Back up your claim that I am wrong. In before, "But we bombed them to liberate them!". And what I am saying is not based on war on Iraq. Just look at the whole history of your nation and the last century. Your nation, what it was, what it wanted to be - and what it is and soon to be.
Sigh. First, I don't have to: you made the initial assertions, so you need to back them up. Me saying you are wrong, when you provide no evidence, does not have to be backed up.
Worse, though, I did back it up. You said that the U.S. seeks to control the world, yet I pointed out the fact that we gave back control of Iraq. You didn't respond to this evidence.
You are clearly not intelligent enough to be allowed to continue. Good-bye.
@pudgenet Wow...very kind of you americans to "hand back" something that never belonged to you, and GDemon is right, America wants to rule the world, but i hope they never do.
America is the biggest threat to this planet, they ARE the terrorists.
You are the centurion screaming "Ave Cesar!", you are the knight yelling "God wills it!", you are the angry mob burning a witch at a stake. You are inept and willingly blind.
@GDemon I am going to give you a single remaining chance. Back up what you say. You keep throwing out idiotic claims like "fascist" and "Nazi" and accuse me of various things, but you don't back up your claims.
So, last chance: provide evidence.
This is about reason, not ideology, not nationality, not partisanship. You lack reason, which sucks for you, but I am giving you one last chance to try it out.
If you want me to quit I'll quit. My original point about USA being the biggest fascist regime of our time is a fact though. You ,sir, are a fascist. A tyrant. Your fascination by this military conflict where thousands of innocent people got killed by your righteous government just proves that. Your beloved government even hates it's own people and constitution, haven't you seen the news on TV?
@GDemon "My original point about USA being the biggest fascist regime of our time is a fact though"
My point is that you are incapable of backing up your claim. This remains true.
"You ,sir, are a fascist."
You are also incapable of backing up this claim. I've said nothing that is fascist, or defends fascism. I only pointed out that your claim is incorrect, that you cannot defend your point. This is not fascism, it is reason. The two are, at best, orthogonal.
@GDemon Um. The Third Reich was marked primarily by its taking over of other nations in an attempt to control the world. The U.S. kicked out Saddam Hussein, ***and then gave up power of Iraq back to the Iraqi people.***
To compare this to the Third Reich marks you as an idiot. You literally have no clue what the hell you are talking about. You're just plain dumb.
@GDemon Look, this is simple. You compared contemporary U.S. to Nazi Germany. Explain how they are similar in any significant and relevant way that the history books would draw a link between them.
Go ahead. If you can't do so, then I am right, and you are wrong.
@pudgenet Both of them are morally incorrect. Both of them want to rule the world. Both of them are very militaristic. Both made/make great crimes against humanity.
I'm beginning to think that you are trolling me. Because it is hard to believe that you are so brainwashed and ignorant in the ways the world works.
@GDemon You apparently didn't understand my question. Many other nations fit the criteria you mentioned, including (by your standards of "Nazi Germany" and "modern U.S.") the USSR and China, which makes the U.S. Third Reich v4, at best.
Of course, no nation is morally correct. That doesn't even make sense.
Worst of all, as I've already proven, the U.S. does NOT want to rule the world. Otherwise they would not have given control of Iraq back to the Iraqis soon after ousting Hussein.
@GDemon You can pretend to have the high ground by using words like "troll" and "brainwashed" and "ignorant," but it won't cover up the fact that you have no intelligent, serious, argument to make.
@pudgenet I ain't pretending shit. Things are as they are. You're a blind patriot. Ain't nothing that I say would change that picture in your mind. Let me just tell you that I was just like you after 9/11. But I learned with time, you instead plateaued in propaganda and lies.
@GDemon "Ain't nothing that I say would change that picture in your mind."
That is a fallacious cop-out. What is really true is that you are incapable of backing up your claims. If you could back them up, you would. You can't. This is about facts and reason, and you eschew both for vitriol and lies.
@pudgenet But I can say the same about your side of things. All in all, you're not aware of the bigger picture. And you keep spewing "facts" that were told to you. Flat Earth was a FACT too...
@atiboy1 we really shouldve taken him out in '91, but we had to wait till bush sr.'s son finished the job, and cost much more american lives than we could imagine.
@salakast Actually the reason why U.S. troops didn't pushed onto Baghdad and remove Saddam from power in 1991 because George Bush Sr realized that doing so would have the country destabilized and would cause the civil war not to mention it would be hard to control the religious factions willing to take over terrotories that is living in Iraq. That's why Bush Sr allowed Saddam to stay in power and keep them contained(which worked pretty well). Look at the history of the middle east to see why.
@pudgenet i dont accuse you of lying but you seem misinformed and drawn into this to a degree that seems fanatic. no matter what you accuse me of and no matter in what way you're trying to rationalize, your country went over there killing, and that just isnt right. the rest of the world hates you for it, and with good reason
In fact, I do not. In order to seem misinformed, I would have to be saying something that isn't accurate. But everything I've said is accurate; you are not capable demonstrating otherwise ... which is why you haven't attempted it.
"you're trying to rationalize, your country went over there killing"
You're lying. I rationalized nothing, nor did I ever say we didn't kill. I said most of the killing wasn't by us, which is true.
@pudgenet i have made my point clear multiple times and you've ignored it. it didnt take me all of your 4, 5 replies to see that you dont care about the arguments and viewpoints of others, you just want to twist your own points and also you definitely (intentionally or unintentionally) want to draw attention away from the points of others (or only reply when you know a way to defuse them) so in the end your points would be the only ones left standing
@stoneeh "i have made my point clear multiple times and you've ignored it"
You're a liar. You didn't make a single point against anything I said. You made assertions you couldn't back up, and several times -- such as in your claim that the U.S. killed all the people who died -- made bald-faced lies.
"you dont care about the arguments and viewpoints of others"
You're a liar. I care about arguments from others; but you made no actual arguments.
@pudgenet You stupid sheeple. You are probably the most uneducated, brainwashed, delusional person on youtube. I can't believe you supported the invasion of Iraq. I bet all you do is play cod in your mom's basement, and listen to the tv all day. Wake up dumbass. Do you have someone in your family in the military? Probably not, I say that because of the stupidity you write in your comments. Its funny how one of the richest people in this country met with Hussein. David Rockefeller.
@pudgenet well done sir, he never replied two thumbs up to your argument; truely.. even though i am an idiot.. and i don't know why this war hPPENED ANYMORE oops.. damn education
@DrDevil32 No, its a bombing campaign designed to hit strategic targets with accuracy and speed to show the effectiveness of US and Allies air power. The intent is that we can strike whatever and whenever we want without use of mindless bombing.
Well if you believe that fire was responsible for burning the WTC into a free fall and then into dust only mere hours after plans flew into them... you'd be right Pudgenet and this war would be just. If you believe in science and math you'd understand that the collapse of the WTC and especially building 3 was founded unscientific by a group of engineers and architects who never got to submit their reports. There are some laws you just can’t break. Gravity being one of them. Thats why its a crime
Actually, the language of the UN resolutions pertaining to the original Gulf War in 1991 leaves no doubt that the UN mandate for armed intervention by the US-led Coalition expired when Iraq was expelled from Kuwait and a cease-fire agreed. There was no "unfinished work of 687," and 1441 specifically reserved to the UNSC the right to require further deliberation and a new vote before any further armed force was used against Iraq. The US invasion was illegal under international law.
Sorry, but ignorance is no substitute for actual knowledge and understanding. Section 14 of UN Resolution 1441 states that the UNSC: "Decides to remain seized of the matter." If you knew anything about the legal terminology of UN Resolutions generally, you would recognize this as a specific proviso that member states are restrained from undertaking any further unilateral action, specifically armed force, without further deliberate authority from the UNSC.
@pudgenet ". It means no such thing. What it means is that the UNSC is promising to do something. It is in NO WAY a restraint on member states."
I suggest that you educate yourself more fully regarding both international law and the meaning of the language contained in UN Resolutions. I defy you to cite a single competent authority in international law to support your contention regarding the import of the words "Decides to remain seized of the matter" in UNSC resolutions.
@WolverineDeus "I defy you to cite a single competent authority in international law"
Bullshit. You are the one making the claim, you do it to support YOUR view. You may find some ... but you won't find many. The words do tell the GA to not act -- not that the GA *can* really act on anything, but whatever -- but not member states.
@pudgenet In addition to the specific meaning of the key phrase "Decides to remain seized of the matter," there is also the strictly logical question of why, in passing 1441, the Security Council would have empowered the US and Britain to act unilaterally against the wishes of the majority of the members of the Security Council itself in undertaking armed action against Iraq. Your argument is specious and ridiculous on its face, and is unworthy of consideration.
