L
LoafingOaf - The Official Online Stud
Guest
This is a reply to screenname Journalists Who Fly.
> Why do you fail to see that these sanctions were simply imposed and never
> agreed to? Never has any official international body officially backed the
> no-fly zones. And Saddam never said he'd respect them. So, no, the no-fly
> zones have no legal basis. The (economic and other) sanctions do.
I don't give a fine f*** what Saddam respects. Again, you didn't discuss why there are no-fly zones, what they have restuled in for the people living under their shield, and what would happen if they were removed. You can make your argument that they should be lifted if you want, but to not even address the fact that Saddam will re-continue genocide in those areas is shameful.
> Why should I state that? America attacks Iraq for over 10 years thereby
> violating international principles. If Iraq invades Kuwait, you use the
> same principle to condemn it. Speaking of double standards.
> Whether or not Saddam has been doing wrong is immaterial to the point
> proven: the no-fly zones have no legal basis.
America has never attacked IRaq. Iraq is enslaved by a madman and that is who the international community has tried to disarm and contain. If you wanna talk about "illegal," I consider Saddam Hussein's existance illegal. It abhors me that he's even allowed to breath another breath of air on this planet, let alone enslave a whole population of peoples.
> If you're so gung-ho on saving the life of the Iraqi civilians, where's
> your statement against the embargo and sanctions on the country? I mean, I
> can also use this kind of no-argument.
Well, funny boy, I already did make statements on that. I suppose the thread got scattered so it's understandable you missed it. First of all, I'm for regime change, after which there'd be no need for sanctions. The santions haven't been successful. I suppose they were put in place by people not fully realizing just how sick Saddam is, and that Saddam would be perfectly happy to allow Iraqis to die rather than give up his mission to get nukes. I think they also miscalculoated that Saddam would be able to hold on to power. But since the sanctions have been designed and tweaked with a program to allow humanitarian items in, the direct cause of those deaths is Saddam, and the sanctions the indirect cause. Don't see you pointing that out, because I don't see you saying a damn thing against Saddam.
But yeah, I guess you missed it. I'm not for the policy of recent years continuing. I'm a revolutionary for the liberation of the IRaqi people and the death of Saddam Hussein.
> Oh yes - you can go on and on about that. Don't just pretend you know it
> all.
> Bah. Now that's a silly argument. If protecting human lifes is at stake,
> and an issue to the USA, why don't they lift the economic sanctions? Sure,
> the life of the Iraqi matter to you when they come in handy to prove your
> point.
> He invaded Kuwait - which was bad, wrong and whatever you want.
Yeah, you sound so convincing!
>Point is,
POINT IS: Saddam is a brutal, sick, evil fascist dictator running an agressive totalitarian state which has enslaved its own people, torture, lets its own people die in mass, attacked all of its neighbors with huge losses of human life, engages in genocidal activities, supports international terrorism, builds and uses weapons of mass destruction, and is hellbent on going nuclear.
No comment on any of that from you though.
> the Gulf war has not been won nor lost in any official terms - as it still
> continues. The no-fly zones are a part of the continued war against Iraq.
I'm still waiting for you to sound like anything Saddam Hussein does bothers you.
> Lost your pedals again? The no-fly zones are protecting people who are
> completely reduced into misery thanks to the sanctions. Well, speak about
> protection !
Huh? The oil-for-food program is successful in the no-fly zones. You know, where Saddam can't decide to keep humanitarian items from them?
What Saddam does is, he chooses who gets what shares of humanitarian supplies in the oil-for-food program. For example, after the Gulf War, Saddam decided the Shi-ah would get the least of the food rationed under the U.N. embargo. After the oil-for-food, Saddam still made sure there were the hospotal shortages and unrepaired infrastrcuture in the south. He was more interested in putting resources to his own terror regime pruposes, and use a humanitarian crisis he purposely and diectly caused to fool dupes like you into feeling sorry for him. I feel sorry for the people who have suffered under the sanctions, and I think the only optiojn left is to remove the cause and let the IRaqi people have a chance to come up with something better.
