to enforce provisions of that charter but it also has every right to deny those provisions to countries in "material breach" of UN requests and law.

So what resolution denied Iraq its rights under the UN Charter? The UN does have a right to suspend the rights of an aggressor state, NOT the US and UK unilaterally, which is what they did. Repeat, it is the Security Council that decides the consequences, not individual states. The resolution you tried to use did not authorize any force whatsoever.

quote:

now if you want to argue about the meaning of "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" or "all necessary means" or "serious consequences" then thats fine. but the premise of violating UN charter is absurd and really doesn't take into account the UN's own actions on the matter.

Did you read the entire post!? I said this...

"Additionally, this resolution did not specify what the consequences for Iraq were for non-compliance. It just says, "...by all necessary means."

Get it thru ur head, the resolution has failed to support any of your arguements. There was no support or mention of military force in the resolution, and it left a vague statement of the consequences of non-compliance. This is not an excuse to go ahead and launch a military excursion. I said it before 500 times, the Security Council as a whole must unanimously (perm. members) vote SPECIFICALLY to authorize a mission, and the "mission" to Iraq was not authorized as such.

___________________

Last edited by Krypton on Sep-06-2007 at 23:36

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well you'll have to forgive my dismissiveness when i read stuff like: when you got UN resolution 1441 just hangin out there.

during the american revolution, i bet your ancestors were the guys who supported british rule and stood up for taxation without representation. lol

TAR AND FEATHER, baby... tar and feather.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby during the american revolution, i bet your ancestors were the guys who supported british rule and stood up for taxation without representation. lol TAR AND FEATHER, baby... tar and feather.

...and deeper into the bowels of irrelavence DJshibby dances.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Uh no, the aftermath of March 2003 shows you the abject failure of the unilateral policy to begin with. Don't dance around the truth.

everything the world did 10 years prior regarding Saddam was an abject failure. that was the reason for 1441. the question then was wtf do you do about it?

quote:

What they believe is different from what they know.

you mean "What they believed is different from what they know now

quote:

The reason there was no chance of a Security Council authorization for military action was because there was no concrete specific evidence for WMDs in Iraq.

there was no evidence Iraq had destroyed known stockpiles of WMD's

the others on the Security Council had no idea what to do next but they knew they didn't want to overthrow Saddam. for reasons we could get into but just suffice it to say it wasn't in their best interests.

quote:

The unanimous passing of this resolution does not mean it authorized any military action at all. The resolution demanded Iraq provide proof that it destroyed it WMDs. Now, if Iraq was found to not be complaince with the resolution, then it is the body of the Security Council, NOT the US and UK, who decides the consequences for Iraq. Read my post again. The invasion was unilateral, illegal under international law, and was not endorsed by the UN. I made all this clear in my previous post..

i didn't say it was authority for military action and neither did the administration for the most part. we went to the UN repeatedly to ask for help but wtf is 1441 supposed to mean if noone is willing to do what it demanded?

where the hell does the Security Council go from there? what are the severe consequences and what necessary means do you use to achieve them?

this is the problem with the UN being an authoritative body of any kind. it's useless. it's completly useless.

to use the UN as a basis for an anti-war argument after the fact, to me, is even more useless when we're talking about a regime like Saddam's.

the countries that overthrough Saddam thought this entire endeavor was bigger than Saddam and bigger than the UN and they were right.

is the civilized world going to reap the benefits of a life without Saddam Hussein and his progeny or is it going to debate what the words "severe consequences" is?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo everything the world did 10 years prior regarding Saddam was an abject failure. that was the reason for 1441. the question then was wtf do you do about it?

Really? Saddam was a lame duck. No longer able to invade his neighbors or threaten them. Tonnes of WMDs were destroyed by UNSCOM and the Iraqis themselves. No where in the resolution was there a mention of, "What we're going to do about it?" as you implied. Wrong argument on your part.

quote:

you mean "What they believed is different from what they know now

The reason France, China, and Russia refused to endorse a military expedition was the absence of any DEFINITIVE evidence that Saddam had an arsenal of WMDs. Imagine a world where any country could invade another based on what they think their enemy might have. The world order would be chaos, yet you want this.

quote:

there was no evidence Iraq had destroyed known stockpiles of WMD's the others on the Security Council had no idea what to do next but they knew they didn't want to overthrow Saddam. for reasons we could get into but just suffice it to say it wasn't in their best interests.