@WolverineDeus "why, in passing 1441, the Security Council would have empowered the US and Britain to act unilaterally"
You are lying again. NO ONE IS SAYING THIS. No one, to my knowledge, has EVER said this, and certainly I've never said it, and I am not saying it now.
My argument has been very clear: the UN did not empower anyone, and no empowerment was necessary.
"Your argument is specious"
As that is obviously not my argument, YOUR argument is the straw man fallacy.
Then you agree that the unilateral action of the US/UK Coalition in invading Iraq in 2003 was illegal under applicable international law and lacked even the pretense of legitimacy? If that is your position, then I must agree with you without any reservation. The actions of the Bush Administration and the US-led Coalition were unwarranted, unnecessary, unjustified, and tragically stupid.
@pudgenet You seem to be very free with the insults and abusive attitude. I am neither illiterate nor stupid, I can assure you. Your position, that the US action in invading Iraq in 2003 can in any way be justified, either under international law or out of considerations of self-interest, is merely absurd. Putting together newsreel film footage of an air raid on a computer movie maker hardly makes you a foreign policy or international law expert.
@pudgenet I refuse to engage in a childish playground altercation with you. You perceive my pointing out the absurdity of your position as a form of insult or abuse. I perceive your arguments as logically and factually unsustainable. If you find that perception insulting, oh bloody well.
@WolverineDeus "the US action in invading Iraq in 2003 can in any way be justified, either under international law or out of considerations of self-interest, is merely absurd."
@WolverineDeus Realize that the U.S. wrote the language you say constrains the U.S. from acting, and yet said AT THE TIME that the U.S. would not be constrained by a lack of UN action, and NO ONE, AT THE TIME, said that the language did constrain them. They might have said the Charter constrained them -- a specious argument -- but not that 1441 did. This is a made-up theory by a few "experts" that holds no water.
It is refreshing to note that your knowledge of the US Constitution is on a par with your understanding of international law. Pursuant to Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution (aka the "Supremacy Clause") all treaties ratified by Congress, of which the UN Charter is one, have complete force under US law.
As some pundit once observed, no one is quite so confident of his position in a matter as the man who knows absolutely. nothing.
@WolverineDeus "It is refreshing to note that your knowledge of the US Constitution is on a par with your understanding of international law"
Still hurling childish insults, I see. And, as usual, doing so inappropriately.
When I said "This is a made-up theory" I was referring to the idea that 1441 constrained the U.S. This is not a question of whether 1441 has the force of law, but whether 1441 contains text that constrains the U.S. It does not.
@WolverineDeus As to the UN Charter -- which I was not referring to in your quote of me -- it does have something like the force of law, as the Constitution says. But the problem is, there's nothing in the Charter that says the U.S. cannot act without UN approval. You will find language that many think implies it, but it doesn't actually say it.
Just as with your claim about 687 being finished work ... you don't know what you're talking about.
@pudgenet The requirements of UNSC Resolution 687 were fulfilled on April 6, 1991, when Iraq formally ratified its terms. On that date, the authorization for the use of force (i.e., "all necessary means) stipulated in UNSC Resolution 678 expired and was never revived. The UN Charter contains specific prohibitions against preventative war, war for regime change, and war for perceived but unproven threats, and its ratification by Congress makes those acts illegal under US law.
@WolverineDeus "The requirements of UNSC Resolution 687 were fulfilled on April 6, 1991, when Iraq formally ratified its terms"
False. UNSC 687 set up an ongoing system of disarmament, monitoring, inspections, and verification with no predetermined end date, AND promised that the UNSC would take additional action as necessary to fulfill the requirements of 687.
@pudgenet "nothing in the Charter...says the U.S. cannot act without UN approval"
Actually, had you bothered to read the Peter Danchin essay to which I referred you earlier, you would understand that regime change, preventative war, and acting under color of spurious claims of national interest ARE in fact violations of the UN Charter, to which the US is signatory.
UNSC Resolution 678's "all necessary means" codicil expired on April 6, 1991, when Iraq accepted 687.
@WolverineDeus "regime change, preventative war, and acting under color of spurious claims of national interest ARE in fact violations of the UN Charter"
False.
"UNSC Resolution 678's "all necessary means" codicil expired on April 6, 1991, when Iraq accepted 687."
I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE. I've told you this repeatedly. Dammit, learn to read. I never did, or would, make the argument that the UN authorized the U.S. to invade Iraq.
@pudgenet In other words, you cannot cite a single authority to support your position -- which is not surprising, since your position is totally invalid. You can sit there and claim that I am lying all day, but at the end of the day you still won't know what you are talking about. I invite you to read Peter Danchin's discussion of the matter dated 4/14/2003 at the Peace & Conflict Monitor website and at least attempt to educate yourself.
@WolverineDeus "In other words, you cannot cite a single authority to support your position"
You're a liar. You see, YOU made the claim, and it is YOUR obligation to back it up. To assert that because I have not provided a source when YOU have not done so to support your assertion that I am merely denying ... it's the height of arrogance and dishonesty.
I cited and directed you to sources with quite extensive and comprehensive documentation, which you predictably either did not understand, or else chose to ignore.
Rather than continue to argue with someone who pretty obviously has an agenda but lacks the knowledge necessary to support it, I am going to take the advice of Mark Twain, who famously said: "Never argue with an idiot -- doing so makes it entirely too easy to be mistaken for one yourself."
@WolverineDeus "I cited and directed you to sources ..."
First, no, you supplied a single source. Second, it wasn't until AFTER you said "In other words, you cannot cite a single authority to support your position."
Third, as I pointed out, your source doesn't back up your claim that the language of the resolutions precludes action by member states, so you were lying about what the source said.
Rather than resort to name-calling, you should try to actually back up your claims, if you can.
@WolverineDeus And providing ONE example doesn't back you up, especially when you are lying about that one example backing you up. IT DOES NOT SAY that "remain seized" means member states cannot do anything. It says that the argument that existing UNSC resolutions authorized U.S. invasion is false. I agree; existing resolutions did not authorize invasion. I merely point out no authorization was necessary.
It is not the business of the United States of America to defend the interests of Israel, and to spend US taxpayer money or to shed American blood on behalf of militant Zionist imperialism in Palestine would be criminal folly. Israel has in the past attacked US ships (i.e., USS Liberty) on the high seas, trafficked with America's enemies in the region, and sent spies to infiltrate the highest levels of the US government and Defense establishment (i.e. Jonathan Pollard).
Actually, the language of the UN resolutions pertaining to the original Gulf War in 1991 leaves no doubt that the UN mandate for armed intervention by the US-led Coalition expired when Iraq was expelled from Kuwait and a cease-fire agreed. There was no "unfinished work of 687," and 1441 specifically reserved to the UNSC the right to require further deliberation and a new vote before any further armed force was used against Iraq. The US invasion was illegal under international law.
Democracy foes will face this same fate. Freedom will come to those who wait. Radical Muslims have been warned with the silencing of Sadam Hussein. Iran has backed off its pushing hard against the back of the United States. War is not what we want, its response. We will cut off the legs that attack the United States. If Shock and Awe didn't open their eyes, then nothing will. They will be sacrificial Lambs for their ideology. If anyone attacks Israel, the United States will defend them.
@USAFVeteranRet It is not the business of the United States of America to defend the interests of Israel, and to spend US taxpayer money or to shed American blood on behalf of militant Zionist imperialism in Palestine would be criminal folly. Israel has in the past attacked US ships (i.e., USS Liberty) on the high seas, trafficked with America's enemies in the region, and sent spies to infiltrate the highest levels of the US government and Defense establishment (i.e. Jonathan Pollard).
@USAFVeteranRet you obviously meant Hypocrisy foes will face this same fate. This is totalitarianism not democracy. I wonder what really was pushing hard that much against the back of the USA? what was it really? why are the US allowed to have nuclear weapon and not Iran?! Nobody actually pushed on USA's back, there are just some nations operating on different principles and this is what in particular "american government" dislikes. So it actions. Peace to you all anyhow
@USAFVeteranRet you obviously meant Hypocrisy foes will face this same fate. This is totalitarianism not democracy. I wonder what really was pushing hard that much against the back of the USA? what was it really? why are the US allowed to have nuclear weapon and not Iran?! Nobody actually pushed on USA's back, there are just some nations operating on different principles and this is what in particular "american government" dislikes. So it actions. Peace to you all anyhow
@USAFVeteranRet you obviously meant Hypocrisy foes will face this same fate. This is totalitarianism not democracy. I wonder what really was pushing hard that much against the back of the USA? what was it really? why are the US allowed to have nuclear weapon and not Iran?! Nobody actually pushed on USA's back, there are just some nations operating on different principles and this is what in particular "american government" dislikes. So it actions. Peace to you all anyhow
i'd be super pissed if someone did this to my city and if they invaded to control my natural resources they would see a guerrilla that would make the IRA, VietCong,and FARC look like childs play
Shrug. You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts.
