You start your post with the statement that you would be glad to explain what those serious consequences are and then totally avoid answering the question. Instead you start quoting words that don't mention or explain those words once!!!
Instead you highlight a proposed resolution that never even got to the table and also highlight the words " a final opportunity to comply with it's obligations" when it was clearly pointed out by Blix that Iraq never fulfilled it's duty to 1441 at any time.
You even finishing up by wriggling out of it yourself!!!

I ask again: what was the definition of "serious consequences" that the whole Security Council signed up to in 1441?

Skadi. Iraq couldn't be placed under any more sanctions!!! The UN hit it with everything it had!!! For 12 years!!!

As for the Resolution being open to negotiation? I would have thought that the words "Iraq must immediately comply with it's obligations or face serious consequences" don't leave any room for negotiation. It's OK saying that politicians are stupid but every single person I know over here in the UK understood them to mean the use of force.
And I repeat again, if the Resolution was as ambiguous as you state, then why sign up to it?

You don't turn around to a person when he is cold and say you must not start a fire but here is a can of gasoline, some matches and some wood without having a sneaking suspicion that he might take your words as being rather groundless.

Leveler,

Youre intelligent, and most people posses common sense.

Yes, when the resolution was first released, I knew it was going to mean force, because the whole thing smelled of it. It was obvious to me. But Im not a crooked leader.


But thats what Im getting at. In law, Lawyers will pick apart every letter of a warrant or l;aw to point at wording loopholes. Thus, you must provide clear and no doubts left information on what you plan to do. You must word it clearly so those who would twist it cannot

It must be clear.

Of course, most of us can look at the resolution with all certainty and say, well yeah.

Im simply examining the resolution from the eyes of a politican, thats all.

I knew they planned on taking Saddam out before the resolution was ever drafted

But were talking legalities and formalities. The US/UK did a bad job of covering thier asses on this one.

See, I would say the opposite.

France, Germany and Russia did a bad job of covering their asses.

Leveller,

LOL, you have already won, good work man!

I have been down that road with those types before.

In the end they cannot admit that they were wrong.

Oh well you taught them something.

Originally posted by THENEO
Leveller,

LOL, you have already won, good work man!

I have been down that road with those types before.

In the end they cannot admit that they were wrong.

Oh well you taught them something.

This is what shows you up to be stupid kids, this kind of "you go girl!" mentallity, constantly patting each other on the back because you got the best insult in or something. Are you in a playground? "yeah you go man, that taught him something" bull# is really embarrassing to witness. Any decent argument you may have put up ends right there.

[Edited on 8-10-2003 by John Nada]

Leveller: Okay, let me try this again. You asked what "serious consequences" were. I grabbed an article that stated 11 of the 15 Security Council members were FOR PEACEFUL RESOLUTION. As in, NOT FOR WAR.

So they didn't see "serious consequences" as the definition of war.

If the US and the UK had the cojones or the support, they would have passed a Resolution that stated "if you don't comply we will use military force". But they DIDN'T do that. They used the term "serious consequences" KNOWING that they would have to go back to the Council to get the to vote for war.

And they ended going to war without any support from the UN at all.

They used a less direct term so that they would get support for the Resolution. Because they KNEW nobody would support a Resolution that specifically warranted a military invasion of Iraq.

Keep reading it until you understand, Leveller. You accuse me of not answering your question and now I've answered it twice. Read it again if you're still confused.

TheNeo: What makes you think you're any kind of judge of who's "winning" and "losing" an argument? You're like some kind of deaf, demented cheerleader.


jakomo

[Edited on 8-10-2003 by Jakomo]

WHAT "serious consequences" could the UN have done to Iraq that it hadn't BEEN DOING for 11 years leading up to the skirmish (I refuse to call that uncontested route a war)?

THat's where your agument faulters... In the absence of unambiguous nomenclature one must have an alternative definition. The ONLY alternative definition that did not create redundency was military force.

P...
m...

Originally posted by Jakomo
You accuse me of not answering your question and now I've answered it twice. Read it again if you're still confused.

[Edited on 8-10-2003 by Jakomo]

I don't see you answering the question once. Let alone twice.

Let me put my question to you again in clear and plain English and let's see if you can answer it in clear and plain English.

"What are serious consequences?"

Now I don't know about people who don't speak the English language, but I would expect a reply along the lines of "Serious consequences are - _ _ _ _ _ _ _."

If your reply is going to be merely: "Serious consequences are - we are going to talk about serious consequences" I had better forewarn you that you really aren't making a lot of sense and your argument proves to me that you don't have an answer.

Sigh,

Are you even reading the posts springer?

Just because you cant comprehend serious consequences other than invasion, doesnt mean other cants.

Jakomo has already stated, the UN security council wanted "peaceful solution" to the problem, thus, something other than an invasion.

More sanctions, like, say, cutting the oil for food program off completely. Seizing all Iraqs assests in overseas accounts, ect. These things had not been done yet. There was also the possibility of sending in assasin teams to trake out Saddam and key members of his party, creating instability even more so that would have toppled the regime.

LOL, why do you bother with these people Springer?

