Russia - worrying?

[gringo]

I disagree - Its important we both understand how we define the term, No conflict is straight forward.
I'm not to concerned about Nuremberg it was a show trial.

Saddam Hussein got himself in sh*t by his actions after 9/11 thou he had nothing to do with it.
Iraqi defectors fabricated evidence to help convince the USA to remove Saddam as they hated the guy

http://youtu.be/gvntaL3nxEw
 
However he had WMD and used WMD against innocent people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

Saddam Hussein was a snake I am glad he is gone it was Bush Senior that should have removed him 1991. It was a failure of the global community to allow him to be in power so long. Nevertheless Both Iraq and Afghanistan where given ultimatums to avoid the war but refused to accept them. The Taliban where told if they handed over Osama and other key members war would be avoided. Saddam Hussein and his inner circle was told to leave Iraq or face war. 


My new list of wars of aggression is comical? fair enough your entitled to your opinion now please give me reasons why you think each of those wars where not wars of aggression 

I look forward to you explaining a just and valid reason for each of them 

  A war of aggression is a clearly defined and understood concept as I have already pointed out. How about we agree a war of aggression is what everybody else understands it to be, ie. a war launched that is not in self defence. What is difficult about that?
    As for your list, the reason it is comical is that there is no common thread running through them and therefore it is just an arbitrary list of some wars/conflicts.
    You list USSR invasion of Afghanistan as a war of aggression despite it being pointed out, more than once, that the Soviet military were there at the invitation of the Afghan government to help fight the foreign backed Islamist rebels. Or do you believe this to be conspiracy nut nonsense. Do you not know this because there is no other explanation for your bizarre claim that this constitutes a war of aggression.
    Border disputes are also not considered to necessarily be wars of aggression so some others on your list would not really be considered such.
    You also claim that the US invasion of Iraq could be considered not to be a war of aggression because the US "had its reasons for invading Iraq". You also claim that Saddam was given ultimatums to avoid the war and that the world community had failed in allowing Saddam to keep power for so long. By your reasoning we'd best get on quick sharp removing the Saudi, Qatari, Bahrain regimes to mention just a few. In fact the list of tyrannical regimes is long and dismal but that old pesky international law prevents us from launching wars to change regimes. Would you appreciate foreign involvement in our country just because some more powerful countries decided that your government should be changed. It would be our own task to overthrow /change our own government, not the whim of some self appointed world police.
    Your grasp of international law is as sketchy as your understanding of world affairs. It is illegal under international law to launch a war for regime change and I would be interested to hear the US reasons for this war because the one they gave(WMD) turned out to be deliberate lies although you apparently believe it still. Read Colin Powell's retraction of his speech at the UN and then get back to me on whether you still believe the US genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD.
    The Iraq invasion of Iran was definitely a war of aggression but we didn't say too much about that at the time because we were arming and encouraging Saddam and Iraq at the time. America even sold Iraq virus cultures and helped them produce mustard gas. They also gave the co-ordinates of the Iranian military positions to Iraq knowing that they would be attacked with chemical weapons. Watch Galloway at the US Senate hearings and you might learn something about American complicity.
   Would you care to explain how "Saddam got himself in shit by his actions after 9/11 even though he had nothing to do with it"? and what on earth that even means. And you believe that Iraqi defectors fabricated evidence to help convince the US to remove Saddam....
   Those naive and gullible CIA spooks were mugged off by a bunch of Iraqi defectors. You are giving far too much credit to the Iraqi defectors. The evidence was fabricated by the US, and the Iraqi defectors were simply useful stooges and to believe otherwise is incredible.

[gringo]

How exactly do you define a war of aggression?

If you define it as a military invasion of a state regardless of political situations then Both Iraq 2003 and Georgia 2008 would be wars of aggression.

Russia had its reasons for invading Georgia and the US had its reasons for invading Iraq. Therefore can both be considered not wars of aggression.