"why hayward (ex bp exec) is moving in with this other petroleum company to the kurdistan"
You know there's a difference between controlling the oil, and getting the oil out of the ground? Corporations buy the right to dig up the oil, paying the people who own and control the oil gobs of money. Iraq controls the oil, and sells the rights to corporations, reaping big profits.
@IslamicState3 You mean after the Nazis, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Vikings, the Mongolians, the Spanish, the British ... because surely you can't possibly mean that the invasion of one country -- and then almost immediately turning rule of that country back over to the people of that country -- is a bigger "terrorist invasion" than permanent invasions of much larger regions of the world. Because that would make you look like a complete nutjob ... or, at least, completely ignorant of history.
@pudgenet what has turning the rule of a country to its people in common with being ignorant of history,(whatever that means) or looking like a nutjob?!?! ...all that glitters is not gold...
@FidelAnge "what has turning the rule of a country to its people in common with being ignorant of history"
He said that invading Iraq and almost immediately turning the rule of Iraq over to the Iraqi people was a "greater terrorist invasion" than, say, the Nazis invading Poland.
I say that 's pretty damned ignorant of history, and that it makes him look like a nutjob.
@pudgenet: Who is Saudi-Arabia? Kuwait? You mean the dictators who are set up by the west!
It makes you complete ignorant as you don't you that all these dictators are helped by the west.
For example, how hypocrite is it when you make your mouth open when the Egyptian people is coming on the streets in the millions. For 30 years the U.S. said nothing! because they have no interests in Egypt now, because Mubarak is already oppress his people.
@pudgenet: No, i telling you about the facts who helped this dictators for many years. I am straight in my words and you know very well what i talking about, or you must be very stupid.
@pudgenet: Yes, i know what you are saying and i say back to you, is Saudi-Arabia only the king of Saudi-Arabia? or is it their people? You must look what the people itself want. And you can ask every civilian in Iraq, wich time was better, the time of Saddam or the invasion. I can tell you even now, that they will say the time of Saddam. Since the criminel invasion every day more than 100 people killed.
Yes, and again, the dictators are raised by the west. How known is that?
@pudgenet: Yes, i know what you are saying and i say back to you, is Saudi-Arabia only the king of Saudi-Arabia? or is it their people? You must look what the people itself want. And you can ask every civilian in Iraq, wich time was better, the time of Saddam or the invasion. I can tell you even now, that they will say the time of Saddam. Since the criminel invasion every day more than 100 people killed.
Yes, and again, the dictators are raised by the west. How known is that?
There is no greater danger to world peace as America proclaims full of fear, cowardice, greed for retaliation and hatred also inhumane desire to kill. Mankind has to be afraid of America under a cover-up "their lie" of peace and fighting terror, exercises effective terror in many places, and countries of the earth spreads and establishes herself militarily and politically. Points to greed for world-control and resources.
nutjob? Iraq ultimately lead to an un-be-liev-able disaster, torturing as well as to mass murder through U.S. armed forces. Stunned the entire world. Osama was built up through the CIA together with the US government. Therfore, Bush jr., and his criminal trusted ones, knew about the 9/11 attack, however undertook nothing against it. A criminal act that gains Bush the upper hand to let loose against Islam, naturaly under the cloak that they wanted to free the US and the world from terrorism.
@pudgenet Bush and his cronies who actually were accessories to the murdrs of thousands of Americans, that falsely led the nation into a war that already killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's and which could ultimately result in the murders of countless millions of people, including a great % of American populaltion (WW3). The level of treason is beyond comprehension.
@69salford69 No, it means that I am pointing out the fact that @Onetazien didn't actually make an argument. Killing civilians is a terrible thing; but he was explicitly saying that the U.S. was committing "mass murder." And he did not supply an argument backing up that claim.
You are incorrectly claiming that I was dismissing the fact that people died, when I was, in fact, clearly, dismissing his attempt at an argument.
@Onetazien "which could ultimately result in the murders of countless millions of people, including a great % of American populaltion (WW3)"
What's sad is that you don't get that by far the best justification for the war is that it possibly AVOIDED a World War III. Hussein was an active threat to Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and in some ways even Turkey ... this is why several of those nations ASKED us to remove Hussein.
Like a trillion dollar fireworks show... only some of the spectators end up dead or maimed. Glory to the military industrial complex. They must have blown their load watching this.
As a living being, I feel nothing but great sadness watching this clip. 4 billion years of evolution and this is what it came to. An advanced species destroying everything instead of safeguarding it, where we weren't free of conflict even in our own minds.
@ubbecykelkedja It sounds like you are giving all the blame to the U.S. I share your sadness, but I also realize that Iraq was literally, and continually, attacking and threatening its neighbors and several other nations. I say this not to justify the invasion, only to point out the fact that Iraq is far from blameless for the invasion.
@pudgenet US wasn't exactly innocent either..."While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim." - UPI report.
@AccordGTR Yep. As Ron Paul and many others on all sides of the political spectrum have pointed out, we've created a lot of our own problems, and created a lot of problems for many other nations.
The U.S. needs to stop invading 3rd world countries and needs to invade developed countries. Wives and kids cry when they see their daddies come home in boxes after being killed by third world sand niggers? Damn right they should cry...out of shame and embarrassment. Invade a proper country like China or Russia, instead of one with a fraction of the population and GDP.
@YawnGod You are speaking to a different issues. You know that different things are different, right? Legalities matter, a hell of a lot. It is through the rule of law that we ultimately have liberty and justice.
But it's not the only thing that matters: just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. You're saying it's not right, and that's fine. Although your bizarre assertion that we should invade a "proper country" is pretty damned retarded.
@YawnGod You're going to try to argue that certain laws are bad. But I never said anything about laws, I talked about the RULE OF law. Those are different things.
And before you go there, yes, of course the rule of law CAN be used to negative effect. But it's the only way to achieve liberty and justice, even if it doesn't always lead to that.
@pudgenet Which is better, creating a law that prohibits drivers from exceeding a certain velocity, or having no such law and creating vehicles that are non-lethal at those prohibited velocities?
If the law is blind, and life is polychrome, how can liberty and justice exist? A loophole is law. It is by its definition unjust. It could be a good loophole, or a bad one, but it is by its nature unjust.
@YawnGod "A loophole is law. It is by its definition unjust."
Not by any valid or rational definition, no. A law that says it is illegal to take a person's life -- except in self-defense -- against the will of that person is not unjust by ANY definition.
What does "take a person's life" mean? What does "self-defense" mean? And anyway, I suppose you'd apply that example of a law to convicted felons on death row, correct? Or do they not count? And if they don't count, what caused them to forfeit protection under that law? And what other protections under other laws can be eventually forfeited?
You've not provided ANY reason to think every law is a "loophole," nor ANY reason to think a law "by definition" is "unjust," nor ANY reason to think the rule of law necessarily brings injustice.
You keep pretending you have a point by pretending to poke holes in what I say by pretending to be Socrates, but you still haven't actually made an argument.
@pudgenet Hohoho,I didn't state that every law is a loophole, just that every loophole is a law.
Rule of law necessarily brings injustice because it draws the line as to what "justice" is, and justice, unfortunately, is subjective. In some jurisdictions, jaywalking is legal, and in others it's illegal. That is a *phenomenal* paradox if justice were to be considered objective. But it's not objective, now is it?
@pudgenet How is it nearly self-evidently false? Either it's self-evidently false, or it's not, and it has to do with the discussion because if law can be shown to be faulty, then it cannot bring true and absolute freedom and justice.
Ok, I'll try again. Rule of law necessarily brings injustice because it draws the line as to what "justice" is, and justice, unfortunately, is subjective. If you substitute "just" with "fair", I think it becomes easier to understand.
@pudgenet One cannot have 50% justice. Either it's 100%, completely just, or it's unjust. 99.9% justice is still injustice. If you admit that nothing in this life is "true and absolute", does that not apply to justice, and if so, does that not prove that imperfect human laws cannot necessarily bring liberty and justice, which is supposed to be, well, perfect? Unless you don't think that justice is supposed to be fair and perfect, in which case it isn't justice, but merely retribution.
@YawnGod "Either it's 100%, completely just, or it's unjust. 99.9% justice is still injustice"
That's a false, and unsupportable, statement.
"Unless you don't think that justice is supposed to be fair and perfect, in which case it isn't justice, but merely retribution"
Also false and unsupportable.
