Russia - worrying?

[guest2181]

    You are reluctant to enter into debate and instead resort to insult because you have no argument, as you have demonstrated. You talk of conspiracies incessantly but have as yet been unable to point out which parts of my posts are conspiracy theory, despite me asking you for clarification many times.
    You are too ill informed to enter into debate on the issue hence your insults.
    The point of the comparisons between Russian and US military presence outside of their own borders was as I stated in the post. I was adding facts and context to your puerile comparisons earlier and emphasizing that your comparisons were lacking the necessary details. Do you even read the reply before resorting to insults, or is it above your reading level?
    Given the amount of invasions and wars that the US has been and are involved in, I would be interested to hear how you have concluded that I am wrong to have the impression that the US acts out of aggression. You believe that the US has a large military presence "because it can" and because the US "has the manpower and the wealth".
     Are you serious? Is this your considered opinion as to why the US has such massive military presence abroad?How old are you David?, because this is an incredibly naive view.
      You think that the reason for the US having over a quarter of a million military personnel stationed abroad in over 150 countries and spending more on arms than the next nine largest spenders combined is because the US had to give all those people something to do, what with all that manpower.I wonder who came up with the ruse of invading and bombing lots of countries so they could use lots of this seemingly spare wealth. What a land of milk and honey the USA must be. 
      I hope that all those foreign people who have been slaughtered and their surviving families, all those people who were tortured as part of the US "war on terror" and the millions of displaced people realise that the US doesn't bomb and invade them out of aggression. What would give them that impression, David?
      They would have to be conspiracy nuts to believe that the US has any aggressive intent wouldn't they David?
       Unsurprisingly you failed to answer any of the questions asked of you so we'll try again.
       Seeing as you believe that there is some equivalence between Russia's actions in Georgia and US/UK action in Iraq do you consider that Putin lied in order to justify the Russian intervention in Georgia?
       Do you believe that the US and UK governments lied in order to justify their intervention in Iraq?
       In your opinion have Russia armed and funded Islamist jihadists and used them as proxies to destabilise/overthrow "unfriendly" governments? 
       How about the US, do you think that they have armed and funded Islamist jihadists and used them as proxies to destabilise/overthrow "unfriendly" governments?
       Answer those questions honestly and it should be obvious, even to one as myopic as you, that the US are the biggest threat to world peace and order.
     
   

That's a fair argument on a number of meandering points, although it might have been better received had you refrained from getting involved in some of the personal jibes, especially when you accuse David of doing the same, no doubt borne out of frustration.

With regards to military presence outside of borders, I can understand David's view that Russia is the largest country in the world spanning across the globe, therefore they do not require so many external bases. Although it is also worth noting that the majority of Russia's external military assets are located in territories which was formerly part of the Soviet block.

[David1819]

    You are reluctant to enter into debate and instead resort to insult because you have no argument, as you have demonstrated. You talk of conspiracies incessantly but have as yet been unable to point out which parts of my posts are conspiracy theory, despite me asking you for clarification many times.
    You are too ill informed to enter into debate on the issue hence your insults.
    The point of the comparisons between Russian and US military presence outside of their own borders was as I stated in the post. I was adding facts and context to your puerile comparisons earlier and emphasizing that your comparisons were lacking the necessary details. Do you even read the reply before resorting to insults, or is it above your reading level?
    Given the amount of invasions and wars that the US has been and are involved in, I would be interested to hear how you have concluded that I am wrong to have the impression that the US acts out of aggression. You believe that the US has a large military presence "because it can" and because the US "has the manpower and the wealth".
     Are you serious? Is this your considered opinion as to why the US has such massive military presence abroad?How old are you David?, because this is an incredibly naive view.
      You think that the reason for the US having over a quarter of a million military personnel stationed abroad in over 150 countries and spending more on arms than the next nine largest spenders combined is because the US had to give all those people something to do, what with all that manpower.I wonder who came up with the ruse of invading and bombing lots of countries so they could use lots of this seemingly spare wealth. What a land of milk and honey the USA must be. 
      I hope that all those foreign people who have been slaughtered and their surviving families, all those people who were tortured as part of the US "war on terror" and the millions of displaced people realise that the US doesn't bomb and invade them out of aggression. What would give them that impression, David?
      They would have to be conspiracy nuts to believe that the US has any aggressive intent wouldn't they David?
       Unsurprisingly you failed to answer any of the questions asked of you so we'll try again.
       Seeing as you believe that there is some equivalence between Russia's actions in Georgia and US/UK action in Iraq do you consider that Putin lied in order to justify the Russian intervention in Georgia?
       Do you believe that the US and UK governments lied in order to justify their intervention in Iraq?
       In your opinion have Russia armed and funded Islamist jihadists and used them as proxies to destabilise/overthrow "unfriendly" governments? 
       How about the US, do you think that they have armed and funded Islamist jihadists and used them as proxies to destabilise/overthrow "unfriendly" governments?
       Answer those questions honestly and it should be obvious, even to one as myopic as you, that the US are the biggest threat to world peace and order.
     
