|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 11/28/2001 : 13:32:55 [Permalink]
|
So, you think the U.S. should be bombed and sanctioned because they invaded Panama, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, etc., etc. because negotiation is not always an option?
Iraq and Afghanistan never refused to negotiate. Attempts to negotiate were ignored by the US.
quote:
Don't know what planet you're from Gorgo but as far as I can tell if one side refuses to negotiate negotiations are extremely difficult. Just what negotiations do you have in mind when one nation invades another. Seems simple to me. Leave or don't leave. Negotiation is not always an option.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 13:34:23 [Permalink]
|
So, whenever the US demands something, that's negotiation?
quote:
[quote]
Read the UN charter. It requires negotiation. It did not happen.
[quote]
I seem to remember some pretty strongly worded statements to Iraq during this time. When a member nation flagrantly steps over the boundary of attacking, without that precious negotiation you go on and on about, another nation (or wasn't Kuwait a nation?), those statements of intent serve as negotiation. We gave Iraq ample time to vacate Kuwait. They chose not to. I think the difficulty arises from a different standard of negotiation that you have than what I have and possibly @tomic. As for Afghanistan, @tomic has presented a statement which indicates the presence of negotiations with the Taliban. Therefore, it does not apply to your "US violates UN charter whenever it damn well pleases" arguement. Just because negotiations were unsuccessful or did not happen as long as you like doesn't mean they didn't occur.
You seem to be looking at this as a black and white issue when real life is varying shades of grey.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 13:43:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, whenever the US demands something, that's negotiation?
quote:
[quote]
Read the UN charter. It requires negotiation. It did not happen.
[quote]
I seem to remember some pretty strongly worded statements to Iraq during this time. When a member nation flagrantly steps over the boundary of attacking, without that precious negotiation you go on and on about, another nation (or wasn't Kuwait a nation?), those statements of intent serve as negotiation. We gave Iraq ample time to vacate Kuwait. They chose not to. I think the difficulty arises from a different standard of negotiation that you have than what I have and possibly @tomic. As for Afghanistan, @tomic has presented a statement which indicates the presence of negotiations with the Taliban. Therefore, it does not apply to your "US violates UN charter whenever it damn well pleases" arguement. Just because negotiations were unsuccessful or did not happen as long as you like doesn't mean they didn't occur.
You seem to be looking at this as a black and white issue when real life is varying shades of grey.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
There you go again with extremes. When the action is agreed upon by the other member nations, then, yes, negotiation has occurred. Especially when the other side refuses to talk. Should have Iraq been let to keep Kuwait because they refused to negotiate? One hell of a loop hole. How about the US takes over Mexico. We'll be safe if we just refuse to negotiate with UN nations. See how preposterous that sounds?
You still haven't addressed the issue @tomic put up about negotiations with Afghanistan.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 13:45:51 [Permalink]
|
You're the one with extremes. Either we make demands and they're not met, or we give up and let everyone invade everyone.
There was NO negotiation. Remember a guy named George H.W. WE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE Bush?
Just because he bribed the Security Council to go along with him does not mean that it was a legal or even partially reasonable maneuver.
quote:
There you go again with extremes. When the action is agreed upon by the other member nations, then, yes, negotiation has occurred. Especially when the other side refuses to talk. Should have Iraq been let to keep Kuwait because they refused to negotiate? One hell of a loop hole. How about the US takes over Mexico. We'll be safe if we just refuse to negotiate with UN nations. See how preposterous that sounds?
You still haven't addressed the issue @tomic put up about negotiations with Afghanistan.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 13:58:45 [Permalink]
|
I don't get it. What negotiations are possible when one country invades another. I have sked that before and yet you refuse to anser and it is the issue. There are times when no negotiation is possible. Saddam knew where the door was. He had entered through it earlier and he had a simple choice: Stay(illegal through UN charter right????) or face eviction. You seem to be looking the other way when it comes to Saddam's invasion because you are reading from Chomsky's playbook where whatever the US does is bad. I will concede that the US was more interested in oil than a nation's rights but it was still illegal for Saddam to invade in the first place and that was the issue.
It was Saddam that violated international law and the UN charters etc etc etc but you are mysteriously silent on that. You seem to just want to go after the US and ignore the rest. Why is that?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 13:59:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You're the one with extremes. Either we make demands and they're not met, or we give up and let everyone invade everyone.
There was NO negotiation. Remember a guy named George H.W. WE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE Bush?
Just because he bribed the Security Council to go along with him does not mean that it was a legal or even partially reasonable maneuver.
quote:
There you go again with extremes. When the action is agreed upon by the other member nations, then, yes, negotiation has occurred. Especially when the other side refuses to talk. Should have Iraq been let to keep Kuwait because they refused to negotiate? One hell of a loop hole. How about the US takes over Mexico. We'll be safe if we just refuse to negotiate with UN nations. See how preposterous that sounds?
You still haven't addressed the issue @tomic put up about negotiations with Afghanistan.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
BUZZZZZZ!!!!!! Tacky buzzer.
Every situation requires analysis. Based on the analysis that I have done on the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, the US and her allies were correct for the situation.