> The sanctions already caused more deaths than any of Saddams crimes
> against his own population.
Well, since no one has any facts and figures on that, I'll just assume you're making that up, but yeah, Saddam has been letting lots of his people die under the sanctions, and yeah, it does put some indirect moral responsible for that upon us, all the more reason we must do something else (like, force him to comply once and for all with the demands of 17 UN resolutions NOW, or change that f***ing regime NOW). We should've known he was that evil and just continued on into Bagdad 11 years ago and finished the job then. But much of the world wanted to take a supposedly more peaceful route of containment and disarmament, and I guess hindsight is 20/20.
But again, the sanctions are only an indirect cause of deaths. The sanctions have been designed to allow humanitarian items in. Saddam, the direct cause, made a conscious choice to kill his own people. And part of the reason he does so is to use the people he lets die for propaganda, the propaganda you buy into. We don't really know how many people have died. Saddam's released figures are proven inaccurate, and what people do is they take his figures and make guesstimates of what the real ones are. I think there are lots of people dying there, and lets just go in there, remove the direct cause, and get on with a new future where the Iraqi people can come up with something better for their country.
> I'm not against no-fly zones, laddie. You don't see the point, do you?
> Whatever the good intentions (and evil consequences) of the principle of a
> no-fly zone, it's just that they have no legal basis,
Says YOU. Who else says so? Saddam Hussein. Who else?
>and therefore they
> can be considered a violation of international law.
In your opinion, supported by nothing.
>Certainly so if USA
> and UK planes use the territory for recognition and attacks. Don't twist
> the point, ... or didn't you get it?
> And you have to have a high degree of naivety to claim that those no-fly
> zones effectively protect the civilians. If that were true, Southern and
> Northern Iraq should be close to paradise for the population.
> They aren't, believe me. Absolutely not.
I don't recall saying they created paradises. Stupid comment.
> Easy. Take a book on international law and the principle of sovereignty.
> Read it.
LOLOLOL!! No, dipshit. I asked YOU to prove they're illegal. I'm not gonna do your work for you. I'm convinced they're perfectly just and appropriate.
I don't hear anyone who carries any weight saying otherwise. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. To you it seems so obvious they're "illegal," I don't know why you completely failed in proving your point. Oh, yeah, I know why: They're NOT illegal!
> Iraq is blamed for invading Kuwait and violating Kuwait's independency and
> sovereignty; but when US planes invade Iraqi airspace, that's suddenly not
> an issue anymore.
> Your own government moreover uses sovereignty in order to push off the
> Kyoto protocolls, or any other universalist ecological principle. So, get
> a clue.
This whole sovereignty issue means squat to me. Saddam has attacked all of his neighbors, and the international community intervened and is requiring that he comply with 16, and now 17 U.N. Resolutions. Since he hasn't done so, your point is not an issue.
> See above and read through some materials first then.
I asked you to prove the no-fly zones are illegal. All you came back with was that I should go read something on my own. LOL. Everything I've read that isn't written by wackos supports my view, so I guess it's back in your court, sonny boy. Try not to sidestep backing up your point this time. As of now all you've proven is that in your mere personal opinion they're "illegal."
> Did it occur to you that K. Annan already said that the UN won't take this
> as a breach, because they never allowed nor endorsed the no-fly zones?
Oh, look at you, so worried that your hero, Saddam, is in trouble.
> I'm hoping you get some sense in that skull of yours.
> I hope Saddam is disarmed, and soon, and I hope we don't need a war to
> achieve that.
And how would you achieve that?
I appreciate that you "hope Saddam is disarmed, and soon."
Glad one of you finally admits that we all know he has illegal weapons programs going on. Lots of people are playin dumb about that......
> No. No-fly zones are not part of any council resolution.