One example clearly shows both to be false: it is not "injustice" to have a law that puts a serial rapist in jail for life, but it is neither "retribution" nor "injustice" either.
@pudgenet The real question is if justice exists at all. Injustice certainly does. And Man inventing laws certainly does not suddenly make injustice go away.
@YawnGod You are speaking to a different issues. You know that different things are different, right? Legalities matter, a hell of a lot. It is through the rule of law that we ultimately have liberty and justice.
But it's not the only thing that matters: just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. You're saying it's not right, and that's fine. Although your bizarre assertion that we should invade a "proper country" is pretty damned retarded.
You are saying that the rule of law is core, and that UN resolutions does not matter. That there is no law that regulates U.S waging war across the globe like a savage horde automatically means it's enabled.
But state to state armed conflicts are in such a case waged, and legitimized, by international principle such as self-defense.
We all know the 2003 invasion had nothing to do with self-defense, Bush' prime reason was "democracy". What law states that is a legit reason.
By basically circumventing resolution 1441, Bush in essence violated the UN ceasefire agreement and the UN Charter but does this in itself constitute a war crime? Perhaps not, but the Nuremberg Principle VI to which the US was party was very clear in regards to what constituted a crime against peace. And by violating the UN Charter, Bush in essence did commit a war crime.
"the Nuremberg Principle VI to which the US was party was very clear in regards to what constituted a crime against peace"
You're a damned liar: because it was a conflict that BY DEFINITION never ended, which the U.S. was BY DEFINITION a party to, that principle BY DEFINITION doesn't apply.
it is generally considered that security council authorisations of force are only for limited and specific purposes. In the case of resolution 678, the authorisation to use force terminated with the adoption of resolution 687. Secondly, such an analysis was specifically rejected by security council members in their explanations for their votes on resolution 1441. The general view was that resolution 1441 did not provide for "automaticity"...
@gigie555 "[In re] 678, the authorisation to use force terminated with the adoption of resolution 687."
For the UN to act a new resolution would be necessary. But you don't get the fact that this doesn't apply to individual member states.
"resolution 1441 did not provide for "automaticity"..."
Yes, there was nothing that automatically authorized anyone to attack under the authority of the UN. Also, there was nothing **prohibiting** the U.S. from attacking without such "authority."
if my father hears this or see's this he freaks out because of ptsd cause he was in the gulf war its really sad
hooha96 1 week ago
I want to see the day when all american cities burning as they did to Baghdad
SuperThunder84 2 weeks ago
arguing about politics on youtube is so fucking pointless...
Falador321 3 weeks ago
@Falador321 Almost as pointless as telling people that arguing about politics on youtube is pointless.
pudgenet 3 weeks ago
Back up your claim that I am wrong. In before, "But we bombed them to liberate them!". And what I am saying is not based on war on Iraq. Just look at the whole history of your nation and the last century. Your nation, what it was, what it wanted to be - and what it is and soon to be.
GDemon 4 weeks ago
@GDemon "Back up your claim that I am wrong"
Sigh. First, I don't have to: you made the initial assertions, so you need to back them up. Me saying you are wrong, when you provide no evidence, does not have to be backed up.
Worse, though, I did back it up. You said that the U.S. seeks to control the world, yet I pointed out the fact that we gave back control of Iraq. You didn't respond to this evidence.
You are clearly not intelligent enough to be allowed to continue. Good-bye.
pudgenet 4 weeks ago
@pudgenet Wow...very kind of you americans to "hand back" something that never belonged to you, and GDemon is right, America wants to rule the world, but i hope they never do.
America is the biggest threat to this planet, they ARE the terrorists.
MentalChainsawDude 3 weeks ago
You are the centurion screaming "Ave Cesar!", you are the knight yelling "God wills it!", you are the angry mob burning a witch at a stake. You are inept and willingly blind.
GDemon 4 weeks ago
@GDemon I am going to give you a single remaining chance. Back up what you say. You keep throwing out idiotic claims like "fascist" and "Nazi" and accuse me of various things, but you don't back up your claims.
So, last chance: provide evidence.
This is about reason, not ideology, not nationality, not partisanship. You lack reason, which sucks for you, but I am giving you one last chance to try it out.
pudgenet 4 weeks ago
If you want me to quit I'll quit. My original point about USA being the biggest fascist regime of our time is a fact though. You ,sir, are a fascist. A tyrant. Your fascination by this military conflict where thousands of innocent people got killed by your righteous government just proves that. Your beloved government even hates it's own people and constitution, haven't you seen the news on TV?
GDemon 4 weeks ago
@GDemon "My original point about USA being the biggest fascist regime of our time is a fact though"
My point is that you are incapable of backing up your claim. This remains true.
"You ,sir, are a fascist."
You are also incapable of backing up this claim. I've said nothing that is fascist, or defends fascism. I only pointed out that your claim is incorrect, that you cannot defend your point. This is not fascism, it is reason. The two are, at best, orthogonal.
pudgenet 4 weeks ago
nazis attack
TheBroadway135 1 month ago 2
@TheBroadway135 You're an idiot.
pudgenet 1 month ago
USA - the history books will remember you as the Third Reich v2.
GDemon 1 month ago
@GDemon You're an idiot.
pudgenet 1 month ago
@pudgenet No, you're an ignorant person.
GDemon 1 month ago
@GDemon Um. The Third Reich was marked primarily by its taking over of other nations in an attempt to control the world. The U.S. kicked out Saddam Hussein, ***and then gave up power of Iraq back to the Iraqi people.***
To compare this to the Third Reich marks you as an idiot. You literally have no clue what the hell you are talking about. You're just plain dumb.
pudgenet 1 month ago
@pudgenet
Doublethink in action everybody.
GDemon 1 month ago
@GDemon Look, this is simple. You compared contemporary U.S. to Nazi Germany. Explain how they are similar in any significant and relevant way that the history books would draw a link between them.
Go ahead. If you can't do so, then I am right, and you are wrong.
Hurry now, time's a-wasting.
pudgenet 1 month ago
@pudgenet Both of them are morally incorrect. Both of them want to rule the world. Both of them are very militaristic. Both made/make great crimes against humanity.
I'm beginning to think that you are trolling me. Because it is hard to believe that you are so brainwashed and ignorant in the ways the world works.
GDemon 1 month ago
@GDemon You apparently didn't understand my question. Many other nations fit the criteria you mentioned, including (by your standards of "Nazi Germany" and "modern U.S.") the USSR and China, which makes the U.S. Third Reich v4, at best.
Of course, no nation is morally correct. That doesn't even make sense.
Worst of all, as I've already proven, the U.S. does NOT want to rule the world. Otherwise they would not have given control of Iraq back to the Iraqis soon after ousting Hussein.
pudgenet 1 month ago
@GDemon You can pretend to have the high ground by using words like "troll" and "brainwashed" and "ignorant," but it won't cover up the fact that you have no intelligent, serious, argument to make.
pudgenet 1 month ago
@pudgenet I ain't pretending shit. Things are as they are. You're a blind patriot. Ain't nothing that I say would change that picture in your mind. Let me just tell you that I was just like you after 9/11. But I learned with time, you instead plateaued in propaganda and lies.
GDemon 1 month ago
@GDemon "Ain't nothing that I say would change that picture in your mind."
That is a fallacious cop-out. What is really true is that you are incapable of backing up your claims. If you could back them up, you would. You can't. This is about facts and reason, and you eschew both for vitriol and lies.
pudgenet 1 month ago
@pudgenet But I can say the same about your side of things. All in all, you're not aware of the bigger picture. And you keep spewing "facts" that were told to you. Flat Earth was a FACT too...
GDemon 1 month ago
@GDemon "I can say the same about your side of things"
No, you cannot. I only really made one claim to you: the U.S. gave Iraq back to the Iraqis. This is obviously true.
"you're not aware of the bigger picture"
Another non-specific cop-out to cover up the fact that you can't back up your claims.
'you keep spewing "facts" that were told to you'
In fact, I get most of my information from firsthand sources. What fact did I say that you question? I can prove it's true.
You should give up.
pudgenet 4 weeks ago
60000 iraquies death and the WMD?
tkaironx 1 month ago
@atiboy1 we really shouldve taken him out in '91, but we had to wait till bush sr.'s son finished the job, and cost much more american lives than we could imagine.
salakast 1 month ago
@salakast Actually the reason why U.S. troops didn't pushed onto Baghdad and remove Saddam from power in 1991 because George Bush Sr realized that doing so would have the country destabilized and would cause the civil war not to mention it would be hard to control the religious factions willing to take over terrotories that is living in Iraq. That's why Bush Sr allowed Saddam to stay in power and keep them contained(which worked pretty well). Look at the history of the middle east to see why.