Whether you accept that or not, that is my view. It has been conceded that the US is far from perfect. I don't see the US as particularly good or evil.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 15:53:24 [Permalink]
|
Well, at least you concede that the U.S. has behaved in a criminal manner by invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
quote:
I don't get it. What negotiations are possible when one country invades another.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 16:21:08 [Permalink]
|
No I didn't say that at all. Be silly if you like, I doubt anyone else is fooled 
The US did not invade and occupy Iraq without a reason and that occupation was partial and temporary. On the other hand Iraq invaded Kuwait with the intention of keeping it. The US...sorry multinational force that liberated Kuwait chased the Iraqi army back to Iraq. The current war in Afghanistan is hardly an invasion. We have limited forces there and our new bestest buddies the Northern Alliance like our company and they now control Afghanistan. In case you've been asleep the last few months, the US had extreme provocation that led to the military response in Afghanistan preceeded by several years of negotiation for the turning over of bin Laden. Nice try at turning it around, reminding me of the old creationist tactic, yet completely failing to answer my questions and continuing in your 100% blindness to the realities that led to what you are complaining about. Yes the US has not been perfect but you should focus on the real problems rather than taking every single action the US takes and fabricating it into a henious crime. The story of the boy that cried wolf springs to mind.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 16:32:13 [Permalink]
|
BTW @tomic, Iraq did take one Saudi town at the beginning of the war. This is info probably on the board's military wonks know. It was a pitched battle, and all the Saudis either fled or were killed. We moved in (at the Saudi's request) and re-took the town. It took us almost two hours!
Sarcasm aside, this is one of the things that conviced the Saudi's that Sadaam's horizens extended beyond Kuwait.
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 16:52:09 [Permalink]
|
Speaking of international Law violations how about Iraq launching scud missles at civilian populations. That's a terrorist act. How come it's always "the US is a terrorist nation" if one bomb misses a target and hits a shoe store but the Iraqi crimes that were intentional get conveniently forgotton?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 17:58:49 [Permalink]
|
It is you that is not too skillfully turning things around. Iraq attacked Kuwait with the idea that the U.S. would look the other way. The US attacked Iraq, after bribing the Security Council, with no negotiations. Iraq had grievances with Kuwait which could have been settled without either Iraq attacking Kuwait or the US attacking Iraq. The U.S. decided it wanted a large military presence in the area, so it has it.
Afghanistan did not attack the U.S., and there was no legal reason for the US attack of Afghanistan. There was NO Negotiation in either the case of Iraq or Afghanistan. Your attempts to color US criminal attacks as negotiations are ridiculous. THERE WERE NO NEGOTIATIONS. Period. The US made demands, then ignored any response to those demands.
quote:
No I didn't say that at all. Be silly if you like, I doubt anyone else is fooled
The US did not invade and occupy Iraq without a reason and that occupation was partial and temporary. On the other hand Iraq invaded Kuwait with the intention of keeping it. The US...sorry multinational force that liberated Kuwait chased the Iraqi army back to Iraq. The current war in Afghanistan is hardly an invasion. We have limited forces there and our new bestest buddies the Northern Alliance like our company and they now control Afghanistan. In case you've been asleep the last few months, the US had extreme provocation that led to the military response in Afghanistan preceeded by several years of negotiation for the turning over of bin Laden. Nice try at turning it around, reminding me of the old creationist tactic, yet completely failing to answer my questions and continuing in your 100% blindness to the realities that led to what you are complaining about. Yes the US has not been perfect but you should focus on the real problems rather than taking every single action the US takes and fabricating it into a henious crime. The story of the boy that cried wolf springs to mind.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 18:08:40 [Permalink]
|
False dike there sir. If the U.S. has some criminal actions in its history, then no on else has? What were you saying about planets? What do you use to think on your planet? Yes, it is a criminal act for Iraq to attack Kuwait. Yes, it is a criminal act for someone to attack the WTC and the Pentagon. That does not excuse the criminal actions of anyone else.
It is U.S. actions which have made Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden more powerful than they would be. Why do you support people like that?
quote:
Speaking of international Law violations how about Iraq launching scud missles at civilian populations. That's a terrorist act. How come it's always "the US is a terrorist nation" if one bomb misses a target and hits a shoe store but the Iraqi crimes that were intentional get conveniently forgotton?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 20:04:49 [Permalink]
|
boy, you folks are masochists...
I've said it before -- the thing to do now is to raise your right hand and repeat after me: "Yes of course, Gorgo...you are *so* right! How could I have been *so* stupid as to think differently?"
Do it now...it's not too late |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 20:56:28 [Permalink]
|
"Yes of course, Gorgo...you are *so* right! How could I have been *so* stupid as to think differently?"
Gosh Zanderman! You're right. I do feel better! 
I am a little Curious, though, as to just what exactly the talking points were that we were supposed to thrash out in our "negotiations" with Saddam? And what negotion style should we have adopted? The one Saddam used before gasing the Kurds? The one he used before starting a pointless 10 year war with Iran? The one he used before invading Kuwait? The one he used before firing SCUDs at Isreal?
If you want to negotiate with a mad dog, be my guest. I prefer to cut to the chase and just shoot the damn thing.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 05:36:56 [Permalink]
|
Better to do that than think, right?
quote:
boy, you folks are masochists...
I've said it before -- the thing to do now is to raise your right hand and repeat after me: "Yes of course, Gorgo...you are *so* right! How could I have been *so* stupid as to think differently?"
Do it now...it's not too late
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