Just ask them the bottom line question:

If the US going into Iraq was about saving itself and to some degree it was, then why are you trying to stab them in the back for doing it and what are your expected consequences for the fall of America should you ever be able to topple it?

Anyone that lives anywhere in the first world, if they had any ability to think at all would see that a weak or fallen America is not good for them.

That is why arguing with spud polisher and MA and other assorted micreants is a waste of time. They can't see the forest for the trees IMHO.

Originally posted by THENEO
That is why arguing with spud polisher and MA and other assorted micreants is a waste of time. They can't see the forest for the trees IMHO.

You may have meant 'miscreant'.

Trust me, I can see way past insignificances such as your post, and stay on topic.

Your opinion, humble or otherwise, is not of value in statements such as what you made here at all.

If the purpose of the war was other than what was presented to Congress, the media and the public of the US, then the Bush admin is finished.

NEO, youre proving Masked Avatars point by your good ol boy back patting. You cant deal directly with the opposition, so you sit on the side line drooling.

Do you understand Geography? Can you find America on a map? Can you find Iraq on a map? Then you know the two countrys are far apart from one another, and Saddam had nothing that could of reached us. And as for selling his bad stuff to terrorists to use over here? there were non violent ways to prevent this, mainly, a border lockdown. The birders could be better patrolled if we didnt have half our #ing forces overseas in third world #holes defending thier useless and everchanging borders.

It is not our responsibility to "liberate countries" nor is it our right, nor my desire. If Iraqis did not want Saddam, eventually, he would have been replaced. Or his regime would have crumbled on its own. Regardless, what they want is not my concern. I have no desire to bring "freedom" ( v ) to other countries by force.

The issue is national soverignty. Thjier right to run thier country however they wanted. Our right to run our country how we want it. If we left people alone, and stopped rebuilding and funding our future enemies, we might have fewer problems.

My concern is for the US, period. Not Iraq. The burden of reconstruction will further drain us. 87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq? We blow up thier schools, rebuild them, while here in the states,

WERE CLOSING DOWN #ING SCHOOLS! WERE CLOSING DOWN #ING BUSINESSES.

And rebuilding them over there? If anyone has any love for this country, they would bitch loudy just for that alone.

The long term concequnces of occupying Iraq are heavy, not only will we be spending alot of money, but it will cost the lives of soldiers that didnt need to die. Period.

America would not fall if we left Iraq alone. But it will fall if we continue this #. Ther money being drained, the spreading thin of US forces, the antagonizing and building up of our enemies, and the problems within our own borders are eating us up slowly but surely. We can only get so far into debt, and only control so much.

But in the long run, a weakened America is thew best thing for America. I could care less what it will do to the rest of the world. We need economic collapse, and a massive social upheaval and chaos before we can get some semblance of order and self determination back.

Pull your head out of your ass, NEO. If you gave a # about the US, you would see the clear and present dangers.

I really do hope that OPEC votes in the Euro, and it destroys our economy, and thus, pulls away the power from the cabal, and the cushy chair from udner the stupid American ass that complacently weatches thier country fall into the hands of people who will kill its greatest aspects.

I really do hope that OPEC votes in the Euro, and it destroys our economy, and thus, pulls away the power from the cabal, and the cushy chair from udner the stupid American ass that complacently weatches thier country fall into the hands of people who will kill its greatest aspects.

Somehow I resent that . I rather like my life as it is. I worked hard to get where I am and continue to do so. Just because I drive an SUV does not make me devil spawn. Just because I make decent money does not make me evil.
I don't support the current administration on most issues yet I should give up everything just to bankrupt THEM? No, I don't think so.
Why should the lives of 285 MILLION people be turned upside down because of 200 VERY rich people? It makes no sense.

Because Fry,

Those 280 million Americans, the majority of them, are stupid fat lazt cattle who are apathetic, dont vote, dont care, and as long as they are comfortable, will continue to support the system that enslaves them mentally.

If the cattle are ever to stampede over thier masters, they must be goaded into it.

Its the way it is fry. You may have nicer stuff that you have earned, and somehow, have managed to remain aware, but go talk to your average drooling fellow American, and they turn the channel when the news is stating no WMD in iraq to the football game so they can sit and drool some more.

When their complacency and idiocy is allowing this regime (and its more than 200 people), not just bush, but the system that allows this corruption, and they sit and let thier country get eaten up by these people and do nothing, they do not deserve thier comforts.

because whats at stake here is more than someones TV or SUV.

Besides, most Americans are in so much debt to own thier toys, they are slaves and dont know it. Credit cards,m mortgages, car payments, loans.

Collapsing the system will free them. Better to eb free and poor than a well fed and entertained slave.

I don't agree with you but let's not skew this thread any more off track than it already is. Would you care to start a post as to why America should collapse for it's own good? I'll be happy to join in as I'm sure others will.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
It is not our responsibility to "liberate countries" nor is it our right, nor my desire.

You're right. It's not your responsibility. It's your moral duty. Big difference.

Or do you just love freedom for yourself and don't want to share it?

You're right. It's not your responsibility. It's your moral duty. Big difference

No, it is not my moral duty. Morality is irrelevant, its all perspective on what one views as moral.

