Obama shows sense of realism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

Yes he was guilty of killing on a nation wide level, but still didnt give the US or us Brits the right to invade the country...

---

UN resolutions ending the Gulf War in 1991 basically said that the combantants on the UN/Allied side were to enforce the resolutions until further notice. Full and open inspection of all facilities for chemical production, arms and military bases was part of that. When Saddam refused based on the idea he didn't want the rest of the Arab world to know he didn't have all of what he hinted at, that is where Bush got his legal pretext. I know this hurts your wee mind Steve, but Blair is a lawyer. I think he knew what he was supporting was legal or NOT legal and he won an election after all this started did he not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

Havent done a great job of imposing their value system have they? I dont see what right they have on trying to impose their value system on others...

---

No..they didn't impose their value system outside of the idea of a multiparty democracy and trying to educate the Iraqí's on how to balance human rights and maintain security. The Iraqi's have for the most part not always followed these ideas, but I don't think all of that should be put on the heads of the yanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Me thinks you ignore the first 12 resolutions ending the first Gulf War after the invasion of Kuwait. I believe the alternative to Saddam NOT following UN dictates on those 12 resolutions ending that conflict was a resumation of the war. THAT my friend is the legal pretext that Bush was pointing to. Either UN resolutions are enforced, or are meaningless platitudes. It seems some of you guys are quite willing to watch the UN make these resolutions but if there is no enforcment or consequences to breaking them, then really, is there a point to the UN at all?

---

There was no specific resolution permitting the invasion of Iraq in 2003 in stark contrast to the first Gulf War and you know it. The resolutions you speak of did not specifically allow invasion of a sovereign state. Kofi Annan even described the invasion as being illegal for those reasons.

The UN resolutions WERE enforced with embargos and the occasional use of force. Missile strikes and annexing huge chunks of Iraqi airspace was pretty major.

Presumably though if you're so upset about UN resolutions not being enforced you'll want Israel to be invaded pretty sharpish right? After all Israel is the single biggest violator of UN resolutions on the planet. Got to treat all countries equally eh? Or do UN resolutions only need to be enforced by invasion when it suits you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

When Saddam refused based on the idea he didn't want the rest of the Arab world to know he didn't have all of what he hinted at, that is where Bush got his legal pretext. I know this hurts your wee mind Steve, but Blair is a lawyer. I think he knew what he was supporting was legal or NOT legal and he won an election after all this started did he not?

---

Mark, do not attempt to condescend others when your argument is very thin. You often do this and I'm afraid it reflects rather poorly on your understanding of events.

The interpretation of the legal pretext you refer to was shared by very few people, including the British military. I attended a talk by the British chief of staff in London prior to the invasion where he was asked about the level of intelligence and the legality of the war. As a good military bod he was giving a good pitch for the war and went on to discuss how the intelligence regarding WMD was pretty good but the legality? He couldn't answer that question and refused to go into details. If one of the chief architects of the war couldn't declare the war legal how on earth can you?

Oh btw your lawyer Blair also broke the law several other times while he was PM particularly when it came to taking cash for perks (commonly known as bribes I believe). I wouldn't have as much confidence in his adherence to legal activities as you seem to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Really?

Explain WW2 to me then.
You remember WW2 don't you?
That is where the 2nd largest Military in the world attacked the Biggest Millitary.

---

Well there was a small flaw in their plan...

Really, someone who has never watched Blackadder! Amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Eki...Finland was how big? 4 million people back then? The USSR was HOW BIG???

---

North Korea is how big and rich? The US is how big, rich and close to the US?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Georgia wasn't a security threat enough that they deserved the Russian army to flatten half the country.

---

Neither was Iraq to the US in 2003. Or Lebanon to Israel in 2006.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

your usual anti US driveling rants?? When people dont agree with things the US does, you lot cry the anti American tune... :rolleyes:

I am not anti American..Its just that i dont AGREE with alot of their silly adventures, but i would suggest that your fellow American Fousto put a halt to his anti everyone who isnt American drivel...But no that wont happen, as for some bizzare reason You lot think that you are allowed to insult and slam others, yet expect nothing in return which i find rather odd?

The Iraqi government during the illegal invasion of Iraq was a puppet regime put in place by Bush. Saddam was escorted to the gallows by US soldiers...

---

Hey Spack I am a equal opportunity Hater - I Hate many Americans too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

I agree it wasn't all simple, but you keep advocating diplomacy for all the world's ills when you see a war you dont'like, but you almost give Stalin justification for the invasion of 1939.

---

The fact that I acknowledge his motives doesn't mean I personally accept and agree with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Kofi Annan even described the invasion as being illegal for those reasons.

The UN resolutions WERE enforced with embargos and the occasional use of force.

---

And Kofi Annan had no reason to defend the status quo anti? No reason to continue the embargos?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...90701646.html#

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

It never got off the ground Ben. Yeltsin was lacking in keeping control of the people stealing from the state, the gangs and corruption. Putin came along to solve those issues, but really, he used their power base TO get elected.

Russia isn't the old USSR, but by god that isn't a good thing either. Putin is far more efficient, and the Russian economy actually is far more efficient than the USSR was too. Used to create havoc, that is a bad thing.

---

OK, so why hasn't this borne any fruit at all? The funding just doesn't seem to be reaching the military. For example, the Russian government has just had to get a bank to pay for the start of production of some new fighter aircraft (and hardly any of them at that), having received no export orders. It is a token gesture of military modernisation at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

OK, so why hasn't this borne any fruit at all? The funding just doesn't seem to be reaching the military. For example, the Russian government has just had to get a bank to pay for the start of production of some new fighter aircraft (and hardly any of them at that), having received no export orders. It is a token gesture of military modernisation at best.

---

They are being more careful with their cash and not going into debt to do what they want to do. I think Putin is also wary about giving the military too much...they may take him out if they have too much...

Their economy tho is more realistic...this is the real economy that the country has and that is the level it can fund its military. The USSR went broke trying to be something it wasn't. Reagan was the man who cottoned on to that...