   

How ironic, several month ago you were claiming that the Russian military involvement in Ukraine was a lie being peddled by America and NATO, you when't on to say that I had been brainwashed by media outlets! Media outlets that I don't even watch or take note of. I had kindly gone out my way to show you factual documented proof of Russian military activity in Ukraine from primary sources of information, then what did you do? Deny everything and continue to believe it's all a lie despite overwhelming evidence you buried your head in the sand claiming I was the one brainwashed and ill informed. 

Now Vladimir Putin himself has admitted there are Russian military boots in eastern Ukraine. Ultimately proving what was already proven and that I had explained to you all along, Now you have the audacity to continue denying your errors and one again go on to say that I am the one ill informed and not very good at debating the subject then you claim that I have no argument. You are a classic example of the Emperor with no clothes.

[John]

Putin is corrupt.

That must be the understatement of the day, the entire Russian government and those who pandy to it are corrupt to the core.

That said however, what do members think of the latest claim by a US general that the exodus from Syria is a carefully planned project by Russia and Assad to destabilize Europe?

ps  it appears to be working!

[David1819]

That's a fair argument on a number of meandering points, although it might have been better received had you refrained from getting involved in some of the personal jibes, especially when you accuse David of doing the same, no doubt borne out of frustration.

Gringo denies factual evidence and believes his opinions are more valid than reality.

Gringo criticizes George W Bush for the American policy on Iraq when in fact it was actually Bill Clinton that made the removal of Saddam Hussein official foreign policy not George W Bush.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWT587vW5E4

Gringo believes that the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an illegal war of aggression, It may seem that way to anyone who does not understand or cannot grasp the History or the legal technicalities of the conflict. In 1991 after the US liberated Kuwait, Iraq and the US signed a conditional ceasefire approved and passed by the UN see (United Nations Security Council Resolution 687) anyone with a shade of sense will know that conditional ceasefire does not bring a conflict to a conclusion and breaking the conditions can result in the ceasefire being void thus the military conflict commences.

The Iraqi WMD program was a means to and end for Saddam Hussein, gassing tens of thousands of innocent men women and children with Sarin and Hydrogen Cyanide to ensure reqime survival was the norm under the Baathist Regime. I have documents from Saddams own government below in case Gringo starts to go into La La land again




Gringo claims that Bush lied about WMD to invade Iraq and ignores the fact that they did find WMD in Iraq and statements from former Iraq Military Commanders and Iraqi Nuclear Scientists corroborate the claims that Iraq was In violation United Nations Security Council Resolution 687.

UN Special Commission (UNSCOM)

Saddam’s primary concern was retaining a cadre of skilled scientists to facilitate reconstitution of WMD programs after sanctions were lifted, former science advisor Ja’far Diya’ Ja’far Hashim

According to ‘Abd Hamid Mahmud, Saddam privately told him that Iraq would reacquire WMD post-sanctions.

See Iraq Survey Group Final Report




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Avarice

The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003 and it is an inconvenient truth everyone prefers to ignore. Specially Gringo because to him the USA is Evil Empire and a Dictatorship that uses chemical weapons on innocent people to ensure regime survival and attempts to conquests its niegbours is somehow the innocent victim of evil American Empire.

Nobody with half a brain in Kuwait or South Korea would object to US foreign policy, NGB Claims he celebrated when America left Vietnam ignorant of the fact that everyone is Saigon was begging the Americans to take them to the US, Afterall they were about to be forced into an ideology that had murdered almost 100 million people in the 20th century alone so I cannot blame them but someone USA is the evil empire in the minds of some.

