Canada dodged a bullet

[scandium]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

As far as Iraq's legitimate right to defend its skies. After the first Gulf War Iraq had no rights, so reasons that should be obvious, or if they are not, require too lengthy a history lesson to dileneate here.

That is simply not so. You are confusing a ceasefire agreement with an unconditional surrender (and even then, under international law the defeated party still maintains certain rights) and they are not the same. There is no basis for your claim. None. The NFZs were imposed upon Iraq only because Iraq had no power with which to dispute them, militarily or otherwise, and that any resolution introduced into the UN opposing them could be vetoed by the US. Iraq's only means to dispute them was to fire upon aircraft violating its airspace, in vain, and from this proof of just how impotent Iraq was you conclude that it actually meant they posed a threat to US sovereignty? Do you not see how circular and black-is-white this reasoning is? Naturally you don't offer a single shred of evidence to support your claims.

As an aside, its interesting to look back and see what then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had to say about the decision not to push on into Baghdad:

" I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

And GHW Bush had this to say on why they chose not to push on into Baghdad:

"Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

Prophetic isn't it?

[scandium]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Yes the 9/11 attacks and the Iraqi war are directly connected. But not through the reasons that most people understand. The Iraqi war is a direct result a unabashed policy change within US political policy. The US stance immediately subsequent to 9/11 was that it will now engage full military operations on any and all entities that it percieves as having ill intent on US sovereignty. Iraqi's stance toward the US was as bad as it gets (it had been shooting SAM missiles at US air patrols for almost 10 years since the first Iraqi War).

Unfortunately, the political public relations idiots within the Bush administration (most notably Dick Chaney) thought that this reason for the US military engagement within Iraqi would not be understood by the general public. The same stance had been taken to the public during the Clinton administration when President Bill Clinton decided that Iraqi firing on US air patrols, as well as its violation of post-war UN resolutions, needed to be addressed with punative measures (cruise missile strikes). The publics understanding and reception of the reasoning were met with, at best, confusion and apathy...much like the response of the UN security councils themselves. Because the Bush administration witnessed and understood the public response that Clintons attempts had garnered, the administration decided that selling to the public the "WMD" pitch would gather more support despite the fact that it was not the real motivation of conflict. This plan for public support backfired rather quickly and blew up in the administrations face big time... as badly as any public/political mishap in recent history. And most people STILL do not understand the real US reasoning for begining their Iraq operations.

If 9/11 had not happened, the current US policy change would not have taken place and the US would probably not be in Iraq today.

In looking at this from another angle, this house of cards comes toppling down in the face of facts:

a: The cease-fire accord permitted Iraq to fly all types of aircraft and imposed no restrictions on their use;

b: the no fly zones (NFZs) were imposed upon Iraq unilaterally and without the legitimacy of any UN resolution or other international authority;

c: Iraq's attempts to defend its skies were therefore justified under international law.

Your position therefore boils down to this: the US invaded Iraq because Iraq exercised its legitimate right, under international law, to defend its skies. Not a good case to base the invasion and occupation of a country on, which is perhaps why it was never made.

By the way here is the source for my own assertions on the NFZs:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/23/dreyfuss-r.html

[DeepSix]

Originally Posted by scandium

...b: the no fly zones (NFZs) were imposed upon Iraq unilaterally and without the legitimacy of any UN resolution or other international authority;
....

You may disagree with the interpretation and application of the following, but there was a U.N. Security Council Resolution (688) on this:

"The Security Council... 1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region; 2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression... 5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population; 6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts; 7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends"

[edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Resolution_688]

That's the resolution the U.S., Britain, France (originally; subsequently I think they withdrew), and others agreed to in April 1991, and the legal grounds on which the NFZs were based. That is a fact, notwithstanding that there is room to interpret it differently. It isn't quite fair to say that the U.N. was not involved. It might be more accurate to say that current political forces have taken advantage of the U.N.'s involvement, but the U.N. was involved.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by DeepSix

You may disagree with the interpretation and application of the following, but there was a U.N. Security Council Resolution (688) on this:



[edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Resolution_688]

That's the resolution the U.S., Britain, France (originally; subsequently I think they withdrew), and others agreed to in April 1991, and the legal grounds on which the NFZs were based. That is a fact, notwithstanding that there is room to interpret it differently. It isn't quite fair to say that the U.N. was not involved. It might be more accurate to say that current political forces have taken advantage of the U.N.'s involvement, but the U.N. was involved.

Its accurate to say that this resolution doesn't mandate the creation of NFZs, as it doesn't even mention NFZs anywhere in it. Nor does any other UN resolution. Those are the facts. Your so called "facts" seem to consist of assumptions supporting your beliefs that have been manufactured out of whole cloth.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Yes the 9/11 attacks and the Iraqi war are directly connected. But not through the reasons that most people understand. The Iraqi war is a direct result a unabashed policy change within US political policy. The US stance immediately subsequent to 9/11 was that it will now engage full military operations on any and all entities that it percieves as having ill intent on US sovereignty. Iraqi's stance toward the US was as bad as it gets (it had been shooting SAM missiles at US air patrols for almost 10 years since the first Iraqi War).