Hperman09 1 week ago
man it must have been scary being in Baghdad while the shock and awe bombing campaign was going on
REDSCOUT3 2 months ago
Great Video! Gives me goosebumps, pure power right there!
bdtbinscarth 3 months ago
Lucifer Great Plan is about to completed.!!! We all are doomed !!
nazzat34 3 months ago
FUCK NATO, USA, british crown and other shit.
Viva Saddam!
SeLida2010 3 months ago
@SeLida2010
Saddam was a psychopath, and his son Uday was an even worse psychopath. Glad he never got into power, he would have destroyed Iraq.
NorthCitySider 3 months ago
@NorthCitySider Bush, Obama, Clinton both pervert bastards and other hight level west shit - psychopaths.
SeLida2010 3 months ago
Damn love the sound of gunfire and explosions, so awesome I could just fall asleep listening to a tape of gunfire and explosions.
WezzyStef907 3 months ago
@WezzyStef907
Perhaps not when you know you aren't listening to it from a piece of media.
NorthCitySider 3 months ago
If there wasnt something wlong about this war the zionistic TV would have showed the lighshow 10 years.
Hancerlioglu 3 months ago
@pudgenet i dont accuse you of lying but you seem misinformed and drawn into this to a degree that seems fanatic. no matter what you accuse me of and no matter in what way you're trying to rationalize, your country went over there killing, and that just isnt right. the rest of the world hates you for it, and with good reason
stoneeh 4 months ago
@stoneeh "you seem misinformed"
In fact, I do not. In order to seem misinformed, I would have to be saying something that isn't accurate. But everything I've said is accurate; you are not capable demonstrating otherwise ... which is why you haven't attempted it.
"you're trying to rationalize, your country went over there killing"
You're lying. I rationalized nothing, nor did I ever say we didn't kill. I said most of the killing wasn't by us, which is true.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet i have made my point clear multiple times and you've ignored it. it didnt take me all of your 4, 5 replies to see that you dont care about the arguments and viewpoints of others, you just want to twist your own points and also you definitely (intentionally or unintentionally) want to draw attention away from the points of others (or only reply when you know a way to defuse them) so in the end your points would be the only ones left standing
stoneeh 4 months ago
@stoneeh "i have made my point clear multiple times and you've ignored it"
You're a liar. You didn't make a single point against anything I said. You made assertions you couldn't back up, and several times -- such as in your claim that the U.S. killed all the people who died -- made bald-faced lies.
"you dont care about the arguments and viewpoints of others"
You're a liar. I care about arguments from others; but you made no actual arguments.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet You stupid sheeple. You are probably the most uneducated, brainwashed, delusional person on youtube. I can't believe you supported the invasion of Iraq. I bet all you do is play cod in your mom's basement, and listen to the tv all day. Wake up dumbass. Do you have someone in your family in the military? Probably not, I say that because of the stupidity you write in your comments. Its funny how one of the richest people in this country met with Hussein. David Rockefeller.
cfxboxmoh 3 months ago
@cfxboxmoh "You are probably the most uneducated, brainwashed, delusional person on youtube."
Then please tell me why I present facts that back up my points, that no one can refute?
Actually, don't bother. You presented enough words without any substance whatsoever that I hold out no hope for your future offerings.
pudgenet 3 months ago
@pudgenet well done sir, he never replied two thumbs up to your argument; truely.. even though i am an idiot.. and i don't know why this war hPPENED ANYMORE oops.. damn education
DrDevil32 3 months ago
Shock and awe is the deployment of us forces against nuclear weapons right? I'm probably wrong.. just asking!
DrDevil32 3 months ago
@DrDevil32 No, its a bombing campaign designed to hit strategic targets with accuracy and speed to show the effectiveness of US and Allies air power. The intent is that we can strike whatever and whenever we want without use of mindless bombing.
TheSturdyWall 3 months ago
Well if you believe that fire was responsible for burning the WTC into a free fall and then into dust only mere hours after plans flew into them... you'd be right Pudgenet and this war would be just. If you believe in science and math you'd understand that the collapse of the WTC and especially building 3 was founded unscientific by a group of engineers and architects who never got to submit their reports. There are some laws you just can’t break. Gravity being one of them. Thats why its a crime
1234bmonty 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The final war has to happen...............Lets wait for Imam Mehdi.............We will take all revenges.
FinalCounterStrike 4 months ago
Actually, the language of the UN resolutions pertaining to the original Gulf War in 1991 leaves no doubt that the UN mandate for armed intervention by the US-led Coalition expired when Iraq was expelled from Kuwait and a cease-fire agreed. There was no "unfinished work of 687," and 1441 specifically reserved to the UNSC the right to require further deliberation and a new vote before any further armed force was used against Iraq. The US invasion was illegal under international law.
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus "the UN mandate for armed intervention by the US-led Coalition expired"
Who are you arguing against? No one said any differently.
'There was no "unfinished work of 687"'
Obviously false. The UN itself said so, repeatedly, in 1441.
"1441 specifically reserved to the UNSC the right ..."
You're lying. It did no such thing.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet "You're lying."
Sorry, but ignorance is no substitute for actual knowledge and understanding. Section 14 of UN Resolution 1441 states that the UNSC: "Decides to remain seized of the matter." If you knew anything about the legal terminology of UN Resolutions generally, you would recognize this as a specific proviso that member states are restrained from undertaking any further unilateral action, specifically armed force, without further deliberate authority from the UNSC.
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus "a specific proviso that member states are restrained from undertaking any further unilateral action"
You. Are. Lying. It means no such thing. What it means is that the UNSC is promising to do something. It is in NO WAY a restraint on member states.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet ". It means no such thing. What it means is that the UNSC is promising to do something. It is in NO WAY a restraint on member states."
I suggest that you educate yourself more fully regarding both international law and the meaning of the language contained in UN Resolutions. I defy you to cite a single competent authority in international law to support your contention regarding the import of the words "Decides to remain seized of the matter" in UNSC resolutions.
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus "I defy you to cite a single competent authority in international law"
Bullshit. You are the one making the claim, you do it to support YOUR view. You may find some ... but you won't find many. The words do tell the GA to not act -- not that the GA *can* really act on anything, but whatever -- but not member states.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet In addition to the specific meaning of the key phrase "Decides to remain seized of the matter," there is also the strictly logical question of why, in passing 1441, the Security Council would have empowered the US and Britain to act unilaterally against the wishes of the majority of the members of the Security Council itself in undertaking armed action against Iraq. Your argument is specious and ridiculous on its face, and is unworthy of consideration.
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus "why, in passing 1441, the Security Council would have empowered the US and Britain to act unilaterally"
You are lying again. NO ONE IS SAYING THIS. No one, to my knowledge, has EVER said this, and certainly I've never said it, and I am not saying it now.
My argument has been very clear: the UN did not empower anyone, and no empowerment was necessary.
"Your argument is specious"
As that is obviously not my argument, YOUR argument is the straw man fallacy.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet "no empowerment was necessary."
Then you agree that the unilateral action of the US/UK Coalition in invading Iraq in 2003 was illegal under applicable international law and lacked even the pretense of legitimacy? If that is your position, then I must agree with you without any reservation. The actions of the Bush Administration and the US-led Coalition were unwarranted, unnecessary, unjustified, and tragically stupid.
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus "Then you agree that the unilateral action of the US/UK Coalition in invading Iraq in 2003 was illegal"
No. I said precisely the opposite. Are you illiterate and stupid? I said empowerment was not necessary.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet You seem to be very free with the insults and abusive attitude. I am neither illiterate nor stupid, I can assure you. Your position, that the US action in invading Iraq in 2003 can in any way be justified, either under international law or out of considerations of self-interest, is merely absurd. Putting together newsreel film footage of an air raid on a computer movie maker hardly makes you a foreign policy or international law expert.
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus "You seem to be very free with the insults and abusive attitude"
No more than you. From the beginning you've been laying on insults toward me, which makes you -- again -- a liar for implying otherwise.
"I am neither illiterate nor stupid"
Well, you put up a good act.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet I refuse to engage in a childish playground altercation with you. You perceive my pointing out the absurdity of your position as a form of insult or abuse. I perceive your arguments as logically and factually unsustainable. If you find that perception insulting, oh bloody well.
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus "I refuse to engage in a childish playground altercation with you"
You called me ignorant, and somehow I am the one being childish? You're not convincing anyone.
"You perceive my pointing out the absurdity of your position as a form of insult or abuse."
You're a liar. I am merely pointing out the fact of your abusive language.
"I perceive your arguments as logically and factually unsustainable."