There was no evidence that he had WMDs! The Security Council had no time to figure out what to do next. By the time Hanx Blix spoke in January 2003 about in discrepancies in Iraq's declaration of weapons stockpiles, the "coalition of the willing" were already building up in Kuwait. It's as if the US just said "Ah, to hell with the UN and everyone in it, we're gonna do it our way." Under international law, no military action is to be undertaken without unanimous approval by the perm. members of the Security Council and at least 3 other non-perm. votes. The US DID NOT HAVE THIS. WTF is the UN for if we're not even going to follow the rules we helped draw up and ratify? Your supporting nothing more than vigilantism.

quote:

i didn't say it was authority for military action and neither did the administration for the most part. we went to the UN repeatedly to ask for help but wtf is 1441 supposed to mean if noone is willing to do what it demanded?

You tried to use Resolution 1441 as an argument for going to war when I told you the UN Charter forbade the unilateral action taken by the US and UK. You support the military action taken, and so I'm referring to exactly this view of yours. Shouldn't the UN be the one taking the lead in negociation with Iraq. Who made the US the police chief of the world dude, seriously? That's what we have the UN for.

quote:

where the hell does the Security Council go from there? what are the severe consequences and what necessary means do you use to achieve them?

This is what you do. You form a diplomatic barrier around the problem country, you isolate them, economically, diplomatically. You don't just go in and raise hell vigilante-style.

quote:

this is the problem with the UN being an authoritative body of any kind. it's useless. it's completly useless.

Yea, especially when you circumvent its authority and rules. Of course its going to be worthless. Follow the damn UN Charter, and it wouldn't be so.

quote:

to use the UN as a basis for an anti-war argument after the fact, to me, is even more useless when we're talking about a regime like Saddam's.

You tried using the UN as a basis for your PRO WAR argument but got slammed down. Now your just ranting. I havn't seen barely any sources to support your arguments or debunk any of mine. Your best argument is, "Krypton supports genocide, remember that." Well, I'll throw one right back at you. Q5echo supports international vigilantism.

quote:

the countries that overthrough Saddam thought this entire endeavor was bigger than Saddam and bigger than the UN and they were right.

I don't quite understand. Are you trying to throw out your, "It's for democracy" argument again? I already slammed that one down with sovereignty theory of diplomacy. It seems like your pre-emption theory and my sovereignty theory are at extreme odds. I will never support pre-emption as it was carried out in 2003. Imagine if any country could do the same thing. Chaos would reign. Yet you believe the US has a right to such action?

quote:

is the civilized world going to reap the benefits of a life without Saddam Hussein and his progeny or is it going to debate what the words "severe consequences" is?

The civilized world will reap the benefits of a further proliferation of radical extremist islam further inflamed by their opposition to the presence of foreigners on muslim soil. Again, it goes back to the historical foreign interventionism that has prevailed in the Middle East, way before the current wave of terrorism grabbed the world's attention. The severe consequence is now Iran has no counter-balance to its power and influence in the region. The only filler of that vacuum is the precarious US occupation. Without it, the Iraqi government collapses, and there flies open the door for Iran to spread its influence. Saddam's main enemy was Iran, and Iran's was Saddam. You can say goodbye to this balance of power. It's all fucked up now.
----------------------------------------

I find it hilerious how you seem to only bother addressing my arguments which come without sources or links. But when I post videos, links, and sources that all but tear down your pro-war, pre-emption vigilante justice doctrine, and demonstrate to you exactly how international law works, you have nothing to say. All you can say is how bad Saddam was, and how seemingly "useless the UN is", by the way with no sources to support anything you say. It's totally irrelavent how bad Saddam was, or how useless you think the UN is. International law must be followed and obeyed, END OF STORY.

Am I going to have to include a source link with EVERY one of my arguments to make you finally be silenced. God, I hate neo-cons , I'm so ashamed I was duped into being one.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r That still doesn't answer the question on why this particular one; like it has some signifance... The same can be said of all the 9 Bazillion CT sites anyways so what's your point? Why the knee-jerked reaction? huh huh HUH?

Freedom Watch is run by Ari Fleisher (former White House Press Secretary), and has numerous other clandestine and over-the-table ties to the Bush Administration.

AND it is putting the most pressure on Republican candidates who have begun to waver on the war. Personally, I say, let them do what they want, they're only tearing the Republican party asunder.

___________________