Study: False statements preceded war

[fskimospy]

I'm going to reply to you in smaller posts now so you can't escape. Don't worry though, we'll get back to all your other things soon enough.

The devil IS in fact in the details. Chapter VII allows the UN to take military action if the security council deems it necessary, NOT member states unilaterally. Therefore Chapter VII has absolutely NO bearing on our actions as our invasion was not sanctioned by the security council. Since you are citing UN charter provisions as one of your justifications for our invasion, explain yourself.

EDIT: I do like your tactic of declaring victory in every thread no matter how badly you are beaten up. It's cute in a way, almost Rocky-esque actually. You've taken a colossal beating already, but you're still standing. CAN YOU GO THE DISTANCE!?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm going to reply to you in smaller posts now so you can't escape. Don't worry though, we'll get back to all your other things soon enough.

The devil IS in fact in the details. Chapter VII allows the UN to take military action if the security council deems it necessary, NOT member states unilaterally. Therefore Chapter VII has absolutely NO bearing on our actions as our invasion was not sanctioned by the security council. Since you are citing UN charter provisions as one of your justifications for our invasion, explain yourself.

Glad to see you googled Chapter VII resolutions and managed to learn that the Iraq resolutions and NK resolutions were not comparible. At least now you know though. What's your next erroneous claim going to be that I have to correct?

EDIT: I do like your tactic of declaring victory in every thread no matter how badly you are beaten up. It's cute in a way, almost Rocky-esque actually. You've taken a colossal beating already, but you're still standing. CAN YOU GO THE DISTANCE!?

You're a constant font of irony. You're not standing, your face is bloodied beyond recognition, you've been knocked on your ass repeatedly, and while sitting there proclaim yourself to be giving me a lesson and the victor. Hee-larious.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm going to reply to you in smaller posts now so you can't escape. Don't worry though, we'll get back to all your other things soon enough.

The devil IS in fact in the details. Chapter VII allows the UN to take military action if the security council deems it necessary, NOT member states unilaterally. Therefore Chapter VII has absolutely NO bearing on our actions as our invasion was not sanctioned by the security council. Since you are citing UN charter provisions as one of your justifications for our invasion, explain yourself.

Glad to see you googled Chapter VII resolutions and managed to learn that the Iraq resolutions and NK resolutions were not comparible. At least now you know though. What's your next erroneous claim going to be that I have to correct?

EDIT: I do like your tactic of declaring victory in every thread no matter how badly you are beaten up. It's cute in a way, almost Rocky-esque actually. You've taken a colossal beating already, but you're still standing. CAN YOU GO THE DISTANCE!?

You're a constant font of irony. You're not standing, your face is bloodied beyond recognition, you've been knocked on your ass repeatedly, and while sitting there proclaim yourself to be giving me a lesson and the victor. Hee-larious.

Ugh, I never said that NK violated UN resolutions, I said they violated the NPT. Both were explicitly about weapons of mass destruction. If you want to try to argue the relative level of badness between violating the two I'm just not very interested. You know what my point was, and we have enough on our plates as it is.

So anyways, I noticed you didn't answer the question. Chapter VII does not allow member states to act individually, it allows the security council to act. The security council did not choose to do so, so if you are citing this violation as a justification for war explain yourself.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm going to reply to you in smaller posts now so you can't escape. Don't worry though, we'll get back to all your other things soon enough.

The devil IS in fact in the details. Chapter VII allows the UN to take military action if the security council deems it necessary, NOT member states unilaterally. Therefore Chapter VII has absolutely NO bearing on our actions as our invasion was not sanctioned by the security council. Since you are citing UN charter provisions as one of your justifications for our invasion, explain yourself.

Glad to see you googled Chapter VII resolutions and managed to learn that the Iraq resolutions and NK resolutions were not comparible. At least now you know though. What's your next erroneous claim going to be that I have to correct?

EDIT: I do like your tactic of declaring victory in every thread no matter how badly you are beaten up. It's cute in a way, almost Rocky-esque actually. You've taken a colossal beating already, but you're still standing. CAN YOU GO THE DISTANCE!?

You're a constant font of irony. You're not standing, your face is bloodied beyond recognition, you've been knocked on your ass repeatedly, and while sitting there proclaim yourself to be giving me a lesson and the victor. Hee-larious.

Ugh, I never said that NK violated UN resolutions, I said they violated the NPT. Both were explicitly about weapons of mass destruction. If you want to try to argue the relative level of badness between violating the two I'm just not very interested. You know what my point was, and we have enough on our plates as it is.

iow, you didn't ever really answer my question because you couldn't so you just threw some bullshit out there instead.