They help to enforce resolutions, though. For example, the southern no-fly zone is backed up by REsolution 949, which prohibits Iraq from reinforcing units in southern Ira to threaten Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. You know, those two countries he wants to invade? So you see, the U.N. has said we want to make sure we can easily spot and strike an Iraqi buildup near Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and this was in response to Saddam invading Kuwait and planning on ivading Saudi Arabia next. So...dumb ass...a perfectly just and LEGAL reaction to Saddam's agressive actions and noncompliance.
>Oh surely, the
> planes were just monitoring the lives of the civilian population or
> monitoring his WMD programme? Why can't satellites and spyplanes do that
> job?
> Now that's a pretty deep thought.
It was a perfectly good point. It's the same thing when judges have to interpret statutes. They ambiguous (often on purpose), or fail to predict every fact scenerio that might arise. So you don't know what the words mean as applied to a given real world situation until that situation comes up and someone deices how what those words mean with respect to those facts.
What is a "material breach"? Hasn't been made clear yet.
> Sure, they can make a new resolution in which they claim that whenever
> Saddam would counterattack during a war situation, that he should be
> attacked. Pretty pointless. You can always make a law to decide upon facts
> that happened before. Which makes it perfectly ad hoc.
Oh yeah, Saddam's just "counterattacking."
> You're just so pathetically selective in deciding which principles to
> uphold, and which to forget.
> If you believe that Saddam's being a dangerous freak allows you to do
> whatever it takes to do away with him, then don't be surprised to learn
> that some people think the same about the US government.
LOL. And there you are, exposed at last as an extremist freak. I didn't realize America was an agressive totalitarian state run by a fascist dictator.
> I'll leave that to your guessing.
My only question to you, since you already proved you don't know shit about whether the no-fly zones are illegal or not, is: After Saddam is dead (and I'm of the mind that'll be soon) who's the next fascist dictator you're gonna go to bat for?
> Why do you fail to see that these sanctions were simply imposed and never
> agreed to? Never has any official international body officially backed the
> no-fly zones. And Saddam never said he'd respect them. So, no, the no-fly
> zones have no legal basis. The (economic and other) sanctions do.
I don't give a fine f*** what Saddam respects. Again, you didn't discuss why there are no-fly zones, what they have restuled in for the people living under their shield, and what would happen if they were removed. You can make your argument that they should be lifted if you want, but to not even address the fact that Saddam will re-continue genocide in those areas is shameful.
> Why should I state that? America attacks Iraq for over 10 years thereby
> violating international principles. If Iraq invades Kuwait, you use the
> same principle to condemn it. Speaking of double standards.
> Whether or not Saddam has been doing wrong is immaterial to the point
> proven: the no-fly zones have no legal basis.
America has never attacked IRaq. Iraq is enslaved by a madman and that is who the international community has tried to disarm and contain. If you wanna talk about "illegal," I consider Saddam Hussein's existance illegal. It abhors me that he's even allowed to breath another breath of air on this planet, let alone enslave a whole population of peoples.
> If you're so gung-ho on saving the life of the Iraqi civilians, where's
> your statement against the embargo and sanctions on the country? I mean, I
> can also use this kind of no-argument.
Well, funny boy, I already did make statements on that. I suppose the thread got scattered so it's understandable you missed it. First of all, I'm for regime change, after which there'd be no need for sanctions. The santions haven't been successful. I suppose they were put in place by people not fully realizing just how sick Saddam is, and that Saddam would be perfectly happy to allow Iraqis to die rather than give up his mission to get nukes. I think they also miscalculoated that Saddam would be able to hold on to power. But since the sanctions have been designed and tweaked with a program to allow humanitarian items in, the direct cause of those deaths is Saddam, and the sanctions the indirect cause. Don't see you pointing that out, because I don't see you saying a damn thing against Saddam.
But yeah, I guess you missed it. I'm not for the policy of recent years continuing. I'm a revolutionary for the liberation of the IRaqi people and the death of Saddam Hussein.