With regards to military presence outside of borders, I can understand David's view that Russia is the largest country in the world spanning across the globe, therefore they do not require so many external bases. Although it is also worth noting that the majority of Russia's external military assets are located in territories which was formerly part of the Soviet block.

Exactly, Russia has eastern Europe on one end and you can see Alaska from the east of the Russia on the other end its massive!, Plus Russia has direct access to the Middle East via the black sea and the Caspian Sea, Then it borders with the Korean Peninsula and has Islands in the Japanese sea in close proximity to the Japanese mainland, a country of such size that has access to all regions except Africa and South America does not require a large amount of Bases.

The USA spends 3.5% of its GDP on its military, While Russia spends 4.5% of its GDP on its military. Both those figures are fairly reasonable.

Gringo then complains that the US uses NATO for its own ends and is then completely ignores the fact that Russia does the exact same thing with CSTO (collective security treaty organization) and Ignores the fact that Russia has a Military partnership with China and both use SCO to increase their influence over the region.

Gringo thinks America evil because it creates treaties to expand its empire of influence. But then look what Russia a China are creating?




Map of CSTO (Russian Version of Nato)


Talk about double standards, 

[gringo]

How ironic, several month ago you were claiming that the Russian military involvement in Ukraine was a lie being peddled by America and NATO, you when't on to say that I had been brainwashed by media outlets! Media outlets that I don't even watch or take note of. I had kindly gone out my way to show you factual documented proof of Russian military activity in Ukraine from primary sources of information, then what did you do? Deny everything and continue to believe it's all a lie despite overwhelming evidence you buried your head in the sand claiming I was the one brainwashed and ill informed. 

Now Vladimir Putin himself has admitted there are Russian military boots in eastern Ukraine. Ultimately proving what was already proven and that I had explained to you all along, Now you have the audacity to continue denying your errors and one again go on to say that I am the one ill informed and not very good at debating the subject then you claim that I have no argument. You are a classic example of the Emperor with no clothes.

   David since you claim that Russia has invaded Ukraine, then surely you will have an approximate idea of how many troops this invasion consists of. I am sure that you will be able to enlighten us with the size of this Russian invasion force. Approximate numbers will suffice and it is be expected that you will support your claim with evidence that is verifiable; not just what somebody said on youtube.
     After all an invasion is not the sort of thing that you can keep secret in this age of communication. The pictures of this invasion must have been all over the news and print media.
    That Russia and Russians in general support the Ukrainian rebels is understandable. If you really wanted  to find out the truth rather than the version served up to you by vested interests then you would know that there is a civil war in Ukraine. It is undeniable that Ukraine is a divided country and that the majority of inhabitants of regions of the east and south of the country are pro and largely ethnic Russian.
    The west of the country including Kiev is largely more orientated towards Europe and the eastern regions do not accept rule by what they see as western stooges installed by a coup. Whether you believe that a coup took place is neither here nor there, it is the view of the majority of Ukrainians in the eastern regions.
    Russia has actually acted with restraint in the face of western provocations. Had they really invaded Ukraine then it would be over inside days. That there is a stalemate at the moment is evidence enough that the Ukrainian military is fighting rebels and not Russia.The east of the country will not accept the rule of what they see as the puppet government of Kiev and these are the real facts.
    One of my daughters shares a house with, amongst others, a Ukrainian who is ethnically Russian. His opinion is that the West are the aggressors in Ukraine and he would like Russia to intervene officially. I am sure however that if he were a Ukrainian from Kiev then his views may well be the opposite. This is the crux of the matter. There is a civil war in Ukraine not an invasion by Russia.
    I pointed out to you earlier that the US have admitted boots on the ground in Syria but you haven't mentioned the US invasion of Syria. So do let us know how many Russian troops are in Ukraine in this invasion.
    Your obsession with Russia's supposed crimes is indicative of your nationalistic right wing views. You should be questioning your own government's roles in the various international conflicts that we involve ourselves in, Yemen for example. You really ought to take a more objective and less subjective view of world events.
    For instance an objective view of US and Russian troop presence in Syria and Ukraine, respectively,would consider facts and context rather than treating both with equivalence.
    The Russian presence in Ukraine, that has been admitted to by Putin, is of military advisors (a fairly obvious euphemism for Special forces). This much can be inferred from the fact that Putin's admission came when calling for  a "calm discussion" with the Ukrainians over a prisoner swap involving two captured Russian special forces. Putin said at this time, "We never said that there weren't people there dealing with certain tasks, including in the military sphere".
    Again it can be reasonably inferred from this that Russian special forces are operating and helping the rebels in Ukraine, and that Putin rather than admit this earlier peddled the line that there was no invasion by Russian troops. Whilst it may be disingenuous to omit special forces presence, it does not however constitute an invasion either.
   To add some context to these verifiable facts we must now consider what the Russian interest in Ukraine is in order to take an objective view on the matter.
    Ukraine borders Russia and there are legitimate concerns from Russia at the expansion of Nato towards its borders.  The eastern regions want autonomy from Kiev at the least and arguably want to become a Russian territory. The eastern regions are also largely ethnic Russians and the ties with Russia are historically strong.
     There have been calls from these regions for more military help from Russia to defend against the Ukrainian army and various right wing and outright Nazi paramilitaries who have fighting alongside them.
     None of this can be seriously disputed.


