sorry about that - the main one is resolution 1386 from Dec 2001
you could always google it . . LOL
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
sorry about that - the main one is resolution 1386 from Dec 2001
you could always google it . . LOL[/quote]
Ya know what? Fuck that. lol No offense, I just hate the “google it” response on forums.
To me, if someone is going to reference something, they should provide it or at least a link to it. Not giving you shit here, its not your fault those links dont work.
Or, if its something the OP could easily research themselves, they should just ignore the thread. My problem is that virtually ANY question can be answered by “Google it yourself”… at which point, what the hell is the point of the forums? Why not just put up one post saying “The answer to your question is on the internet somewhere else, go find it.”
/rant 
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
sorry about that - the main one is resolution 1386 from Dec 2001
you could always google it . . LOL[/quote]
Resolution 1386 (2001) of 20 December - authorizes the deployment for six months of an International Security Force For Afghanistan.
not a US invasion
The War in Afghanistan is an ongoing coalition conflict which began on October 7, 2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001â??present)
the war started before resolution 1386 was voted.
You know what - i hate it when people go on random fraking rants that bear no relation whatev . . . LMAO - sorry, i couldn’t finish it - I was still laughing from your rant.
You’re right - it’s why I included “you could always google it . . LOL” - if the OP had just done his own homework he would have found that in 2 seconds . .
Good rant!!
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
You know what - i hate it when people go on random fraking rants that bear no relation whatev . . . LMAO - sorry, i couldn’t finish it - I was still laughing from your rant.
You’re right - it’s why I included “you could always google it . . LOL” - if the OP had just done his own homework he would have found that in 2 seconds . .
Good rant!![/quote]
And if you had read the resolution 1386 you would know it doesn’t approve the war.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
You know what - i hate it when people go on random fraking rants that bear no relation whatev . . . LMAO - sorry, i couldn’t finish it - I was still laughing from your rant.
You’re right - it’s why I included “you could always google it . . LOL” - if the OP had just done his own homework he would have found that in 2 seconds . .
Good rant!![/quote]
And if you had read the resolution 1386 you would know it doesn’t approve the war. [/quote]
do you even know how to read a SC resolution?
Funny still no video?
But they do have a “secret” recording of a ceremony inside the LDS Church!! Oh my stop the presses!!
And still no video…
The Action in Afghanistan was started as a NATO mission with full authorization from the UN in SCR 1368, reaffirmed in SCR 1386, reaffirmed in SCR 1388, reaffirmed in SCR 1401, reaffirmed in SCR 1413, reaffirmed in SCR 1419, reaffirmed in SCR 1444, reaffirmed in SCR 1453 . . . do your own damn homework . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
The Action in Afghanistan was started as a NATO mission with full authorization from the UN in SCR 1368, reaffirmed in SCR 1386, reaffirmed in SCR 1388, reaffirmed in SCR 1401, reaffirmed in SCR 1413, reaffirmed in SCR 1419, reaffirmed in SCR 1444, reaffirmed in SCR 1453 . . . do your own damn homework . . .[/quote]
None of them approving an invasion.
Here we go with 1368 wich do not even mention Afghanistan :
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/S.RES.1368+(2001).En?Opendocument
Here is the history of Afghanistan and the United Nations
http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan/un-afghan-history.shtml
But once again you will probably refuse to recognized the facts.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
The Action in Afghanistan was started as a NATO mission with full authorization from the UN in SCR 1368, reaffirmed in SCR 1386, reaffirmed in SCR 1388, reaffirmed in SCR 1401, reaffirmed in SCR 1413, reaffirmed in SCR 1419, reaffirmed in SCR 1444, reaffirmed in SCR 1453 . . . do your own damn homework . . .[/quote]
None of them approving an invasion. [/quote]
Joe did you change your name from Weby? I am getting a feeling you are the OP.
joebassin, since real research seems a near-impossibility for you:
“Over the course of the investigation, the United States petitioned the international community to back a military campaign to overthrow the Taliban. The United Nations Security Council and NATO approved the campaign as self-defense against armed attack.”
source: (a one-time deal for me to actually qoute from wiki - but it should be at your level)
grow up
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
joebassin, since real research seems a near-impossibility for you:
“Over the course of the investigation, the United States petitioned the international community to back a military campaign to overthrow the Taliban. The United Nations Security Council and NATO approved the campaign as self-defense against armed attack.”
source: (a one-time deal for me to actually qoute from wiki - but it should be at your level)
grow up[/quote]
The source of this claim is resolution 1368 wich do not even mention Afghanistan
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm
You have still fail to point a UN security council resolution wich approve the war.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
The source of this claim is resolution 1368 wich do not even mention Afghanistan
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm
You have still fail to point a UN security council resolution wich approve the war.
[/quote]
you problem is with the UN’s wording then - take it up with the bureaucrats in New York. Everyone else in the world including the UN understood what their resolution and continuing resolutions meant. Apparently, you should be picketing them . . .
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
joebassin, since real research seems a near-impossibility for you:
“Over the course of the investigation, the United States petitioned the international community to back a military campaign to overthrow the Taliban. The United Nations Security Council and NATO approved the campaign as self-defense against armed attack.”
source: (a one-time deal for me to actually qoute from wiki - but it should be at your level)
grow up[/quote]
The source of this claim is resolution 1368 wich do not even mention Afghanistan
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm
You have still fail to point a UN security council resolution wich approve the war.
[/quote]
From your link
“In a related provision, the Council called on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of those terrorist attacks and stressed that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring them would be held accountable.”
Obviously the Afghan government at the time, Taliban, did not agree with the above. This is why the international community attacked Afghanistan. Your ability to read with context is limited.
Let me “try” to educate you in reading diplo-speak
Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security
caused by terrorist acts = identifies the threat
Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter = agreement with the NATO states’ petition that invading Afghanistan to defeat Al-Qaeda and its supporter, the taliban, is an act of self-defense
-
Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable = the direct agreement stating that the NATO-led invasion is agreed to by the UNSC
-
Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations; = equals direct agreement with the ongoing acts of self-defense previously affirmed in relation to the NATO states petition
Welcome to the wonderful world of UN diplo-speak - now go get some education, your ignorance is showing . . .
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
joebassin, since real research seems a near-impossibility for you:
“Over the course of the investigation, the United States petitioned the international community to back a military campaign to overthrow the Taliban. The United Nations Security Council and NATO approved the campaign as self-defense against armed attack.”
source: (a one-time deal for me to actually qoute from wiki - but it should be at your level)
grow up[/quote]
The source of this claim is resolution 1368 wich do not even mention Afghanistan
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm
You have still fail to point a UN security council resolution wich approve the war.
[/quote]
From your link
“In a related provision, the Council called on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of those terrorist attacks and stressed that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring them would be held accountable.”
Obviously the Afghan government at the time, Taliban, did not agree with the above. This is why the international community attacked Afghanistan. Your ability to read with context is limited.
[/quote]
loll, this is not an approbation for the war.