So anyways, I noticed you didn't answer the question. Chapter VII does not allow member states to act individually, it allows the security council to act. The security council did not choose to do so, so if you are citing this violation as a justification for war explain yourself.

I don't recall the Coalition (We didn't act individually, if you can manage to remember.) claiming they were acting under a Chapter 7 mandate when they invaded Iraq.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So anyways, I noticed you didn't answer the question. Chapter VII does not allow member states to act individually, it allows the security council to act. The security council did not choose to do so, so if you are citing this violation as a justification for war explain yourself.

You are wasting your time. He will never answer your questions. He will just keep changing the subject until you give up. That is his job.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
iow, you didn't ever really answer my question because you couldn't so you just threw some bullshit out there instead.

So anyways, I noticed you didn't answer the question. Chapter VII does not allow member states to act individually, it allows the security council to act. The security council did not choose to do so, so if you are citing this violation as a justification for war explain yourself.

I don't recall the Coalition (We didn't act individually, if you can manage to remember.) claiming they were acting under a Chapter 7 mandate when they invaded Iraq.

But you just stated Iraq's violation of Chapter 7 resolutions as being a reason to invade Iraq as opposed to other countries with WMD issues!?! Ahhhhhhhhhh. I'll ask you again, explain yourself.

Ldir, I know... I know. This is almost certainly a fool's errand. *sigh*

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
iow, you didn't ever really answer my question because you couldn't so you just threw some bullshit out there instead.

So anyways, I noticed you didn't answer the question. Chapter VII does not allow member states to act individually, it allows the security council to act. The security council did not choose to do so, so if you are citing this violation as a justification for war explain yourself.

I don't recall the Coalition (We didn't act individually, if you can manage to remember.) claiming they were acting under a Chapter 7 mandate when they invaded Iraq.

But you just stated Iraq's violation of Chapter 7 resolutions as being a reason to invade Iraq as opposed to other countries with WMD issues!?! Ahhhhhhhhhh. I'll ask you again, explain yourself.

Ldir, I know... I know. This is almost certainly a fool's errand. *sigh*

I've already explained to you that that's not what I said. That's what YOU are claiming I said and it's yet another in a long line of straw men that you've built and misrepresentations you've made of my statements while desperately trying to find some kind of issue that you believe gives you an advantage. It's your standard modus operandi in here.

Keep searching wildly, as you have been. If you change gears enough you may actually stumble on something, who knows?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

lol again. How many of those other countries invaded a neighbor, were under Chapter VII resolutions, and agreed to comply with disarmament?

The only difference between North Korea and Iraq by the standard you set were the Chapter 7 resolutions. Since you offered this explanation as to why we should have invaded Iraq instead of North Korea, you obviously must consider this a reason to invade.

Explain.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

lol again. How many of those other countries invaded a neighbor, were under Chapter VII resolutions, and agreed to comply with disarmament?

The only difference between North Korea and Iraq by the standard you set were the Chapter 7 resolutions. Since you offered this explanation as to why we should have invaded Iraq instead of North Korea, you obviously must consider this a reason to invade.

Explain.

No, I don't consider it a reason to invade Iraq. I consider it a reason NOT to invade NK. (Along with other reasons like not ruffling China's feathers.)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The only difference between North Korea and Iraq by the standard you set were the Chapter 7 resolutions. Since you offered this explanation as to why we should have invaded Iraq instead of North Korea, you obviously must consider this a reason to invade.

Explain.

No, I don't consider it a reason to invade Iraq. I consider it a reason NOT to invade NK. (Along with other reasons like not ruffling China's feathers.)

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

a) Yes we invaded Iraq because Saddam would not comply with the UNSC resolutions.

?!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The only difference between North Korea and Iraq by the standard you set were the Chapter 7 resolutions. Since you offered this explanation as to why we should have invaded Iraq instead of North Korea, you obviously must consider this a reason to invade.

Explain.

No, I don't consider it a reason to invade Iraq. I consider it a reason NOT to invade NK. (Along with other reasons like not ruffling China's feathers.)

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

a) Yes we invaded Iraq because Saddam would not comply with the UNSC resolutions.

?!

Hint: Chapter 7

You are moving back and forth between UNSC resolutions and Chapter 7 as if the meaning is interchangeable.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The only difference between North Korea and Iraq by the standard you set were the Chapter 7 resolutions. Since you offered this explanation as to why we should have invaded Iraq instead of North Korea, you obviously must consider this a reason to invade.