You can't back up this "perception" with logic or facts.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus "the US action in invading Iraq in 2003 can in any way be justified, either under international law or out of considerations of self-interest, is merely absurd."
IF YOU HAVE A CASE, BACK IT UP.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet "IF YOU HAVE A CASE, BACK IT UP."
I think that I like your approach better.
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus Realize that the U.S. wrote the language you say constrains the U.S. from acting, and yet said AT THE TIME that the U.S. would not be constrained by a lack of UN action, and NO ONE, AT THE TIME, said that the language did constrain them. They might have said the Charter constrained them -- a specious argument -- but not that 1441 did. This is a made-up theory by a few "experts" that holds no water.
pudgenet 4 months ago
Comment removed
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
@pudgenet "This is a made-up theory"
It is refreshing to note that your knowledge of the US Constitution is on a par with your understanding of international law. Pursuant to Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution (aka the "Supremacy Clause") all treaties ratified by Congress, of which the UN Charter is one, have complete force under US law.
As some pundit once observed, no one is quite so confident of his position in a matter as the man who knows absolutely. nothing.
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus "It is refreshing to note that your knowledge of the US Constitution is on a par with your understanding of international law"
Still hurling childish insults, I see. And, as usual, doing so inappropriately.
When I said "This is a made-up theory" I was referring to the idea that 1441 constrained the U.S. This is not a question of whether 1441 has the force of law, but whether 1441 contains text that constrains the U.S. It does not.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus As to the UN Charter -- which I was not referring to in your quote of me -- it does have something like the force of law, as the Constitution says. But the problem is, there's nothing in the Charter that says the U.S. cannot act without UN approval. You will find language that many think implies it, but it doesn't actually say it.
Just as with your claim about 687 being finished work ... you don't know what you're talking about.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet The requirements of UNSC Resolution 687 were fulfilled on April 6, 1991, when Iraq formally ratified its terms. On that date, the authorization for the use of force (i.e., "all necessary means) stipulated in UNSC Resolution 678 expired and was never revived. The UN Charter contains specific prohibitions against preventative war, war for regime change, and war for perceived but unproven threats, and its ratification by Congress makes those acts illegal under US law.
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus "The requirements of UNSC Resolution 687 were fulfilled on April 6, 1991, when Iraq formally ratified its terms"
False. UNSC 687 set up an ongoing system of disarmament, monitoring, inspections, and verification with no predetermined end date, AND promised that the UNSC would take additional action as necessary to fulfill the requirements of 687.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus "the authorization for the use of force ... expired and was never revived"
Again: no authorization was necessary.
"The UN Charter contains specific prohibitions against preventative war, war for regime change, and war for perceived but unproven threats"
You are lying.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet "nothing in the Charter...says the U.S. cannot act without UN approval"
Actually, had you bothered to read the Peter Danchin essay to which I referred you earlier, you would understand that regime change, preventative war, and acting under color of spurious claims of national interest ARE in fact violations of the UN Charter, to which the US is signatory.
UNSC Resolution 678's "all necessary means" codicil expired on April 6, 1991, when Iraq accepted 687.
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus "regime change, preventative war, and acting under color of spurious claims of national interest ARE in fact violations of the UN Charter"
False.
"UNSC Resolution 678's "all necessary means" codicil expired on April 6, 1991, when Iraq accepted 687."
I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE. I've told you this repeatedly. Dammit, learn to read. I never did, or would, make the argument that the UN authorized the U.S. to invade Iraq.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet In other words, you cannot cite a single authority to support your position -- which is not surprising, since your position is totally invalid. You can sit there and claim that I am lying all day, but at the end of the day you still won't know what you are talking about. I invite you to read Peter Danchin's discussion of the matter dated 4/14/2003 at the Peace & Conflict Monitor website and at least attempt to educate yourself.
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus "In other words, you cannot cite a single authority to support your position"
You're a liar. You see, YOU made the claim, and it is YOUR obligation to back it up. To assert that because I have not provided a source when YOU have not done so to support your assertion that I am merely denying ... it's the height of arrogance and dishonesty.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet "You're a liar..."
I cited and directed you to sources with quite extensive and comprehensive documentation, which you predictably either did not understand, or else chose to ignore.
Rather than continue to argue with someone who pretty obviously has an agenda but lacks the knowledge necessary to support it, I am going to take the advice of Mark Twain, who famously said: "Never argue with an idiot -- doing so makes it entirely too easy to be mistaken for one yourself."
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus "I cited and directed you to sources ..."
First, no, you supplied a single source. Second, it wasn't until AFTER you said "In other words, you cannot cite a single authority to support your position."
Third, as I pointed out, your source doesn't back up your claim that the language of the resolutions precludes action by member states, so you were lying about what the source said.
Rather than resort to name-calling, you should try to actually back up your claims, if you can.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@WolverineDeus And providing ONE example doesn't back you up, especially when you are lying about that one example backing you up. IT DOES NOT SAY that "remain seized" means member states cannot do anything. It says that the argument that existing UNSC resolutions authorized U.S. invasion is false. I agree; existing resolutions did not authorize invasion. I merely point out no authorization was necessary.
pudgenet 4 months ago
It is not the business of the United States of America to defend the interests of Israel, and to spend US taxpayer money or to shed American blood on behalf of militant Zionist imperialism in Palestine would be criminal folly. Israel has in the past attacked US ships (i.e., USS Liberty) on the high seas, trafficked with America's enemies in the region, and sent spies to infiltrate the highest levels of the US government and Defense establishment (i.e. Jonathan Pollard).
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually, the language of the UN resolutions pertaining to the original Gulf War in 1991 leaves no doubt that the UN mandate for armed intervention by the US-led Coalition expired when Iraq was expelled from Kuwait and a cease-fire agreed. There was no "unfinished work of 687," and 1441 specifically reserved to the UNSC the right to require further deliberation and a new vote before any further armed force was used against Iraq. The US invasion was illegal under international law.
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
Democracy foes will face this same fate. Freedom will come to those who wait. Radical Muslims have been warned with the silencing of Sadam Hussein. Iran has backed off its pushing hard against the back of the United States. War is not what we want, its response. We will cut off the legs that attack the United States. If Shock and Awe didn't open their eyes, then nothing will. They will be sacrificial Lambs for their ideology. If anyone attacks Israel, the United States will defend them.
USAFVeteranRet 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USAFVeteranRet It is not the business of the United States of America to defend the interests of Israel, and to spend US taxpayer money or to shed American blood on behalf of militant Zionist imperialism in Palestine would be criminal folly. Israel has in the past attacked US ships (i.e., USS Liberty) on the high seas, trafficked with America's enemies in the region, and sent spies to infiltrate the highest levels of the US government and Defense establishment (i.e. Jonathan Pollard).
WolverineDeus 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USAFVeteranRet
"Democracy foes will face this same fate."
Then watch yourself Mr. Veteran; Because Nuremberg might just get re-opened...
Orthodoxcrusader 4 months ago
Comment removed
FidelAnge 4 months ago
Comment removed
FidelAnge 4 months ago
Comment removed
FidelAnge 4 months ago
@USAFVeteranRet you obviously meant Hypocrisy foes will face this same fate. This is totalitarianism not democracy. I wonder what really was pushing hard that much against the back of the USA? what was it really? why are the US allowed to have nuclear weapon and not Iran?! Nobody actually pushed on USA's back, there are just some nations operating on different principles and this is what in particular "american government" dislikes. So it actions. Peace to you all anyhow
FidelAnge 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USAFVeteranRet you obviously meant Hypocrisy foes will face this same fate. This is totalitarianism not democracy. I wonder what really was pushing hard that much against the back of the USA? what was it really? why are the US allowed to have nuclear weapon and not Iran?! Nobody actually pushed on USA's back, there are just some nations operating on different principles and this is what in particular "american government" dislikes. So it actions. Peace to you all anyhow
FidelAnge 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USAFVeteranRet you obviously meant Hypocrisy foes will face this same fate. This is totalitarianism not democracy. I wonder what really was pushing hard that much against the back of the USA? what was it really? why are the US allowed to have nuclear weapon and not Iran?! Nobody actually pushed on USA's back, there are just some nations operating on different principles and this is what in particular "american government" dislikes. So it actions. Peace to you all anyhow
FidelAnge 4 months ago
i'd be super pissed if someone did this to my city and if they invaded to control my natural resources they would see a guerrilla that would make the IRA, VietCong,and FARC look like childs play
jroman692 4 months ago
@jroman692 "if they invaded to control my natural resources"
It's a good thing that didn't happen, then.
You know that Iraq controls Iraq's oil, right?
