[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
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]
What a wonderful interpretation.
Can you explain me these one also
strange how they seem more precise and to have less UN diplo-speak.
Now if you could give me some valid sources confirming your great interpretation of UNSCR 1368 I would really appreciate.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ha! A Francois-Canadien who dabbles in the armchair practice/hobby of international law telling the United States that it cannot go to war in defense of life, liberty, and property.
Why are you here and not stomping your feet in The Hague? Your slicing and dicing would surely be more effective there, no?[/quote]
Are you lacking in the department of arguments to resort to such a vile attack on my person.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
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]
What a wonderful interpretation.
Can you explain me these one also
strange how they seem more precise and to have less UN diplo-speak.
Now if you could give me some valid sources confirming your great interpretation of UNSCR 1368 I would really appreciate.
[/quote]
dude, I can’t help you . . . the language is what it is - the whole world understand what was being authorized - parliments and congresses around the world understood it - NATO membe rnations were able to authorize troop movements and actions in Afghanistan based on it - the news reported it as an authorization - if you got a problem with the UN’s wording - take it up with the UN - no one on the planet - except you apparently - has any issue with what was being allowed under that resolution . . . as I said - your ignorance is showing . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
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]
What a wonderful interpretation.
Can you explain me these one also
strange how they seem more precise and to have less UN diplo-speak.
Now if you could give me some valid sources confirming your great interpretation of UNSCR 1368 I would really appreciate.
[/quote]
dude, I can’t help you . . . the language is what it is - the whole world understand what was being authorized - parliments and congresses around the world understood it - NATO membe rnations were able to authorize troop movements and actions in Afghanistan based on it - the news reported it as an authorization - if you got a problem with the UN’s wording - take it up with the UN - no one on the planet - except you apparently - has any issue with what was being allowed under that resolution . . . as I said - your ignorance is showing . . .[/quote]
I would like to live in your world…
Once again I ask you were are your proofs for these affirmations.
The war in Afghanistan was devised and directed by the United States. It was led by a coalition of countries, mainly NATO members (including Canada), who on 4 October 2001 invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic (Washington) Treaty. Under this provision, an armed attack against any NATO country is considered an attack against them all.
There is no UN Security Council resolution authorizing the United States, whether alone or in coalition with other countries, to attack Afghanistan. Between 11 September and 7 October 2001, when the bombardment of Afghanistan began, the UN Security Council adopted only two resolutions concerning the 9â??11 attacks. Resolution 1368 of September 12 â??unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacksâ?¦ and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security.â?? The preamble to this resolution recognizes â??the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter.â?? Though, as we have seen, the terms of the Charter do not apply to the Afghan war, this language in the preamble of the resolution allowed the United States to claim legitimacy for its actions. Then, on 28 September 2001, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373, which sets forth certain antiterrorism measures that all states must apply. Neither Resolution 1368 nor Resolution 1373 even mentions the word â??Afghanistan.â??
The war in Afghanistan was devised and directed by the United States. It was led by a coalition of countries, mainly NATO members (including Canada), who on 4 October 2001 invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic (Washington) Treaty. Under this provision, an armed attack against any NATO country is considered an attack against them all.
There is no UN Security Council resolution authorizing the United States, whether alone or in coalition with other countries, to attack Afghanistan. Between 11 September and 7 October 2001, when the bombardment of Afghanistan began, the UN Security Council adopted only two resolutions concerning the 9â??11 attacks. Resolution 1368 of September 12 â??unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacksâ?¦ and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security.â?? The preamble to this resolution recognizes â??the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter.â?? Though, as we have seen, the terms of the Charter do not apply to the Afghan war, this language in the preamble of the resolution allowed the United States to claim legitimacy for its actions. Then, on 28 September 2001, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373, which sets forth certain antiterrorism measures that all states must apply. Neither Resolution 1368 nor Resolution 1373 even mentions the word â??Afghanistan.â??
[/quote]
Way to pick out the editorial written by someone from… wait for it… Canada. Oh Canada…
Here is one written by the House of Commons in England. Written by actual Lawyers.
[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)
You have still fail to point a UN security council resolution wich approve the war.
[/quote]
Who cares if we had the UN’s permission to go to war, We are our own nation if we feel violated or threatened we will declare war.
If the UN disagrees they can come after us.
But back on topic, if this is a declared war we should end it and destroy who we are fighting, the military is not the peace corp. What the hell don’t people understand about that.