I would define a war of aggression as a state invading another state for no reason other than to obtain power conquest and motivated by accumulation of land and resources. By that definition

German Invasion of Poland
USSR invasion of Finland
USSR invasion of Afganistan
Iraqi Invasion of Iran
Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait
Egypt and Syria invading Israel in six day war
USA invading Canada in 1812
to name a few


As for Russian military presence in Ukraine is proven beyond all doubt - Russia may not consider the Soil to be Ukraine so can easily deny it.

http://www.newsweek.com/nemtsovs-evidence-russian-troops-ukraine-taken-police-310997

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/03/us-ukraine-russia-soldiers-idUSKBN0LZ2FV20150303

Russian troops in Ukraine, Ukranian buildings are behind them its undeniable


Russian military in Ukrainian street - undeniable


Russian troops outside Ukranian police station - Undeniable


Russian T-90 tank in Ukrainian street - road marking street signs are Ukrainian - Undeniable   


Russian 'Aid' convoy 


Russian T-90 Tank in a street in Donetsk -Undeniable 

  Your pictures are a piss take by the way. Instead of posting more unattributed undated pictures we need to verify the ones you already have posted. Given that a picture of an Aid Convoy counts to you as evidence of invasion I am not sure that you set the bar high enough.
     The picture of the Russian Troops outside a police station, I would assume to be from Crimea but without clarification from you as to the authenticity, locations and dates of these pictures then you have offered nothing that shows evidence of a Russian invasion. If it is from Crimea then you need to accept the fact that Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia and there really is no doubt that this is the will of the Crimean people.

[David1819]

  A war of aggression is a clearly defined and understood concept as I have already pointed out. How about we agree a war of aggression is what everybody else understands it to be, ie. a war launched that is not in self defence. What is difficult about that?
    As for your list, the reason it is comical is that there is no common thread running through them and therefore it is just an arbitrary list of some wars/conflicts.
    You list USSR invasion of Afghanistan as a war of aggression despite it being pointed out, more than once, that the Soviet military were there at the invitation of the Afghan government to help fight the foreign backed Islamist rebels. Or do you believe this to be conspiracy nut nonsense. Do you not know this because there is no other explanation for your bizarre claim that this constitutes a war of aggression.
    Border disputes are also not considered to necessarily be wars of aggression so some others on your list would not really be considered such.
    You also claim that the US invasion of Iraq could be considered not to be a war of aggression because the US "had its reasons for invading Iraq". You also claim that Saddam was given ultimatums to avoid the war and that the world community had failed in allowing Saddam to keep power for so long. By your reasoning we'd best get on quick sharp removing the Saudi, Qatari, Bahrain regimes to mention just a few. In fact the list of tyrannical regimes is long and dismal but that old pesky international law prevents us from launching wars to change regimes. Would you appreciate foreign involvement in our country just because some more powerful countries decided that your government should be changed. It would be our own task to overthrow /change our own government, not the whim of some self appointed world police.
    Your grasp of international law is as sketchy as your understanding of world affairs. It is illegal under international law to launch a war for regime change and I would be interested to hear the US reasons for this war because the one they gave(WMD) turned out to be deliberate lies although you apparently believe it still. Read Colin Powell's retraction of his speech at the UN and then get back to me on whether you still believe the US genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD.
    The Iraq invasion of Iran was definitely a war of aggression but we didn't say too much about that at the time because we were arming and encouraging Saddam and Iraq at the time. America even sold Iraq virus cultures and helped them produce mustard gas. They also gave the co-ordinates of the Iranian military positions to Iraq knowing that they would be attacked with chemical weapons. Watch Galloway at the US Senate hearings and you might learn something about American complicity.
   Would you care to explain how "Saddam got himself in shit by his actions after 9/11 even though he had nothing to do with it"? and what on earth that even means. And you believe that Iraqi defectors fabricated evidence to help convince the US to remove Saddam....
   Those naive and gullible CIA spooks were mugged off by a bunch of Iraqi defectors. You are giving far too much credit to the Iraqi defectors. The evidence was fabricated by the US and the Iraqi defectors simply useful stooges and to believe otherwise is incredible.

Oh whatever... I could give you detailed explanations on many things you mentioned. But what's the point your too opinionated and emotionally invested.

"It would be our own task to overthrow /change our own government" Try explaining that to the tens of thousands of Iraqis massacred in the 1991 uprisings. How can you enforce a law if you don't remove or stop those breaking it in the first place?

I don't find having a pointless debate with someone who wont capitulate or lacks critical thinking skills very enjoyable. Facts and reasoning don't get through your skull they probably don't even get passed your tinfoil hat. 