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet that is bull shit thats why hayward (ex bp exec) is moving in with this other petroleum company to the kurdistan s region to rape iraqs oil
jroman692 4 months ago
@jroman692 "that is bull shit"
Shrug. You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts.
"why hayward (ex bp exec) is moving in with this other petroleum company to the kurdistan"
You know there's a difference between controlling the oil, and getting the oil out of the ground? Corporations buy the right to dig up the oil, paying the people who own and control the oil gobs of money. Iraq controls the oil, and sells the rights to corporations, reaping big profits.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet well support the corporations one day you'll be in a FEMA camp; be prepared for that
jroman692 4 months ago
@jroman692 Riiiiiiiiight.
Cuckoo!
pudgenet 4 months ago
The biggest terrorist invasion the world ever met.
IslamicState3 4 months ago
@IslamicState3 You mean after the Nazis, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Vikings, the Mongolians, the Spanish, the British ... because surely you can't possibly mean that the invasion of one country -- and then almost immediately turning rule of that country back over to the people of that country -- is a bigger "terrorist invasion" than permanent invasions of much larger regions of the world. Because that would make you look like a complete nutjob ... or, at least, completely ignorant of history.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet what has turning the rule of a country to its people in common with being ignorant of history,(whatever that means) or looking like a nutjob?!?! ...all that glitters is not gold...
FidelAnge 4 months ago
@FidelAnge "what has turning the rule of a country to its people in common with being ignorant of history"
He said that invading Iraq and almost immediately turning the rule of Iraq over to the Iraqi people was a "greater terrorist invasion" than, say, the Nazis invading Poland.
I say that 's pretty damned ignorant of history, and that it makes him look like a nutjob.
YMMV.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@IslamicState3 Oh, and by the way, you know that several other Muslim nations wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq, right? Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan ...
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet: Who is Saudi-Arabia? Kuwait? You mean the dictators who are set up by the west!
It makes you complete ignorant as you don't you that all these dictators are helped by the west.
For example, how hypocrite is it when you make your mouth open when the Egyptian people is coming on the streets in the millions. For 30 years the U.S. said nothing! because they have no interests in Egypt now, because Mubarak is already oppress his people.
IslamicState3 4 months ago
@IslamicState3 "Who is Saudi-Arabia? Kuwait? You mean the dictators who are set up by the west!"
Riiiiiight.
"It makes you complete ignorant as you don't you that all these dictators are helped by the west."
"Helped"? Yes, nations help each other. "Set up by"? No.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet: In 1969 who was president in Lybia? and who helped Ghaddafi to power and gave him the things wich he can control the country?
Af course, its known, that was Tony Blair. Husni Mubarak is supported by the Americans, and Yemen by Britain. Its all known already.
Why they had the chance to even torture his people more than 30 years in Lybia? the same thing in Egypt.
Even the U.S, spend a lot of money to Egypt every year! were the money is going? to the people? please even they know it
IslamicState3 4 months ago
@IslamicState3 "In 1969 who was president in Lybia?"
I never mentioned Libya, or Egypt, or Yemen. You are dishonestly committing the "shifting the goalpost" fallacy.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet: No, i telling you about the facts who helped this dictators for many years. I am straight in my words and you know very well what i talking about, or you must be very stupid.
IslamicState3 4 months ago
@IslamicState3 You're confused.
I said a few specific states asked the U.S. to invade Iraq.
You then said -- incorrectly -- that they were dictators "set up by" the U.S.
I corrected you, and then you started talking about completely different states that have nothing to do with what I said.
Again: Egypt and Libya have nothing to do with what I am talking about. Trying to make a point about them is dishonest.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet: Yes, i know what you are saying and i say back to you, is Saudi-Arabia only the king of Saudi-Arabia? or is it their people? You must look what the people itself want. And you can ask every civilian in Iraq, wich time was better, the time of Saddam or the invasion. I can tell you even now, that they will say the time of Saddam. Since the criminel invasion every day more than 100 people killed.
Yes, and again, the dictators are raised by the west. How known is that?
IslamicState3 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pudgenet: Yes, i know what you are saying and i say back to you, is Saudi-Arabia only the king of Saudi-Arabia? or is it their people? You must look what the people itself want. And you can ask every civilian in Iraq, wich time was better, the time of Saddam or the invasion. I can tell you even now, that they will say the time of Saddam. Since the criminel invasion every day more than 100 people killed.
Yes, and again, the dictators are raised by the west. How known is that?
IslamicState3 4 months ago
There is no greater danger to world peace as America proclaims full of fear, cowardice, greed for retaliation and hatred also inhumane desire to kill. Mankind has to be afraid of America under a cover-up "their lie" of peace and fighting terror, exercises effective terror in many places, and countries of the earth spreads and establishes herself militarily and politically. Points to greed for world-control and resources.
Onetazien 4 months ago
@Onetazien You're a complete nutjob.
pudgenet 4 months ago
nutjob? Iraq ultimately lead to an un-be-liev-able disaster, torturing as well as to mass murder through U.S. armed forces. Stunned the entire world. Osama was built up through the CIA together with the US government. Therfore, Bush jr., and his criminal trusted ones, knew about the 9/11 attack, however undertook nothing against it. A criminal act that gains Bush the upper hand to let loose against Islam, naturaly under the cloak that they wanted to free the US and the world from terrorism.
Onetazien 4 months ago
@Onetazien "nutjob?"
Yes.
"mass murder through U.S. armed forces"
^^^ Exactly: nutjob.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet exactly
Onetazien 4 months ago
@pudgenet 90% of modern warfare casualties are civilians
Onetazien 4 months ago
@Onetazien And?
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet Bush and his cronies who actually were accessories to the murdrs of thousands of Americans, that falsely led the nation into a war that already killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's and which could ultimately result in the murders of countless millions of people, including a great % of American populaltion (WW3). The level of treason is beyond comprehension.
Onetazien 4 months ago
@Onetazien "Bush and his cronies who actually were accessories to the murdrs of thousands of Americans"
Look, you do not need to keep proving you're a nutjob. We get it.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet Your response to "90% of modern warfare casualties are civilians" was "And?"
That makes you a nutjob you sadistic fuck.
69salford69 4 months ago
@69salford69 No, it means that I am pointing out the fact that @Onetazien didn't actually make an argument. Killing civilians is a terrible thing; but he was explicitly saying that the U.S. was committing "mass murder." And he did not supply an argument backing up that claim.
You are incorrectly claiming that I was dismissing the fact that people died, when I was, in fact, clearly, dismissing his attempt at an argument.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet You said he was a nutjob for stating that US armed forces committed mass murder.
John Pilger's film, "The War You Don't See", goes a long way to describe how the US commits War crimes.
It seems YOU are the fucking nutjob.
69salford69 4 months ago
@69salford69 "You said he was a nutjob for stating that US armed forces committed mass murder."
I did, and he is.
"John Pilger's film ... goes a long way to describe how the US commits War crimes."
I don't deny the U.S. has committed war crimes. I deny that the invasion itself was a war crime.
"It seems YOU are the fucking nutjob."
No, it does not. You see, I rely on facts and evidence and reason.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@Onetazien "which could ultimately result in the murders of countless millions of people, including a great % of American populaltion (WW3)"
What's sad is that you don't get that by far the best justification for the war is that it possibly AVOIDED a World War III. Hussein was an active threat to Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and in some ways even Turkey ... this is why several of those nations ASKED us to remove Hussein.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@Onetazien cool story bro
(insult)
Seamachgun 4 months ago
Like a trillion dollar fireworks show... only some of the spectators end up dead or maimed. Glory to the military industrial complex. They must have blown their load watching this.
victorbarovsky 4 months ago
@victorbarovsky It must hurt your neck to have your nose so far in the air, and be looking down on everyone, at the same time.
pudgenet 4 months ago
i remember that night. that was awesome. bush was such a showman....it was ridiculous. thanks for the bad ass footage cnn ;)
seasonedbeefcock 4 months ago
As a living being, I feel nothing but great sadness watching this clip. 4 billion years of evolution and this is what it came to. An advanced species destroying everything instead of safeguarding it, where we weren't free of conflict even in our own minds.
ubbecykelkedja 4 months ago
@ubbecykelkedja It sounds like you are giving all the blame to the U.S. I share your sadness, but I also realize that Iraq was literally, and continually, attacking and threatening its neighbors and several other nations. I say this not to justify the invasion, only to point out the fact that Iraq is far from blameless for the invasion.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet US wasn't exactly innocent either..."While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim." - UPI report.
AccordGTR 4 months ago
@AccordGTR Yep. As Ron Paul and many others on all sides of the political spectrum have pointed out, we've created a lot of our own problems, and created a lot of problems for many other nations.
pudgenet 4 months ago
Comment removed
publicmario17 4 months ago
The comments are sort of lulzy.