The world is full of ball-less cowards these days, evidence is in most of these threads, and it seems most of them reside in Canada and eastern europe.
Indecisive fickle little girls.
As a country the U.S. needs to change it’s ideas of the military and war and let the branch operate as it is intended to do.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Who cares if we had the UN’s permission to go to war, We are our own nation if we feel violated or threatened we will declare war.
If the UN disagrees they can come after us.
But back on topic, if this is a declared war we should end it and destroy who we are fighting, the military is not the peace corp. What the hell don’t people understand about that.
The world is full of ball-less cowards these days, evidence is in most of these threads, and it seems most of them reside in Canada and eastern europe.
Indecisive fickle little girls.
As a country the U.S. needs to change it’s ideas of the military and war and let the branch operate as it is intended to do. [/quote]
Three strangers awaiting their flights strike up a conversation in the airport passenger lounge in Bozeman, Montana. One is an American Indian passing through from Lame Deer. Another is a Cowboy on his way to Billings for a livestock show. And the third is a fundamentalist Arab student, newly arrived at Montana State University from the Middle East who is headed to a training conference in Detroit.
Their discussion drifts to their diverse cultures. Soon, the two Westerners learn that the Arab is a devout, fundamentalist Muslim who supports Osama Bin Laden’s Jihad, so the conversation falls into an uneasy lull. The cowboy leans back in his chair, crosses his boots on a magazine table and tips his big sweat-stained hat forward over his face. The wind outside is blowing tumbleweeds around, and the old windsock is flapping; but still . . . no plane comes.
Finally, the American Indian clears his throat and softly, he speaks, “At one time here, my people were many, but sadly, now we are few.”
The Muslim student raises an eyebrow and leans forward, “Once my people were few,” he sneers, “and now we are many. Why do you suppose that is?”
The Montana cowboy shifts his toothpick to one side of his mouth and from the darkness beneath his Stetson says in a drawl, “That’s ‘cause we ain’t played Cowboys and Muslims yet, . . . but I do believe it’s a-comin’.”
[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)
You have still fail to point a UN security council resolution wich approve the war.
[/quote]
Who cares if we had the UN’s permission to go to war, We are our own nation if we feel violated or threatened we will declare war.
If the UN disagrees they can come after us.
But back on topic, if this is a declared war we should end it and destroy who we are fighting, the military is not the peace corp. What the hell don’t people understand about that.
The world is full of ball-less cowards these days, evidence is in most of these threads, and it seems most of them reside in Canada and eastern europe.
Indecisive fickle little girls.
As a country the U.S. needs to change it’s ideas of the military and war and let the branch operate as it is intended to do. [/quote]
You just described pretty accurately the US policy toward waging war. Of course no one is gonna come after the US because no one is strong enough and anyway lots of country are also profiting from this war. By the way Canada is also involve in Afghanistan and is no better than the US is this regards.
The question you should ask yourself is why are you fighting this war which is leading your country to bankruptcy. What will happen when they will bring back the troops? Do you really think that Afghanistan will magically become a stable country?
[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)
You have still fail to point a UN security council resolution wich approve the war.
[/quote]
Who cares if we had the UN’s permission to go to war, We are our own nation if we feel violated or threatened we will declare war.
If the UN disagrees they can come after us.
But back on topic, if this is a declared war we should end it and destroy who we are fighting, the military is not the peace corp. What the hell don’t people understand about that.
The world is full of ball-less cowards these days, evidence is in most of these threads, and it seems most of them reside in Canada and eastern europe.
Indecisive fickle little girls.
As a country the U.S. needs to change it’s ideas of the military and war and let the branch operate as it is intended to do. [/quote]
You just described pretty accurately the US policy toward waging war. Of course no one is gonna come after the US because no one is strong enough and anyway lots of country are also profiting from this war. By the way Canada is also involve in Afghanistan and is no better than the US is this regards.
The question you should ask yourself is why are you fighting this war which is leading your country to bankruptcy. What will happen when they will bring back the troops? Do you really think that Afghanistan will magically become a stable country? [/quote]
Wrong we are not fighting a war, if this were really a war it would be over and there would be a giant freaking sheets called the middle east.
We have to play these games because all of the sudden we have popularity contests for elections instead of leaders in our country.
It is lack of assertiveness and lack of war that is bankrupting us.
[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)
You have still fail to point a UN security council resolution wich approve the war.
