Syrian civil war (83 Viewers)

[Seven]

No, you are not getting it. They don't have to be a threat to the US to justify war, at least not for me. Just like in the hypothetical with Germany, they didn't have to be a threat to the US to justify war.

Maybe the term preemptive war is not very accurate, but Saddam was exterminating his own people, he was a serious danger to the neighboring countries, he was toying with the non-proliferation agreement and was trying to pool the wool over the inspector's eyes (which is conveniently left out by all the critics, who only mention that no actual WMDs were found), and he was harboring terrorists, such as Zarqawi. If that doesn't justify war, I don't know what does.

They do. They have to be a threat to justify a preemptive war. Invading a country without being attacked by it and without being threatened by it is illegal.

The other possibility is that you make a case for a 'humanitarian intervention'. But everyone knows that's simply not why the US invaded Iraq.

Look up both notions please, because I feel like you don't fully understand them.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[GordoDeCentral]

No, you are not getting it. They don't have to be a threat to the US to justify war, at least not for me. Just like in the hypothetical with Germany, they didn't have to be a threat to the US to justify war.

Maybe the term preemptive war is not very accurate, but Saddam was exterminating his own people, he was a serious danger to the neighboring countries, he was toying with the non-proliferation agreement and was trying to pool the wool over the inspector's eyes (which is conveniently left out by all the critics, who only mention that no actual WMDs were found), and he was harboring terrorists, such as Zarqawi. If that doesn't justify war, I don't know what does.

Harboring zarqawi LOOOOL seriously stop you are embarrassing yourself

 

[Juliano13]

What genocide did saddam commit? None, america has systematically annihilated all of the native populations. So in genocides america 1 iraq 0.

America is in violation of the non-proliferation treaty because it is yet to destroy any of its nuclear arsenal not to mention that it's the only country to actually use nuclear weapons. So in nuclear US 1 the world 0.

The US has taken in a lot of the nazis post WWII. Since then it has organized coups and placed tyranical despots to undertake its bidding all over the world. Not to mention iraq was exonerated from the silly al qaeda links the bush administration has accused it of. Terrorism, US 1 iraq 0.
The Iraq war was an illegal war and all the mental gymnastics will not undo that.

Finally, i hate US as much as you love facts and know me.

You are insane, bro. I feel like a mosquito at a nudist beach, don't know where to start. I'll reply to this pile of horseshit late when I have time.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

You are insane, bro. I feel like a mosquito at a nudist beach, don't know where to start. I'll reply to this pile of horseshit late when I have time.

LOL ok zarqawi, from the city of zarqa in Jordan

 

[Seven]

What genocide did saddam commit? None, america has systematically annihilated all of the native populations. So in genocides america 1 iraq 0.

America is in violation of the non-proliferation treaty because it is yet to destroy any of its nuclear arsenal not to mention that it's the only country to actually use nuclear weapons. So in nuclear US 1 the world 0.

The US has taken in a lot of the nazis post WWII. Since then it has organized coups and placed tyranical despots to undertake its bidding all over the world. Not to mention iraq was exonerated from the silly al qaeda links the bush administration has accused it of. Terrorism, US 1 iraq 0.
The Iraq war was an illegal war and all the mental gymnastics will not undo that.

Finally, i hate US as much as you love facts and know me.

Tbh you'd be hard pressed to find any, even American, legal scolars who will justify that war.

Personally I just know that if an ICC judge tells me that war was a disgrace, an ICC judge who has spent an entire career looking for nuance in international (humanitarian) law, it's likely to be true.

 

[Seven]

You are insane, bro. I feel like a mosquito at a nudist beach, don't know where to start. I'll reply to this pile of horseshit late when I have time.

Lol what? He made some excellent points there. Especially the fact about the US still having nuclear weapons. You brought that shit up, dude.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Tbh you'd be hard pressed to find any, even American, legal scolars who will justify that war.

Personally I just know that if an ICC judge tells me that war was a disgrace, an ICC judge who has spent an entire career looking for nuance in international (humanitarian) law, it's likely to be true.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

 

[Seven]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

Yeah, him too, I know. Honestly at this point in time I think pretty much everyone agrees that it was in fact illegal. There was the whole wmd thing too, which proved to be false and was the basis for the preemptive war.