The U.S. needs to stop invading 3rd world countries and needs to invade developed countries. Wives and kids cry when they see their daddies come home in boxes after being killed by third world sand niggers? Damn right they should cry...out of shame and embarrassment. Invade a proper country like China or Russia, instead of one with a fraction of the population and GDP.
Legalities schmegalities.
YawnGod 4 months ago
@YawnGod You are speaking to a different issues. You know that different things are different, right? Legalities matter, a hell of a lot. It is through the rule of law that we ultimately have liberty and justice.
But it's not the only thing that matters: just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. You're saying it's not right, and that's fine. Although your bizarre assertion that we should invade a "proper country" is pretty damned retarded.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet Interesting. I could argue that it is though rule of law that we ultimately have slavery, bondage and injustice.
YawnGod 4 months ago
@YawnGod Not very successfully, no, you could not.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet I assume you know what a statute of limitations is?
YawnGod 4 months ago
@YawnGod Yes.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet You can see where this is going, right?
YawnGod 4 months ago
@YawnGod You're going to try to argue that certain laws are bad. But I never said anything about laws, I talked about the RULE OF law. Those are different things.
And before you go there, yes, of course the rule of law CAN be used to negative effect. But it's the only way to achieve liberty and justice, even if it doesn't always lead to that.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet Hohoho, I would be never so naive as to argue for or against a specific law itself.
But we're talking about rule of law, and if it's necessarily though it that we have liberty and justice. I assume you know what a jury is?
YawnGod 4 months ago
@YawnGod If you have an argument, make it.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet Which is better, creating a law that prohibits drivers from exceeding a certain velocity, or having no such law and creating vehicles that are non-lethal at those prohibited velocities?
If the law is blind, and life is polychrome, how can liberty and justice exist? A loophole is law. It is by its definition unjust. It could be a good loophole, or a bad one, but it is by its nature unjust.
Anyway, this is silly.
YawnGod 4 months ago
@YawnGod "A loophole is law. It is by its definition unjust."
Not by any valid or rational definition, no. A law that says it is illegal to take a person's life -- except in self-defense -- against the will of that person is not unjust by ANY definition.
You have not made any case whatsoever.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet So loopholes are...just? Cool.
What does "take a person's life" mean? What does "self-defense" mean? And anyway, I suppose you'd apply that example of a law to convicted felons on death row, correct? Or do they not count? And if they don't count, what caused them to forfeit protection under that law? And what other protections under other laws can be eventually forfeited?
I wish I could be as rational as you.
YawnGod 4 months ago
@YawnGod "So loopholes are...just?"
You've not provided ANY reason to think every law is a "loophole," nor ANY reason to think a law "by definition" is "unjust," nor ANY reason to think the rule of law necessarily brings injustice.
You keep pretending you have a point by pretending to poke holes in what I say by pretending to be Socrates, but you still haven't actually made an argument.
"I wish I could be as rational as you."
Me too.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet Hohoho,I didn't state that every law is a loophole, just that every loophole is a law.
Rule of law necessarily brings injustice because it draws the line as to what "justice" is, and justice, unfortunately, is subjective. In some jurisdictions, jaywalking is legal, and in others it's illegal. That is a *phenomenal* paradox if justice were to be considered objective. But it's not objective, now is it?
YawnGod 4 months ago
@YawnGod "every loophole is a law"
That makes even LESS sense, both in that it's nearly self-evidently false, and it has nothing to do with the discussion.
'Rule of law necessarily brings injustice because it draws the line as to what "justice" is, and justice, unfortunately, is subjective'
That doesn't mean it brings injustice. Try again.
"That is a *phenomenal* paradox if justice were to be considered objective."
Only if you define justice incorrectly.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet How is it nearly self-evidently false? Either it's self-evidently false, or it's not, and it has to do with the discussion because if law can be shown to be faulty, then it cannot bring true and absolute freedom and justice.
Ok, I'll try again. Rule of law necessarily brings injustice because it draws the line as to what "justice" is, and justice, unfortunately, is subjective. If you substitute "just" with "fair", I think it becomes easier to understand.
Oh, definitions, definitions.
YawnGod 4 months ago
@YawnGod "it cannot bring true and absolute freedom and justice"
So? Nothing in this life is "true and absolute."
"Rule of law necessarily ... draws the line as to what "justice" is, and justice, unfortunately, is subjective."
That does not imply "injustice."
Keep trying.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet One cannot have 50% justice. Either it's 100%, completely just, or it's unjust. 99.9% justice is still injustice. If you admit that nothing in this life is "true and absolute", does that not apply to justice, and if so, does that not prove that imperfect human laws cannot necessarily bring liberty and justice, which is supposed to be, well, perfect? Unless you don't think that justice is supposed to be fair and perfect, in which case it isn't justice, but merely retribution.
YawnGod 4 months ago
@YawnGod "Either it's 100%, completely just, or it's unjust. 99.9% justice is still injustice"
That's a false, and unsupportable, statement.
"Unless you don't think that justice is supposed to be fair and perfect, in which case it isn't justice, but merely retribution"
Also false and unsupportable.
One example clearly shows both to be false: it is not "injustice" to have a law that puts a serial rapist in jail for life, but it is neither "retribution" nor "injustice" either.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet The real question is if justice exists at all. Injustice certainly does. And Man inventing laws certainly does not suddenly make injustice go away.
YawnGod 4 months ago
@YawnGod "The real question is if justice exists at all."
No. The real question is why you haven't provided ANY argument backing up your claim that rule of law brings injustice.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet You know, you're starting to remind me of a cop I used to know. Quite interesting.
YawnGod 4 months ago
@YawnGod You are speaking to a different issues. You know that different things are different, right? Legalities matter, a hell of a lot. It is through the rule of law that we ultimately have liberty and justice.
But it's not the only thing that matters: just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. You're saying it's not right, and that's fine. Although your bizarre assertion that we should invade a "proper country" is pretty damned retarded.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet ---
You are saying that the rule of law is core, and that UN resolutions does not matter. That there is no law that regulates U.S waging war across the globe like a savage horde automatically means it's enabled.
But state to state armed conflicts are in such a case waged, and legitimized, by international principle such as self-defense.
We all know the 2003 invasion had nothing to do with self-defense, Bush' prime reason was "democracy". What law states that is a legit reason.
underbjorn 4 months ago
@underbjorn "You are saying ... that UN resolutions does not matter"
False. I never said that.
"That there is no law that regulates U.S waging war ... automatically means it's enabled."
Yes, that's self-evidently true.
"the 2003 invasion had nothing to do with self-defense"
Also incorrect.
pudgenet 4 months ago
The final war has to happen...............Lets wait for Imam Mehdi.............We will take all revenges.
docounterstrike 4 months ago
@pudgenet Good for you, There is proof , lots of proof,
hitcan79 4 months ago
@hitcan79 You're a liar. If you had proof, you'd provide it. So would others. No one ever has.
pudgenet 4 months ago
@pudgenet what the fuck proof are you talking about? He had plans drawn up while the fucking election was going on
hitcan79 4 months ago
@hitcan79 No, in fact, he did not.
pudgenet 4 months ago
By basically circumventing resolution 1441, Bush in essence violated the UN ceasefire agreement and the UN Charter but does this in itself constitute a war crime? Perhaps not, but the Nuremberg Principle VI to which the US was party was very clear in regards to what constituted a crime against peace. And by violating the UN Charter, Bush in essence did commit a war crime.
gigie555 4 months ago
@gigie555 "By basically circumventing resolution 1441"
That never happened.
"the Nuremberg Principle VI to which the US was party was very clear in regards to what constituted a crime against peace"
You're a damned liar: because it was a conflict that BY DEFINITION never ended, which the U.S. was BY DEFINITION a party to, that principle BY DEFINITION doesn't apply.
pudgenet 4 months ago
let's not forget this....
it is generally considered that security council authorisations of force are only for limited and specific purposes. In the case of resolution 678, the authorisation to use force terminated with the adoption of resolution 687. Secondly, such an analysis was specifically rejected by security council members in their explanations for their votes on resolution 1441. The general view was that resolution 1441 did not provide for "automaticity"...
gigie555 4 months ago
@gigie555 "[In re] 678, the authorisation to use force terminated with the adoption of resolution 687."
For the UN to act a new resolution would be necessary. But you don't get the fact that this doesn't apply to individual member states.
"resolution 1441 did not provide for "automaticity"..."
Yes, there was nothing that automatically authorized anyone to attack under the authority of the UN. Also, there was nothing **prohibiting** the U.S. from attacking without such "authority."
pudgenet 4 months ago