    The US presence that has been admitted to in Syria by Obama, Kerry and others is of commandos and special forces being embedded with rebels. There is also the infamous and now suspended $500m program to arm and train non jihadist rebels which was embarrassingly stopped when the US was forced to admit that all but 4 or 5 had defected to jihadist groups, mostly Al nusra(Al Qaeda affiliates).
    It has also been admitted by the US that they have informed the Russians of the positions of their embedded forces in order to avoid casualties.
    There is no doubt then that US forces are helping terrorists attempting to overthrow a government.
    To add context to these facts we must now consider what the US interest is in Syria in order to take an objective view on the matter.
    Well the US definitely doesn't border Syria and there are no parts of it that have a large make up of ethnic Americans. There are no real historical links between Syria and the US, the US have not been invited by the Syrian government and nor has their assistance been requested.
    Again none of this can be seriously disputed.
    If you were to be objective then you would see that Russia has legitimate interests in events in Ukraine and Syria for that matter.
    It is impossible however to claim that the US interests in Syria are in any way legitimate.
    Russia, on the other hand, is there at the request of the UN and internationally recognised government of Syria. Furthermore it is not disputed by NATO/US/UK that Assad would win any free and fair election held in Syria, hence their insistence that he must go and not be allowed to stand. The real goal of NATO is to overthrow Assad and their actions and statements make this clear.
   
     Ultimately, David I'm not really in a debate with you(you are too ill informed and not well enough read),
I am schooling you. You are just failing to take the lessons on board.
   
   
   

[David1819]

 
     Ultimately, David I'm not really in a debate with you(you are too ill informed and not well enough read),
I am schooling you. You are just failing to take the lessons on board.
   
   

How can I take your "lessons" on board? Ramblings of a conspiracy nut with no factual primary sources of evidence to back up his absurd claims that is not what I call schooling. The only thing you are doing is entertaining me by being a politically inept clown.

Time and time again I dismantle your claims. I even go out my way to find official documents and other primary sources of information, Yet you still like to believe I am being brainwashed by some vast media conspiracy that exists only in your imagination. And the amusing thing is your too foolish to actually work out your foolish

[Caroline]

How can I take your "lessons" on board? Ramblings of a conspiracy nut with no factual primary sources of evidence to back up his absurd claims that is not what I call schooling. The only thing you are doing is entertaining me by being a politically inept clown.

Time and time again I dismantle your claims. I even go out my way to find official documents and other primary sources of information, Yet you still like to believe I am being brainwashed by some vast media conspiracy that exists only in your imagination. And the amusing thing is your too foolish to actually work out your foolish

I agree David - Russia a solution? 

[ngb1066]

