The Netherlands: Nothing Here, Move Along

Harmageddon said:
That idea has been trampled by the move to invade Iraq.
Which is an excuse for every other nation on earth to start agressive moves against it's neighbours without UN security council approval.


The UN has been trampled its own image. If you're not going to back up your own words, then what use is it?

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

The problem is some Euors see the above statement of "serious consequences" as a nasty letter written to Saddamn. While some other nations see it as dropping bombs. Next time maybe they should be a little more clear.
 
Harmageddon said:
The US bombed the crap out of whatever remained of Iraqi infrastructure during the 10 years between the Gulf War and this one. How so was that not illegal or against the rules of engagement? Those bombings and the Iraqi firing at the bombers and spy planes don't seem to me like either of the two maintained a true cease fire.

You don't have a goddamn clue what you are talking about. Its insulting to those military personel that were upholding U.N. cease fire. On an almost daily basis Iraq would set up and turn on radar stations which they were NOT allowed to do. They would be quickly bombed. You might be content with your aircraft being lite up by radar, we aren't.

Do us all a favor and burst out of that liberal bubble you live in. :laugh:
 
Harmageddon said:
Depends on your point of view.
Why has the US not decided to withdraw completely from the UN if you seem to disagree with other country's opinions so much you'd rather not hear them?

That was not the case. Even with friends one may listen to advice but not follow it. People can disagree without being enemies or simply "rather not hearing" their opinion. This is simply ridiculous on its face.

From the charters, to which it is assumed that the member states comply, it follows that it was an illegal invasion if there are not enough member states convinced of the necessity of war.

It does not. If a State declares war on another it is unnecessary to get "permission" as well as for other reasons listed in the charter. Once again, nations that joined did not want to give up that much of their own power.

The US bombed the crap out of whatever remained of Iraqi infrastructure during the 10 years between the Gulf War and this one. How so was that not illegal or against the rules of engagement? Those bombings and the Iraqi firing at the bombers and spy planes don't seem to me like either of the two maintained a true cease fire.

Because it was in answer to their breaking of the same cease fire agreement. The bombing and this war were a continuation of the first war in Iraq and were in answer to the breaking of the agreement between two nations.

On another note:
We managed to get from a discussion from actions taken in the Netherlands to the war in Iraq. Whatsup with that? Time to change back to the original topic, and move this discussion to another thread, don't you think?
That would be fine with me. But we were discussing the legality of the war, not the war itself.
 

Forum List

Back
Top