Unfortunately, the political public relations idiots within the Bush administration (most notably Dick Chaney) thought that this reason for the US military engagement within Iraqi would not be understood by the general public. The same stance had been taken to the public during the Clinton administration when President Bill Clinton decided that Iraqi firing on US air patrols, as well as its violation of post-war UN resolutions, needed to be addressed with punative measures (cruise missile strikes). The publics understanding and reception of the reasoning were met with, at best, confusion and apathy...much like the response of the UN security councils themselves. Because the Bush administration witnessed and understood the public response that Clintons attempts had garnered, the administration decided that selling to the public the "WMD" pitch would gather more support despite the fact that it was not the real motivation of conflict. This plan for public support backfired rather quickly and blew up in the administrations face big time... as badly as any public/political mishap in recent history. And most people STILL do not understand the real US reasoning for begining their Iraq operations.

If 9/11 had not happened, the current US policy change would not have taken place and the US would probably not be in Iraq today.

Well said

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americ...ror/index.html



Now why would AlQueda target a country that sat out the Iraq war?

Are you nuts? You can answer this one yourself. Al Qeada doesn't care if your country is in the Iraq war or not. You are still an infidel and if you won't convert to Islam, you must die. It doesn't matter who you are, you must die! This is how the Koran is written and Al Qaeda takes it litterally. Its purely a religious thing.

Say they are going to blow up this or that because we attacked Iraq is just political manuvering. They are going to blow up this or that 'anyway' regardless just because you are not an Islamic country and that is a threat to Islam in their eyes.

I watched them video tape Canadian Ferries emergency exits long before Iraq even happened. Canada has been on this hitlist for many years. Their time is coming, especially with how open Canada is with their borders and how clueless they are as to the whereabouts of people after they enter their borders.

-S

[scandium]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I watched them video tape Canadian Ferries emergency exits long before Iraq even happened. Canada has been on this hitlist for many years. Their time is coming, especially with how open Canada is with their borders and how clueless they are as to the whereabouts of people after they enter their borders.

-S

Are you suggesting we need to militarize our border with the US? Actually, I don't even know what you're suggesting. I don't think you can effectively surround a modern country with a midieval style wall, however, particularly in a country like Canada which shares such a long border with a peaceful nieghbour. Nor do I agree with your suggestion that we track visitors as though they were pets. And it seems, in this case, that it was good old fashioned police work and not walls or electronic dog tags that prevented the attack.

scandium...you said that 9/11 occured before the Iraq War (the second one...)?? I think you should recheck the dates. You'll find you are wrong...by about 2 years.

[Wildcat]

The picture looks funny, but the whole plot is not. ANFO is extremely easy to make, a 5 year old could do it on a budget of 20 bucks.

Sounds bad but I feel that muslim immigrants should be turned away from this country and muslim groups displaying any violent or radical behavior should be monitored heavily and deported if they have any violent plans. It's so irritating that these primitive bastards want to murder innocent citizens in our own countries. They need to get out and kill themselves, hell if I care when they're dead.

[Wim Libaers]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

The picture looks funny, but the whole plot is not. ANFO is extremely easy to make, a 5 year old could do it on a budget of 20 bucks.

Fortunately, it'd be useless. ANFO, on its own, is useless if you do not have a booster charge, and primary explosives to initiate that booster charge. For reliable effect, it is also preferable to have low density AN (much fertilizer grade AN is high density). ANNM is better, but more expensive. And even ANFO would cost more than $20 if you wanted a large quantity. (just 100kg of AN fertilizer would cost more)

Of course, all of these problems can be overcome (McVeigh trial documents if you're looking for some practical guidance to make your own truck bomb), but it's a little bit more complicated than you seem to think.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Are you nuts? You can answer this one yourself. Al Qeada doesn't care if your country is in the Iraq war or not. You are still an infidel and if you won't convert to Islam, you must die. It doesn't matter who you are, you must die! This is how the Koran is written and Al Qaeda takes it litterally. Its purely a religious thing.

Say they are going to blow up this or that because we attacked Iraq is just political manuvering. They are going to blow up this or that 'anyway' regardless just because you are not an Islamic country and that is a threat to Islam in their eyes.

I watched them video tape Canadian Ferries emergency exits long before Iraq even happened. Canada has been on this hitlist for many years. Their time is coming, especially with how open Canada is with their borders and how clueless they are as to the whereabouts of people after they enter their borders.

-S

I suppose.

Now CNN has this image on their lead news story:


Lol, look! They grabbed some flashlights, duct tape, and a BBQ grill in an IKEA bag.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I suppose.

Now CNN has this image on their lead news story:


Lol, look! They grabbed some flashlights, duct tape, and a BBQ grill in an IKEA bag.

You laugh but MacGyver could take out a battleship with that bag.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

You laugh but MacGyver could take out a battleship with that bag.

:rotfl: :rotfl: Gee I miss that show.

[tycho102]

I agree.

This "hearts and minds" **** is the problem. When you go in, you go in like the Great Khan. You massacre an entire 300,000 person city, and poor molten silver into the eyesockets and mouths of your enemies.

Conquer and subjugate. Then, rebuild better than it was before. Require engineering degrees and medical degrees.