[gringo]

Oh whatever... I could give you detailed explanations on many things you mentioned. But what's the point your too opinionated and emotionally invested.

"It would be our own task to overthrow /change our own government" Try explaining that to the tens of thousands of Iraqis massacred in the 1991 uprisings. How can you enforce a law if you don't remove or stop those breaking it in the first place?

I don't find having a pointless debate with someone who wont capitulate or lacks critical thinking skills very enjoyable. Facts and reasoning don't get through your skull they probably don't even get passed your tinfoil hat. 

  I doubt you could give a detailed explanation as you haven't so far.
    What do the 1991 Iraqi uprisings have to do with anything. How does this change the fact that our internal politics is our business and it is not some foreign superpower's responsibility to intervene on anyone's behalf without invitation. The hundreds of thousands dead should have made everyone realise by now that war and invasion is rarely the correct response and causes bigger problems than it solves.
    Your conspiracy nut and tin foil hat jibes merely show the paucity of your own reasoning and critical thinking skills. I asked for verification of your pictures and rather than responding with dates, locations you just resort to name calling.
    You offered no response to anything and claiming that you could respond but won't because my skull is too thick is childish. With spelling as poor as yours I wouldn't be calling anyone thick.

[Patti]

Can we draw a line with this please....

[ngb1066]

  A war of aggression is a clearly defined and understood concept as I have already pointed out. How about we agree a war of aggression is what everybody else understands it to be, ie. a war launched that is not in self defence. What is difficult about that?
    As for your list, the reason it is comical is that there is no common thread running through them and therefore it is just an arbitrary list of some wars/conflicts.
    You list USSR invasion of Afghanistan as a war of aggression despite it being pointed out, more than once, that the Soviet military were there at the invitation of the Afghan government to help fight the foreign backed Islamist rebels. Or do you believe this to be conspiracy nut nonsense. Do you not know this because there is no other explanation for your bizarre claim that this constitutes a war of aggression.
    Border disputes are also not considered to necessarily be wars of aggression so some others on your list would not really be considered such.
    You also claim that the US invasion of Iraq could be considered not to be a war of aggression because the US "had its reasons for invading Iraq". You also claim that Saddam was given ultimatums to avoid the war and that the world community had failed in allowing Saddam to keep power for so long. By your reasoning we'd best get on quick sharp removing the Saudi, Qatari, Bahrain regimes to mention just a few. In fact the list of tyrannical regimes is long and dismal but that old pesky international law prevents us from launching wars to change regimes. Would you appreciate foreign involvement in our country just because some more powerful countries decided that your government should be changed. It would be our own task to overthrow /change our own government, not the whim of some self appointed world police.
    Your grasp of international law is as sketchy as your understanding of world affairs. It is illegal under international law to launch a war for regime change and I would be interested to hear the US reasons for this war because the one they gave(WMD) turned out to be deliberate lies although you apparently believe it still. Read Colin Powell's retraction of his speech at the UN and then get back to me on whether you still believe the US genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD.
    The Iraq invasion of Iran was definitely a war of aggression but we didn't say too much about that at the time because we were arming and encouraging Saddam and Iraq at the time. America even sold Iraq virus cultures and helped them produce mustard gas. They also gave the co-ordinates of the Iranian military positions to Iraq knowing that they would be attacked with chemical weapons. Watch Galloway at the US Senate hearings and you might learn something about American complicity.
   Would you care to explain how "Saddam got himself in shit by his actions after 9/11 even though he had nothing to do with it"? and what on earth that even means. And you believe that Iraqi defectors fabricated evidence to help convince the US to remove Saddam....
   Those naive and gullible CIA spooks were mugged off by a bunch of Iraqi defectors. You are giving far too much credit to the Iraqi defectors. The evidence was fabricated by the US, and the Iraqi defectors were simply useful stooges and to believe otherwise is incredible.

Another excellent and incisive post Gringo.

[ngb1066]

  Your pictures are a piss take by the way. Instead of posting more unattributed undated pictures we need to verify the ones you already have posted. Given that a picture of an Aid Convoy counts to you as evidence of invasion I am not sure that you set the bar high enough.
     The picture of the Russian Troops outside a police station, I would assume to be from Crimea but without clarification from you as to the authenticity, locations and dates of these pictures then you have offered nothing that shows evidence of a Russian invasion. If it is from Crimea then you need to accept the fact that Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia and there really is no doubt that this is the will of the Crimean people.