> Oh yes - you can go on and on about that. Don't just pretend you know it
> all.
> Bah. Now that's a silly argument. If protecting human lifes is at stake,
> and an issue to the USA, why don't they lift the economic sanctions? Sure,
> the life of the Iraqi matter to you when they come in handy to prove your
> point.
> He invaded Kuwait - which was bad, wrong and whatever you want.
Yeah, you sound so convincing!
>Point is,
POINT IS: Saddam is a brutal, sick, evil fascist dictator running an agressive totalitarian state which has enslaved its own people, torture, lets its own people die in mass, attacked all of its neighbors with huge losses of human life, engages in genocidal activities, supports international terrorism, builds and uses weapons of mass destruction, and is hellbent on going nuclear.
No comment on any of that from you though.
> the Gulf war has not been won nor lost in any official terms - as it still
> continues. The no-fly zones are a part of the continued war against Iraq.
I'm still waiting for you to sound like anything Saddam Hussein does bothers you.
> Lost your pedals again? The no-fly zones are protecting people who are
> completely reduced into misery thanks to the sanctions. Well, speak about
> protection !
Huh? The oil-for-food program is successful in the no-fly zones. You know, where Saddam can't decide to keep humanitarian items from them?
What Saddam does is, he chooses who gets what shares of humanitarian supplies in the oil-for-food program. For example, after the Gulf War, Saddam decided the Shi-ah would get the least of the food rationed under the U.N. embargo. After the oil-for-food, Saddam still made sure there were the hospotal shortages and unrepaired infrastrcuture in the south. He was more interested in putting resources to his own terror regime pruposes, and use a humanitarian crisis he purposely and diectly caused to fool dupes like you into feeling sorry for him. I feel sorry for the people who have suffered under the sanctions, and I think the only optiojn left is to remove the cause and let the IRaqi people have a chance to come up with something better.
> The sanctions already caused more deaths than any of Saddams crimes
> against his own population.
Well, since no one has any facts and figures on that, I'll just assume you're making that up, but yeah, Saddam has been letting lots of his people die under the sanctions, and yeah, it does put some indirect moral responsible for that upon us, all the more reason we must do something else (like, force him to comply once and for all with the demands of 17 UN resolutions NOW, or change that f***ing regime NOW). We should've known he was that evil and just continued on into Bagdad 11 years ago and finished the job then. But much of the world wanted to take a supposedly more peaceful route of containment and disarmament, and I guess hindsight is 20/20.
But again, the sanctions are only an indirect cause of deaths. The sanctions have been designed to allow humanitarian items in. Saddam, the direct cause, made a conscious choice to kill his own people. And part of the reason he does so is to use the people he lets die for propaganda, the propaganda you buy into. We don't really know how many people have died. Saddam's released figures are proven inaccurate, and what people do is they take his figures and make guesstimates of what the real ones are. I think there are lots of people dying there, and lets just go in there, remove the direct cause, and get on with a new future where the Iraqi people can come up with something better for their country.
> I'm not against no-fly zones, laddie. You don't see the point, do you?
> Whatever the good intentions (and evil consequences) of the principle of a
> no-fly zone, it's just that they have no legal basis,
Says YOU. Who else says so? Saddam Hussein. Who else?
>and therefore they
> can be considered a violation of international law.
In your opinion, supported by nothing.
>Certainly so if USA
> and UK planes use the territory for recognition and attacks. Don't twist
> the point, ... or didn't you get it?
> And you have to have a high degree of naivety to claim that those no-fly
> zones effectively protect the civilians. If that were true, Southern and
> Northern Iraq should be close to paradise for the population.
> They aren't, believe me. Absolutely not.
I don't recall saying they created paradises. Stupid comment.
> Easy. Take a book on international law and the principle of sovereignty.
> Read it.
LOLOLOL!! No, dipshit. I asked YOU to prove they're illegal. I'm not gonna do your work for you. I'm convinced they're perfectly just and appropriate.