[/quote]
Who cares if we had the UN’s permission to go to war, We are our own nation if we feel violated or threatened we will declare war.
If the UN disagrees they can come after us.
But back on topic, if this is a declared war we should end it and destroy who we are fighting, the military is not the peace corp. What the hell don’t people understand about that.
The world is full of ball-less cowards these days, evidence is in most of these threads, and it seems most of them reside in Canada and eastern europe.
Indecisive fickle little girls.
As a country the U.S. needs to change it’s ideas of the military and war and let the branch operate as it is intended to do. [/quote]
You just described pretty accurately the US policy toward waging war. Of course no one is gonna come after the US because no one is strong enough and anyway lots of country are also profiting from this war. By the way Canada is also involve in Afghanistan and is no better than the US is this regards.
The question you should ask yourself is why are you fighting this war which is leading your country to bankruptcy. What will happen when they will bring back the troops? Do you really think that Afghanistan will magically become a stable country? [/quote]
Wrong we are not fighting a war, if this were really a war it would be over and there would be a giant freaking sheets called the middle east.
We have to play these games because all of the sudden we have popularity contests for elections instead of leaders in our country.
It is lack of assertiveness and lack of war that is bankrupting us.[/quote]
So according to you if you had a leaders in your country then for example Afghanistan would be stabilized in a very short time. I wonder by which means?
[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)
You have still fail to point a UN security council resolution wich approve the war.
[/quote]
Who cares if we had the UN’s permission to go to war, We are our own nation if we feel violated or threatened we will declare war.
If the UN disagrees they can come after us.
But back on topic, if this is a declared war we should end it and destroy who we are fighting, the military is not the peace corp. What the hell don’t people understand about that.
The world is full of ball-less cowards these days, evidence is in most of these threads, and it seems most of them reside in Canada and eastern europe.
Indecisive fickle little girls.
As a country the U.S. needs to change it’s ideas of the military and war and let the branch operate as it is intended to do. [/quote]
You just described pretty accurately the US policy toward waging war. Of course no one is gonna come after the US because no one is strong enough and anyway lots of country are also profiting from this war. By the way Canada is also involve in Afghanistan and is no better than the US is this regards.
The question you should ask yourself is why are you fighting this war which is leading your country to bankruptcy. What will happen when they will bring back the troops? Do you really think that Afghanistan will magically become a stable country? [/quote]
Wrong we are not fighting a war, if this were really a war it would be over and there would be a giant freaking sheets called the middle east.
We have to play these games because all of the sudden we have popularity contests for elections instead of leaders in our country.
It is lack of assertiveness and lack of war that is bankrupting us.[/quote]
WOOO we gotta just blow up all a them bloodthirsty murderous sandniggers! Even the little kids, yeah, cause they’re all evil and want to kill people who aren’t like them!
[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)
You have still fail to point a UN security council resolution wich approve the war.
[/quote]
Who cares if we had the UN’s permission to go to war, We are our own nation if we feel violated or threatened we will declare war.
If the UN disagrees they can come after us.
But back on topic, if this is a declared war we should end it and destroy who we are fighting, the military is not the peace corp. What the hell don’t people understand about that.
The world is full of ball-less cowards these days, evidence is in most of these threads, and it seems most of them reside in Canada and eastern europe.
Indecisive fickle little girls.
As a country the U.S. needs to change it’s ideas of the military and war and let the branch operate as it is intended to do. [/quote]
You just described pretty accurately the US policy toward waging war. Of course no one is gonna come after the US because no one is strong enough and anyway lots of country are also profiting from this war. By the way Canada is also involve in Afghanistan and is no better than the US is this regards.
The question you should ask yourself is why are you fighting this war which is leading your country to bankruptcy. What will happen when they will bring back the troops? Do you really think that Afghanistan will magically become a stable country? [/quote]
Wrong we are not fighting a war, if this were really a war it would be over and there would be a giant freaking sheets called the middle east.
We have to play these games because all of the sudden we have popularity contests for elections instead of leaders in our country.
It is lack of assertiveness and lack of war that is bankrupting us.[/quote]
WOOO we gotta just blow up all a them bloodthirsty murderous sandniggers! Even the little kids, yeah, cause they’re all evil and want to kill people who aren’t like them!
America! fuck yeah![/quote]
Ah, classic misrepresentation of conservative views by a slackjawed elitist liberal college kid who wouldn’t know a fact if it drove a truck up his ass.
I like you!