Arguing that it was legal is just silly imo.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Yeah, him too, I know. Honestly at this point in time I think pretty much everyone agrees that it was in fact illegal. There was the whole wmd thing too, which proved to be false and was the basis for the preemptive war.

Arguing that it was legal is just silly imo.

The dude thinks zarqawi was in iraq when saddam was in charge, he knows jack about the conflict

 

[Zacheryah]

What do you want the EU or Europe (not the same thing) to do?

What it is doing right now.



Which is not invade shit for no legit reason and stirr up crap everywhere. Pull economic resolutions and talk.


You cant invade, remove the dictator and occupy. It never works. In my view, bleed that place economically dry if its breaking human laws. People will rise against the leadership and demand change. You'll end up with a new guy in charge or revolution (ammounts to the same).

New guy is probably as corrupt as the previous one, but once in a while you get it right, and work from there.




We talk, negotiate, use economics. We dont take military initiative (not remotely). I like it that way.

 

[Seven]

The dude thinks zarqawi was in iraq when saddam was in charge, he knows jack about the conflict

He's trying to change the facts to suits his hopes.

I don't understand why he feels the need to do this though. The US had no business in Iraq. It was outrageous. We all know that.

But that doesn't change my opinion that there will be extreme circumstances where I can see the need for a humanitarian intervention (though let's not kid ourselves no country is going to invade Syria with the sole idea of helping Syrians).

 

[Seven]

What it is doing right now.



Which is not invade shit for no legit reason and stirr up crap everywhere. Pull economic resolutions and talk.


You cant invade, remove the dictator and occupy. It never works. In my view, bleed that place economically dry if its breaking human laws. People will rise against the leadership and demand change. You'll end up with a new guy in charge or revolution (ammounts to the same).

New guy is probably as corrupt as the previous one, but once in a while you get it right, and work from there.




We talk, negotiate, use economics. We dont take military initiative (not remotely). I like it that way.

So why are you criticizing the EU if it is doing what you want it to do?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Did you see this?

Lol how does this guy still have a job

 

[Zacheryah]

So why are you criticizing the EU if it is doing what you want it to do?

I'm not. I just pointed out we arent remotely doing what he said.


Its like when someone comes and says "man juventus is this amazing balls out flair and creative team in every serie a game"


I would laugh and disagree. Just like i did with Enron

 

[IliveForJuve]

What genocide did saddam commit? None, america has systematically annihilated all of the native populations. So in genocides america 1 iraq 0.

America is in violation of the non-proliferation treaty because it is yet to destroy any of its nuclear arsenal not to mention that it's the only country to actually use nuclear weapons. So in nuclear US 1 the world 0.

The US has taken in a lot of the nazis post WWII. Since then it has organized coups and placed tyranical despots to undertake its bidding all over the world. Not to mention iraq was exonerated from the silly al qaeda links the bush administration has accused it of. Terrorism, US 1 iraq 0.
The Iraq war was an illegal war and all the mental gymnastics will not undo that.

Finally, i hate US as much as you love facts and know me.

Lol wat? The US is not in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 

[Seven]

Lol wat? The US is not in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It wouldn't be hard to argue it is imo.

 

[IliveForJuve]

It wouldn't be hard to argue it is imo.

Please elaborate briefly, Siete.

 

[Seven]

Please elaborate briefly, Siete.

Art. VI:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

I know it's a good faith obligation, but you can't seriously claim the US have tried to pursue complete nuclear disarmament.

 

[Zacheryah]

Art. VI:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

I know it's a good faith obligation, but you can't seriously claim the US have tried to pursue complete nuclear disarmament.

They wont and they shouldnt.

Nuclear capability of russia and the US is what kept the cold war from turning into an actual war.


To be fair, the US has an ageing nuclear arsenal, and it has reduced the numbers.

Russia has reduced at a slower amount, but their main defense expenses has been updating their rocket arsenal and missle defence.

They got like 1 carrier and alot of awesome airplane tech they are barely putting into production, but their missle defence and rocket tech is top notch.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

It wouldn't be hard to argue it is imo.

http://fair.org/extra/ignoring-the-u-s-s-quotbad-atomsquot/