Explain.

No, I don't consider it a reason to invade Iraq. I consider it a reason NOT to invade NK. (Along with other reasons like not ruffling China's feathers.)

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

a) Yes we invaded Iraq because Saddam would not comply with the UNSC resolutions.

?!

Hint: Chapter 7

You are moving back and forth between UNSC resolutions and Chapter 7 as if the meaning is interchangeable.

Resolution 1441, the resolution that you yourself mentioned in this thread and the one that is most often used as the justification for war is a UNSC resolution under Chapter VII. If you are now talking about different resolutions that you believe justify the invasion, list them. If not, explain the inconsistancy.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The only difference between North Korea and Iraq by the standard you set were the Chapter 7 resolutions. Since you offered this explanation as to why we should have invaded Iraq instead of North Korea, you obviously must consider this a reason to invade.

Explain.

No, I don't consider it a reason to invade Iraq. I consider it a reason NOT to invade NK. (Along with other reasons like not ruffling China's feathers.)

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

a) Yes we invaded Iraq because Saddam would not comply with the UNSC resolutions.

?!

Hint: Chapter 7

You are moving back and forth between UNSC resolutions and Chapter 7 as if the meaning is interchangeable.

Resolution 1441, the resolution that you yourself mentioned in this thread and the one that is most often used as the justification for war is a UNSC resolution under Chapter VII. If you are now talking about different resolutions that you believe justify the invasion, list them. If not, explain the inconsistancy.

1441 is used as justification for war? By whom? Explain yourself.

 

[Gaard]

"Yet it is now undeniable -- undeniable -- that Saddam Hussein was in clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. It is undeniable that Saddam Hussein was a deceiver and a danger. The Security Council was right to demand that Saddam disarm. And America was right to enforce that demand." - G.W Bush 10-08-03

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The only difference between North Korea and Iraq by the standard you set were the Chapter 7 resolutions. Since you offered this explanation as to why we should have invaded Iraq instead of North Korea, you obviously must consider this a reason to invade.

Explain.

No, I don't consider it a reason to invade Iraq. I consider it a reason NOT to invade NK. (Along with other reasons like not ruffling China's feathers.)

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

a) Yes we invaded Iraq because Saddam would not comply with the UNSC resolutions.

?!

Hint: Chapter 7

You are moving back and forth between UNSC resolutions and Chapter 7 as if the meaning is interchangeable.

Resolution 1441, the resolution that you yourself mentioned in this thread and the one that is most often used as the justification for war is a UNSC resolution under Chapter VII. If you are now talking about different resolutions that you believe justify the invasion, list them. If not, explain the inconsistancy.

1441 is used as justification for war? By whom? Explain yourself.

1441 is the UNSC resolution most often cited as a justification for war by the United States, it is also the only UNSC resolution mentioned by you in this thread. As asked before, if you are talking about other UNSC resolutions that justify invasion that are separate from this one and do not fall under Chapter VII please list them.

If not, explain yourself.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

"I acted because I was not about to leave the security of the American people in the hands of a mad man. I was not about to stand by and wait and trust in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein. So we acted, in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The only difference between North Korea and Iraq by the standard you set were the Chapter 7 resolutions. Since you offered this explanation as to why we should have invaded Iraq instead of North Korea, you obviously must consider this a reason to invade.

Explain.

No, I don't consider it a reason to invade Iraq. I consider it a reason NOT to invade NK. (Along with other reasons like not ruffling China's feathers.)

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

a) Yes we invaded Iraq because Saddam would not comply with the UNSC resolutions.

?!

Hint: Chapter 7

You are moving back and forth between UNSC resolutions and Chapter 7 as if the meaning is interchangeable.

Resolution 1441, the resolution that you yourself mentioned in this thread and the one that is most often used as the justification for war is a UNSC resolution under Chapter VII. If you are now talking about different resolutions that you believe justify the invasion, list them. If not, explain the inconsistancy.

1441 is used as justification for war? By whom? Explain yourself.

1441 is the UNSC resolution most often cited as a justification for war by the United States, it is also the only UNSC resolution mentioned by you in this thread. As asked before, if you are talking about other UNSC resolutions that justify invasion that are separate from this one and do not fall under Chapter VII please list them.

If not, explain yourself.

The invasion was never about any one resolution. It was about all of the resolutions levied against Iraq, and Saddam was determined to be in violation of every single one. That's the problem. The UN made it very clear they were never going to act and were simply going to permit Saddam to string most along while he bribed others (like George Galloway, that British windbag). Since the UN was not going to act, we did.