   David since you claim that Russia has invaded Ukraine, then surely you will have an approximate idea of how many troops this invasion consists of. I am sure that you will be able to enlighten us with the size of this Russian invasion force. Approximate numbers will suffice and it is be expected that you will support your claim with evidence that is verifiable; not just what somebody said on youtube.
     After all an invasion is not the sort of thing that you can keep secret in this age of communication. The pictures of this invasion must have been all over the news and print media.
    That Russia and Russians in general support the Ukrainian rebels is understandable. If you really wanted  to find out the truth rather than the version served up to you by vested interests then you would know that there is a civil war in Ukraine. It is undeniable that Ukraine is a divided country and that the majority of inhabitants of regions of the east and south of the country are pro and largely ethnic Russian.
    The west of the country including Kiev is largely more orientated towards Europe and the eastern regions do not accept rule by what they see as western stooges installed by a coup. Whether you believe that a coup took place is neither here nor there, it is the view of the majority of Ukrainians in the eastern regions.
    Russia has actually acted with restraint in the face of western provocations. Had they really invaded Ukraine then it would be over inside days. That there is a stalemate at the moment is evidence enough that the Ukrainian military is fighting rebels and not Russia.The east of the country will not accept the rule of what they see as the puppet government of Kiev and these are the real facts.
    One of my daughters shares a house with, amongst others, a Ukrainian who is ethnically Russian. His opinion is that the West are the aggressors in Ukraine and he would like Russia to intervene officially. I am sure however that if he were a Ukrainian from Kiev then his views may well be the opposite. This is the crux of the matter. There is a civil war in Ukraine not an invasion by Russia.
    I pointed out to you earlier that the US have admitted boots on the ground in Syria but you haven't mentioned the US invasion of Syria. So do let us know how many Russian troops are in Ukraine in this invasion.
    Your obsession with Russia's supposed crimes is indicative of your nationalistic right wing views. You should be questioning your own government's roles in the various international conflicts that we involve ourselves in, Yemen for example. You really ought to take a more objective and less subjective view of world events.
    For instance an objective view of US and Russian troop presence in Syria and Ukraine, respectively,would consider facts and context rather than treating both with equivalence.
    The Russian presence in Ukraine, that has been admitted to by Putin, is of military advisors (a fairly obvious euphemism for Special forces). This much can be inferred from the fact that Putin's admission came when calling for  a "calm discussion" with the Ukrainians over a prisoner swap involving two captured Russian special forces. Putin said at this time, "We never said that there weren't people there dealing with certain tasks, including in the military sphere".
    Again it can be reasonably inferred from this that Russian special forces are operating and helping the rebels in Ukraine, and that Putin rather than admit this earlier peddled the line that there was no invasion by Russian troops. Whilst it may be disingenuous to omit special forces presence, it does not however constitute an invasion either.
   To add some context to these verifiable facts we must now consider what the Russian interest in Ukraine is in order to take an objective view on the matter.
    Ukraine borders Russia and there are legitimate concerns from Russia at the expansion of Nato towards its borders.  The eastern regions want autonomy from Kiev at the least and arguably want to become a Russian territory. The eastern regions are also largely ethnic Russians and the ties with Russia are historically strong.
     There have been calls from these regions for more military help from Russia to defend against the Ukrainian army and various right wing and outright Nazi paramilitaries who have fighting alongside them.
     None of this can be seriously disputed.


    The US presence that has been admitted to in Syria by Obama, Kerry and others is of commandos and special forces being embedded with rebels. There is also the infamous and now suspended $500m program to arm and train non jihadist rebels which was embarrassingly stopped when the US was forced to admit that all but 4 or 5 had defected to jihadist groups, mostly Al nusra(Al Qaeda affiliates).
    It has also been admitted by the US that they have informed the Russians of the positions of their embedded forces in order to avoid casualties.
    There is no doubt then that US forces are helping terrorists attempting to overthrow a government.
    To add context to these facts we must now consider what the US interest is in Syria in order to take an objective view on the matter.
    Well the US definitely doesn't border Syria and there are no parts of it that have a large make up of ethnic Americans. There are no real historical links between Syria and the US, the US have not been invited by the Syrian government and nor has their assistance been requested.
    Again none of this can be seriously disputed.
    If you were to be objective then you would see that Russia has legitimate interests in events in Ukraine and Syria for that matter.
    It is impossible however to claim that the US interests in Syria are in any way legitimate.
    Russia, on the other hand, is there at the request of the UN and internationally recognised government of Syria. Furthermore it is not disputed by NATO/US/UK that Assad would win any free and fair election held in Syria, hence their insistence that he must go and not be allowed to stand. The real goal of NATO is to overthrow Assad and their actions and statements make this clear.
   
     Ultimately, David I'm not really in a debate with you(you are too ill informed and not well enough read),
I am schooling you. You are just failing to take the lessons on board.
   
   
   

You present the arguments on this very well Gringo.  Keep up the good work!

   

[David1819]

I agree David - Russia a solution? 