I don't hear anyone who carries any weight saying otherwise. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. To you it seems so obvious they're "illegal," I don't know why you completely failed in proving your point. Oh, yeah, I know why: They're NOT illegal!
> Iraq is blamed for invading Kuwait and violating Kuwait's independency and
> sovereignty; but when US planes invade Iraqi airspace, that's suddenly not
> an issue anymore.
> Your own government moreover uses sovereignty in order to push off the
> Kyoto protocolls, or any other universalist ecological principle. So, get
> a clue.
This whole sovereignty issue means squat to me. Saddam has attacked all of his neighbors, and the international community intervened and is requiring that he comply with 16, and now 17 U.N. Resolutions. Since he hasn't done so, your point is not an issue.
> See above and read through some materials first then.
I asked you to prove the no-fly zones are illegal. All you came back with was that I should go read something on my own. LOL. Everything I've read that isn't written by wackos supports my view, so I guess it's back in your court, sonny boy. Try not to sidestep backing up your point this time. As of now all you've proven is that in your mere personal opinion they're "illegal."
> Did it occur to you that K. Annan already said that the UN won't take this
> as a breach, because they never allowed nor endorsed the no-fly zones?
Oh, look at you, so worried that your hero, Saddam, is in trouble.
> I'm hoping you get some sense in that skull of yours.
> I hope Saddam is disarmed, and soon, and I hope we don't need a war to
> achieve that.
And how would you achieve that?
I appreciate that you "hope Saddam is disarmed, and soon."
Glad one of you finally admits that we all know he has illegal weapons programs going on. Lots of people are playin dumb about that......
> No. No-fly zones are not part of any council resolution.
They help to enforce resolutions, though. For example, the southern no-fly zone is backed up by REsolution 949, which prohibits Iraq from reinforcing units in southern Ira to threaten Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. You know, those two countries he wants to invade? So you see, the U.N. has said we want to make sure we can easily spot and strike an Iraqi buildup near Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and this was in response to Saddam invading Kuwait and planning on ivading Saudi Arabia next. So...dumb ass...a perfectly just and LEGAL reaction to Saddam's agressive actions and noncompliance.
>Oh surely, the
> planes were just monitoring the lives of the civilian population or
> monitoring his WMD programme? Why can't satellites and spyplanes do that
> job?
> Now that's a pretty deep thought.
It was a perfectly good point. It's the same thing when judges have to interpret statutes. They ambiguous (often on purpose), or fail to predict every fact scenerio that might arise. So you don't know what the words mean as applied to a given real world situation until that situation comes up and someone deices how what those words mean with respect to those facts.
What is a "material breach"? Hasn't been made clear yet.
> Sure, they can make a new resolution in which they claim that whenever
> Saddam would counterattack during a war situation, that he should be
> attacked. Pretty pointless. You can always make a law to decide upon facts
> that happened before. Which makes it perfectly ad hoc.
Oh yeah, Saddam's just "counterattacking."
> You're just so pathetically selective in deciding which principles to
> uphold, and which to forget.
> If you believe that Saddam's being a dangerous freak allows you to do
> whatever it takes to do away with him, then don't be surprised to learn
> that some people think the same about the US government.
LOL. And there you are, exposed at last as an extremist freak. I didn't realize America was an agressive totalitarian state run by a fascist dictator.
> I'll leave that to your guessing.
My only question to you, since you already proved you don't know shit about whether the no-fly zones are illegal or not, is: After Saddam is dead (and I'm of the mind that'll be soon) who's the next fascist dictator you're gonna go to bat for?
Oh, I forgot, you are a good lawyer... helping mentally ill. Well, if this is the case, Oaf, you better help yourself first... Your world vision is blurred in atavistic American chauvinism, arrogance of an armchair warrior and naked Old Timer "shtettle nationalism". That's why you messages are provoking so many negative emotions, including anti-american, in so many peoples, especially abroad.