 

[Gaard]

"the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else."

The invasion was never about any one resolution. It was about all of the resolutions levied against Iraq

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The invasion was never about any one resolution. It was about all of the resolutions levied against Iraq, and Saddam was determined to be in violation of every single one. That's the problem. The UN made it very clear they were never going to act and were simply going to permit Saddam to string most along while he bribed others (like George Galloway, that British windbag). Since the UN was not going to act, we did.

Ah ha, now we are invading because of 1441 and some other nebulous number of resolutions from the past. The only reason Iraq was not permitted to have WMDs was because the UN said it couldn't. Can you explain why it was okay to violate the UN charter in order to enforce these UNSC resolutions that the security council didn't want enforced?

Note: If you are going to try to argue that we invaded because we didn't want him to have WMDs anyway, you should know in advance that would be an even more egregious violation of international law... in particular the planning and execution of an aggressive war, aka. a crime against peace/war crime.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Gaard

"the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else."

The invasion was never about any one resolution. It was about all of the resolutions levied against Iraq

Isn't it interesting how the justifications shift?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The invasion was never about any one resolution. It was about all of the resolutions levied against Iraq, and Saddam was determined to be in violation of every single one. That's the problem. The UN made it very clear they were never going to act and were simply going to permit Saddam to string most along while he bribed others (like George Galloway, that British windbag). Since the UN was not going to act, we did.

Ah ha, now we are invading because of 1441 and some other nebulous number of resolutions from the past. The only reason Iraq was not permitted to have WMDs was because the UN said it couldn't. Can you explain why it was okay to violate the UN charter in order to enforce these UNSC resolutions that the security council didn't want enforced?

Note: If you are going to try to argue that we invaded because we didn't want him to have WMDs anyway, you should know in advance that would be an even more egregious violation of international law... in particular the planning and execution of an aggressive war, aka. a crime against peace/war crime.

Saddam committed the ultimate sin. He scoffed at us. There was never a need to invade, however Bush and his followers wanted it. If you want something bad enough anything works as a justification. Iraqis had to die for 1441 because it's any old reason at all.

Arguing with the faithful is futile. Hopefully Obama will get the nod. If so maybe we'll get a look at what happened, and not this BS we keep hearing.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Gaard

"the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else."

The invasion was never about any one resolution. It was about all of the resolutions levied against Iraq

Isn't it interesting how the justifications shift?

I used to think TLC had the 'ICanNeverBeWrong' disease. But now I think it's more likely he has 'IMustWinTheDebateAtAllCostsEvenIfThatMeansIMustLieMyAssOff'-syndrome.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Gaard

"the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else."

The invasion was never about any one resolution. It was about all of the resolutions levied against Iraq

Isn't it interesting how the justifications shift?

I think it's more interesting how some people are so completely incapable of comprehending that there is no single reason we invaded Iraq, but that there are actually a multitude of reasons.

Maybe it's their simplemindedness that doesn't permit them to actually consider more than one thing at any one time?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Gaard

"the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else."

The invasion was never about any one resolution. It was about all of the resolutions levied against Iraq

Isn't it interesting how the justifications shift?

I think it's more interesting how some people are so completely incapable of comprehending that there is no single reason we invaded Iraq, but that there are actually a multitude of reasons.

Maybe it's their simplemindedness that doesn't permit them to actually consider more than one thing at any one time?

Tee Hee @ Chickie

WMD
WMD Programs
WMD Potential
Freedomosity & Democrativity
al Qaeda

""He tried to kill my daddie""

What else yah got, Chickie? (beside the truth) ....

...


Oil.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Gaard

"the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else."

The invasion was never about any one resolution. It was about all of the resolutions levied against Iraq

Isn't it interesting how the justifications shift?

I think it's more interesting how some people are so completely incapable of comprehending that there is no single reason we invaded Iraq, but that there are actually a multitude of reasons.

Maybe it's their simplemindedness that doesn't permit them to actually consider more than one thing at any one time?

Tee Hee @ Chickie

WMD
WMD Programs
WMD Potential
Freedomosity & Democrativity
al Qaeda

""He tried to kill my daddie""

What else yah got, Chickie? (beside the truth) ....

...


Oil.

I got this - To piss off the chuckleheads and 'OMG, the neocons are coming to get us!' tin-foil hat wearing paranoid types.

It's very clear that the chuckleheads and tin-foil paranoids are bent out of shape as so many of the posts in this forum demonstrate.