A Conversation for The Iraq Conflict Discussion Forum

International Law

Post 4441

Montana Redhead (now with letters)

I completely agree. Now that Shrub's done this amount of damage, to dictate their elections would be hypocritical. The US military calls it Operation Iraqi Freedom. So be it. Let the Iraqis be free to do what they want.


International Law

Post 4442

Researcher 538645

As long as the US is there there will be no end to violence. Military contractors will love that but no one else will benefit.

Forces support UN rwsolutions should stay and american soldiers unable to say anything but "Yes Sir!" should get the hell out.

"Why contribute a Light Engineer Group?
UN Security Council Resolution 1483 made it clear that the UN has a vital role to play in the post-war period. It appealed to UN member states to assist the people of Iraq in their efforts to rebuild their country and to contribute to conditions of stability and security in Iraq. Under Resolution 1483, NZ can make a useful contribution without in any way becoming an occupying power."

Resolution 1483.


Removed

Post 4443

U195408

This post has been removed.


International Law

Post 4444

anhaga

Hi everybody!

Gee, you guys sure have been jabbering away about pretty much everything but the issues.smiley - smiley

Okay, so, George has finally gotten around to the "Saddam was bad to his people" reason for the invasion, now that most of the other possible reasons have sunk into oblivion. And, I'm sure that a number of you are aware that (along with his already submerged reasons) there is no humanitarian justification in international law for the invasion of a country. There is, however, possibly going to be such justification before too long. If Mr. Bush had spent a little more time working with his friends on the Security Council, instead of being a pain in the collective ass of the world, maybe he would have had his justification by now and the support of a united world. Instead he thumbed his nose at people who know more than him. Oh well.

Now, I've posted this here before. Maybe everybody could take a look at it this time and spend a bit of time. This is a draft of a workable plan that would lay out the rules for the invasion of a country in which the government is unable or unwilling to protect the rights of its people, invasion intended to protect the ordinary people of the country invaded. Gee, doesn't that seem like something that right-minded, honest, loving world leaders would want to devote all their energies to?

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/report-en.asp

Again, I suggest you all spend a few days with this. Order the book. Or just read the PDF file. Think about it. Think about what might have been.


International Law

Post 4445

DA ; Simply Vicky: Don't get pithy with me!

Please note that just now (16.12 hours NZ time) I found out that the little sneak Dave the Oblivious, has changed his nickname to the same as mine. Until further notice, don't take any posting under my name to be by me unless verified! I don't know where he thinks it's going to get him, but it gors without saying, that the post above anhaga's in which 'I' say some misspelt nonsense about hoping 'our boys' get some action, is not mine, and doesn't represent anything I ever would say!


International Law

Post 4446

trunt

Okay, it's not february yet. House Rules Della. You can't pretend to be another researcher. If this is what's happening, hit the yikes button and put a stop to it.


Fakers and sneaks

Post 4447

DA ; Simply Vicky: Don't get pithy with me!

I have trunt, I have put in a complaint and yikesed his postings in my name - but I am scared he might do a helluva lot of damage before he's stopped. How can I prove I am me, if he can do something like this?


Fakers and sneaks

Post 4448

trunt

Change your name to "Della the Catwoman (who isn't Dave masquerading as me)"?smiley - erm


Fakers and sneaks

Post 4449

DA ; Simply Vicky: Don't get pithy with me!

I've done something similar - but if he then changes his name to that... Sigh. Anyways, I hope people would know that any mis-spelt pro-war ravings would just not be from me! It never occurred to me that anyone could or would do such a thing! smiley - peacedovesmiley - peacesign


Fakers and sneaks

Post 4450

anhaga

He's offline right now. Hopefully it will be taken care of by the PTB before he gets back. I expect they'll disallow his name and put him back to a researcher number. It happened to me once (for a very dissimilar reason). BTW, you should yikes his PS if he hasn't changed the name by . . . oh . . . right about now. In my opinion.


Fakers and sneaks

Post 4451

Montana Redhead (now with letters)

Okay, that's just not cool. Doesn't matter if I agree with someone or not, that just isn't cool.

anhaga, that link doesn't work for me. Can you email it to me? Mudhooks has my email if you don't.


Fakers and sneaks

Post 4452

DA ; Simply Vicky: Don't get pithy with me!

I just checked my email. The postings I had yikesed are allowed to stay, because, I presume, the nanny ware detected no effing and blinding - I don't suppose they'd have a human there now. (It's 17.05 hrs here, which must be 06.05 there ... i.e., 4 a.m.)
I've been to his ps and complained, I sure hope something is done!


Fakers and sneaks

Post 4453

DA ; Simply Vicky: Don't get pithy with me!

I mean, of course, 17.05 here, which is 5.05 pm, so 4.05 am there... Sorry, I am a bit het up! smiley - grr


Fakers and sneaks

Post 4454

anhaga

I've sent it on to Mudhooks as well as this one directly to the pdf version of the report: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/pdf/Commission-Report.pdf

I'm not sure why you couldn't get to it. It's actually a Government of Canada page. Is somebody preventing you from hearing what the Canadian Government has to say?smiley - laugh


Fakers and sneaks

Post 4455

trunt

4443 is still hidden. I guess that counts for something.


Fakers and sneaks

Post 4456

DA ; Simply Vicky: Don't get pithy with me!

It does indeed - I feel better. (I'll check anhaga's info a.s.a.p)


International Law

Post 4457

anhaga

"Is there historical precedence for the case of sanctions, or an embargo actually having the desired effect? It seems to me that the idea of sanctions is like a siege. Only in the Iraq case, we didn't want to starve the defenders (rightly so, I might add). But if we're not going to starve the defenders to death, how is the siege ever going to work? Why do the siege in the first place?

dave"

Dave:

if you are planning to pretend to be someone else, you probably should change your habit of signing your posts. It sort of spoils the effect.
Now, to answer your question: South Africa. Pretty classic example.

I'm surprised you had to ask the question actually. But then, I've got good friends in South Africa(black and white) who went through apartheid and sanctions (and a hell of a lot more) and came out the other side, so it seems pretty obvious to me. Here they are: http://www.suntimes.co.za/2000/06/04/insight/in01.htm

You know, it's pretty well known that South Africa was dabbling with Nuclear Weapons. And we all know about the human rights record of the old regime. I wonder. If George had been in power a little earlier, would Chris and Nozipho have been bombed?

I say try sanctions any day. They work.

smiley - erm


International Law

Post 4458

LOOPYBOOPY

The trouble with this moderation business is that youv'e forgotton for what you've just posted, if you have trouble keeping up anyway, it becomes a form of psychological torture.

It really is Dickensian..like "DOOTHEBOYS HALL" in that book Dickens wrote...forgotton the name..excuse me.


Fakers and sneaks

Post 4459

U195408

Thanks trunt, I had thought of South Africa, but I was sure if I mentioned it, everyone would have told me I was wrong.

Montana- is this more or less uncool than email indentity theft?

dave


WHISTLE BLOWERS RULE OK

Post 4460

LOOPYBOOPY

Who's calling whom a faker then?
My integrity is intact...what do you mean?


Key: Complain about this post