The biggest Irony in all this is that self proclaimed "leftists" like NGB criticize the US and see Russia as their solution, completely ignorant of the fact that Russia is more on the right of the spectrum than the United States is.

Russia has a flat rate of Income Tax of 13% thus has a much higher level of wealth inequality than we do (See Gini coefficients) Russia allows its citizens to own guns for self defence, In the US gay marriage is now legal while in Russia promoting homosexuality is illegal in their own words "for the Purpose of Protecting Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family Values"
Russia then has a road safety law preventing Transgender people obtaining driving licenses.
Reporters Without Borders put Russia at 147th place in the World Press Freedom Index (from a list of 168 countries)

Then to make matters worse Vladimir Putin favours Donald Trumps for president while Donald Trump openly expresses admiration for Vladimir Putin.

Anyone who sees the US and Russia as polar opposites and believes Russia is a solution for the things they dislike about the US is just ill informed and delusional

[gringo]

You present the arguments on this very well Gringo.  Keep up the good work!

   

  Thanks ngb, I appreciate your support.

[gringo]

How can I take your "lessons" on board? Ramblings of a conspiracy nut with no factual primary sources of evidence to back up his absurd claims that is not what I call schooling. The only thing you are doing is entertaining me by being a politically inept clown.

Time and time again I dismantle your claims. I even go out my way to find official documents and other primary sources of information, Yet you still like to believe I am being brainwashed by some vast media conspiracy that exists only in your imagination. And the amusing thing is your too foolish to actually work out your foolish

  David to be brutally honest with you, being called foolish, conspiracy nut, la la etc. by someone with a reading level of approximately 11 is laughable and anyone informed can see this.
     Some way back on this thread you had to ask what the meaning of "sycophant" was.
     I derided you at the time for lacking the wit and intellectual curiosity to use a dictionary and also pointed out that it is a common word that it would be hard to have avoided ever coming across.
      That you had to ask tells us that either you have never come across the word, in which case it is reasonable to assume that your reading material is aimed at those with a reading age of 11, or that if you have come across it then you didn't bother to find out the meaning. If it is the latter option then you need to get back to the easy stuff, because anything challenging is way over your head including most of my posts.
     Your written English is also of a low standard. It is littered with bad spelling and poor grammar. My 12 year old granddaughter and 11 year old grandson could school you on that. Their written English is of a far superior standard to yours and the idea that that you, with language skills that my grandchildren would deem a low standard, are in a position to call anyone foolish is amusing.
      Your reply 363 demonstrates your piss poor reading and comprehension skills.
      Your first two sentences are an example.
   "Gringo denies factual evidence and believes his opinions are more valid than reality"
   "Gringo criticizes George W Bush for the American policy on Iraq when in fact it was actually Bill Clinton that made the removal of Saddam Hussein official foreign policy not George W Bush."
     
     Firstly, you will find that I criticise Bush for the illegal invasion of Iraq. It happened on his watch, after all. If in order to criticise me, you need to misrepresent the things that I have said then your criticisms are invalid because, well they're lies aren't they.
     It also makes you look stupid because you misrepresent me in order to supposedly demonstrate my misrepresentations. This is exactly what I mean when I tell you that you aren't very good at this debating malarkey. You lack the language skills to recognise that you have been schooled.

     Your next sentence is unintentional comedy gold.
     "Gringo believes that the invasion of Iraq was an illegal war of aggression, It may seem that way to anyone who does not understand or cannot grasp the History or the legal technicalities of the conflict."

     People who don't understand these things, like the then secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, who declared the war illegal in 2004 and stated that it "breached the UN charter" after previously maintaining a silence. What would the Secretary General of the UN know about it?
      How about the International Commission of International Jurists, probably the world's most prestigious and respected body of international lawyers. It was the "overwhelming consensus" that the Iraq invasion was illegal.
     It is not in question that the majority of lawyers in international law regard the invasion as illegal, but what would the likes of Phillippe Sands QC know about it?
    Luckily David is posting and can explain the technicalities of international law to all of us who cannot quite grasp it. I can't imagine that you would require better language skills than David possesses to understand International law. He knows how to use youtube and everything
     
       

[David1819]