It is my moral duty to insure that boundaries are respected, that nations are allowed to pursue whatever course thier people decide on without outside interferance.

What you consider freedom is the equivilant of death and slavery to another. Freedom is relevant to what you think is free, what you think is just. In some countries, behading a person is just and moral, and it qwould be considered oppresive to deny a people thier own laws and regulations.

My moral duty is to prevent the spread of one set of ideals against the will of the world, onto the world. My moral duty is not to impose what i think is right and free on another people who have different ideals.

And what I live in in America, I do not consider this place free.

Leveller: Ayoye.

"Let me put my question to you again in clear and plain English and let's see if you can answer it in clear and plain English.

"What are serious consequences?"

Now I don't know about people who don't speak the English language, but I would expect a reply along the lines of "Serious consequences are - _ _ _ _ _ _ _."

If your reply is going to be merely: "Serious consequences are - we are going to talk about serious consequences" I had better forewarn you that you really aren't making a lot of sense and your argument proves to me that you don't have an answer."

"Serious consequences" are, according to 11 of the 15 members of the Security Council of the United Nations, not synonymous with "military action". There, that's THREE times. What DID it mean to most of them? Well, I referenced what France and Germany proposed to do, if you read it in the first place. It meant stepping up tactics and trying to find a peaceful solution, but who knows what they would have tried since the "Coalition" marched in with tanks and dropped tons of bombs on Iraq and specifically on Baghdad, a city of 4 million.

What does it mean to ME, in this context? Well, it means that this is your last damn chance, knucklehead, to comply with the UN resolutions. Serious consequences means getting together with the rest of the world and figuring something out that's gonna break you. Something that'll teach Saddam and the rest of the world that nobody can get away with snubbing the UN. As a sidenote, Israel is in violation of far more UN resolutions than Iraq, and nobody's pushing to engineer some regime change by an international military force.

Does this mean going in and militarily occupying the whole country? Hell no. If that's the absolute last option, then yes. Get the whole damn world behind you, and kick the living crap outta him. Then let the Iraqis decide what they want to do. Get the rest of the world to pitch in and help.

But there was no chance for anything else... The US had troops massed along the Kuwaiti border and was already negotiating with Turkey to allow their planes to fly over Turkish airspace on bombing runs (Turkey caved to overwhelming public pressure and refused to allow it). If the US had planned all along to invade, they should have pushed for the resolution to say "military action". Hell, even "potential military action".

Why is that? Why did they use the softer term? Because the Resolution never would have passed if it said "military action" because so many of the other countries were against the automatic use of force.

Almost ALL of these countries are FAR closer to Iraq than the US is, too. If they thought Iraq was a ticking time bomb, they would pay the price before the US would (Iraq didn't have any missiles with more than 1000 km range by far (I think the Samouds went 380)).

So is that crystal frickin clear enough for you? Serious consequences means a heck of a lot of things, but military action is still the very last option, once all others have been exhausted.

As to me "not making a lot of sense and your argument proves to me that you don't have an answer", er, I have no answer for that. I think my line of argument is pretty straightforward and I don't reckon I'm using too many complicated terms.

"Or do you just love freedom for yourself and don't want to share it?"

Like the Iraqis are getting it? Hey, they're frickin ecstatic about it. Name me ONE country that the United States of America has "brought freedom to"... I can name 3 democracies that they've toppled off the top of my head, but answer my question please.

And don't say World War II, because the US didn't do squat until they were attacked. They couldn't care less if the Nazis took over the whole world as long as they didn't get slapped around.

Springer: "WHAT "serious consequences" could the UN have done to Iraq that it hadn't BEEN DOING for 11 years leading up to the skirmish (I refuse to call that uncontested route a war)?"

They weren't even given a chance to do anything. I'm 100% sure that SOMEBODY could have come up with a really incredible way to solve the conflict if given enough time. But the march was on and there was no stopping it. Pure arrogance and bravado.

And 11 years of sanctions did pretty much nothing but bankrupt the country's people and kill a lot of kids. But guess what, you can always figure out something better, given time and ingenuity.

I'm sure if you asked your average soldier SERVING in Iraq right now, he or she would agree with me and Skadi on this way more than with you. Any soldier who ever served in any war ever. It's the LAST option, and calling it "serious consequences" is woefully underestimating it.

THENEO: Hey look at the pretty shiny marble I have. It's nice, huh?



jakomo

MA,

thanks for correcting my spelling, but maybe I like it better with a 'c' oh well keep trying.

regarding my opinion it is as valid as yours and your troupe of left wing dancers,

also this is on topic is it not? are we not discussing the validity of the war?

sometimes you display a lack of discernment and higher levels of rationality and this is a rare example of it.

regarding lying, all politicians lie, we even know they do and you know why we accept it, because we DO NOT WANT THE TRUTH!

what we want are selective truths that favour our preconceived notion of reality.

you know this yet you duck the issue.

furthermore, there were so many reasons for going into Iraq that in fact they did tell the truth and that cannot be disputed.

let me ask you this then, do you work only for the enjoyment or for the money?