Again, a totally fair assessment.

[lookout]

 I'm amazed at the knowledge Gringo has on the subject and also admire his stance.
What we have now in this country ( terrorism ) is a result in our interference in other countries such as Iraq,where only Saddam knew his own people,so therefore we had no right whatsoever in interfering, invading and capturing a man who was no threat to us. The excuse being WMD's. Blair should have been a subject of war crimes and treated as the criminal that he was/is,as it was his power-crazy ideas that have created the terrorist movement that we now have.

Exactly the same applies to Russia.Keep out. Their business with the Ukraine,is exactly that and not ours. Our excuse being " humanitarian ". Who's got the right to argue with a man who has the might of China on his side ? It would be suicidal for us to interfere with what we see as a humanitarian crisis,which would be nothing like the crisis that we'd face.
We,as a country,should learn from past mistakes------------Iraq and Afghanistan.
 

[ngb1066]

I'm amazed at the knowledge Gringo has on the subject and also admire his stance.
What we have now in this country ( terrorism ) is a result in our interference in other countries such as Iraq,where only Saddam knew his own people,so therefore we had no right whatsoever in interfering, invading and capturing a man who was no threat to us. The excuse being WMD's. Blair should have been a subject of war crimes and treated as the criminal that he was/is,as it was his power-crazy ideas that have created the terrorist movement that we now have.
Exactly the same applies to Russia.Keep out. Their business with the Ukraine,is exactly that and not ours. Our excuse being " humanitarian ". Who's got the right to argue with a man who has the might of China on his side ? It would be suicidal for us to interfere with what we see as a humanitarian crisis,which would be nothing like the crisis that we'd face.
We,as a country,should learn from past mistakes------------Iraq and Afghanistan.
 

I agree with you Lookout on everything you say.  Tony Blair in particular has a lot to answer for.  The lives lost and others ruined as a result of the invasion of Iraq, under totally false pretences, were totally unnecessary and in my view criminal.

[lookout]

I agree with you Lookout on everything you say.  Tony Blair in particular has a lot to answer for.  The lives lost and others ruined as a result of the invasion of Iraq, under totally false pretences, were totally unnecessary and in my view criminal.

Absolutely,ngb. Imagine if he was in charge now ? It really doesn't bear thinking that the " silly little man " would be throwing his weight around over the Ukraine.
As far as I'm concerned,Russia isn't a threat to us,so let's keep it that way by keeping our nose's out of their politics and how they run their own country.

[susan]

Lookout good post with which I agree Gringo has been making some fabulous posts of late.  Well done to him.

[David1819]

Absolutely,ngb. Imagine if he was in charge now ? It really doesn't bear thinking that the " silly little man " would be throwing his weight around over the Ukraine.
As far as I'm concerned,Russia isn't a threat to us,so let's keep it that way by keeping our nose's out of their politics and how they run their own country.

Why people actually decided to elect Blair a third time is beyond me 

[susan]

David guess the majority of voters thought Blair was the best out of a bad bunch

[lookout]

Why people actually decided to elect Blair a third time is beyond me 

That's just it.They saw him as a " Tin God ". The Aggressor,which suits a lot of the population of this country---------sadly. Those with nothing between their ears I might add.

[David1819]

I agree with you Lookout on everything you say.  Tony Blair in particular has a lot to answer for.  The lives lost and others ruined as a result of the invasion of Iraq, under totally false pretences, were totally unnecessary and in my view criminal.

The execution of the war and pre planning led to many of the problems after. But removing Saddam Hussein was the correct thing to do. They should have taken him out in 1991.

300,000 Bodies in mass graves scattered around the dessert

estimated between 80,000 to 200,000 civilians killed in the 1991 uprisings against him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

Destruction of entire towns
http://youtu.be/O7bY8aovjuw

It was a criminal government the likes of Hitler and Stalin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFseD4B3aFg

His sons even fed people to lions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nb8h6d7l3U

http://youtu.be/5Y8wN911rMc

Iv read extensively on the Baathist rule of Iraq its very interesting due to sheer criminality of it.