  David to be brutally honest with you, being called foolish, conspiracy nut, la la etc. by someone with a reading level of approximately 11 is laughable and anyone informed can see this.
     Some way back on this thread you had to ask what the meaning of "sycophant" was.
     I derided you at the time for lacking the wit and intellectual curiosity to use a dictionary and also pointed out that it is a common word that it would be hard to have avoided ever coming across.
      That you had to ask tells us that either you have never come across the word, in which case it is reasonable to assume that your reading material is aimed at those with a reading age of 11, or that if you have come across it then you didn't bother to find out the meaning. If it is the latter option then you need to get back to the easy stuff, because anything challenging is way over your head including most of my posts.
     Your written English is also of a low standard. It is littered with bad spelling and poor grammar. My 12 year old granddaughter and 11 year old grandson could school you on that. Their written English is of a far superior standard to yours and the idea that that you, with language skills that my grandchildren would deem a low standard, are in a position to call anyone foolish is amusing.
      Your reply 363 demonstrates your piss poor reading and comprehension skills.
      Your first two sentences are an example.
   "Gringo denies factual evidence and believes his opinions are more valid than reality"
   "Gringo criticizes George W Bush for the American policy on Iraq when in fact it was actually Bill Clinton that made the removal of Saddam Hussein official foreign policy not George W Bush."
     
     Firstly, you will find that I criticise Bush for the illegal invasion of Iraq. It happened on his watch, after all. If in order to criticise me, you need to misrepresent the things that I have said then your criticisms are invalid because, well they're lies aren't they.
     It also makes you look stupid because you misrepresent me in order to supposedly demonstrate my misrepresentations. This is exactly what I mean when I tell you that you aren't very good at this debating malarkey. You lack the language skills to recognise that you have been schooled.

     Your next sentence is unintentional comedy gold.
     "Gringo believes that the invasion of Iraq was an illegal war of aggression, It may seem that way to anyone who does not understand or cannot grasp the History or the legal technicalities of the conflict."

     People who don't understand these things, like the then secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, who declared the war illegal in 2004 and stated that it "breached the UN charter" after previously maintaining a silence. What would the Secretary General of the UN know about it?
      How about the International Commission of International Jurists, probably the world's most prestigious and respected body of international lawyers. It was the "overwhelming consensus" that the Iraq invasion was illegal.
     It is not in question that the majority of lawyers in international law regard the invasion as illegal, but what would the likes of Phillippe Sands QC know about it?
    Luckily David is posting and can explain the technicalities of international law to all of us who cannot quite grasp it. I can't imagine that you would require better language skills than David possesses to understand International law. He knows how to use youtube and everything
     
       

The UN had authorised into force UNSCR 678 in order to Liberate Kuwait from the occupying regime; UNSCR 687 recalled and affirmed that resolution and imposed disarmament obligations on Iraq as one of the conditions. UN Security Council 687 also allowed members to use all necessary means to enforce Iraqi disarmament and compliance with UN inspection and verification, this was a condition of the 1991 ceasefire

Then In 1998, the US and the UK bombed Iraq to “degrade” its WMD capability. The legality of the bombing in 1998 was that UNSCR 678 still governed and overshadowed the entire process.

Menzies Campbell said at the time

Some say that there is no proper legal basis because there is no single resolution of the United Nations Security Council that authorises the action taken during the past 24 hours. To them I say that, when considering the legal basis of the action, one must have regard to resolutions 687 and 688 with which the Gulf war was brought to an end, to the fact that they reflect voluntary undertakings freely entered into by the Iraqi Government to help bring the war to an end and that since then no resolution of the Security Council in respect of these matters has been anything other than entirely consistent with those obligations. When considering the legal basis of the action we must look at the body of resolutions as a whole and not seek to fasten on to one particular resolution or describe it or any other as deficient.


By Iraq breaching the terms this would revive the authorisation of force in UNSCR 678 which allows the US and the UK "Use any force necessary" This is the exact same legal argument used in 2003 when inspectors discovered ballistic missiles that Iraq that was in breach of its ceasefire agreement.

Weather you agree with the Iraq war or not and in hindsight it was a bad idea we can all agree on that. However if you look at the legalities of the situation you will find there is no basis for the 2003 to be illegal as explained above. Allot of politicians will voice the opinion that the war was illegal But the fact they see the invasion as illegal does not mean it was illegal.

I am sure NGB being a lawyer himself can agree with me in this. UNSCR 678 literally had a clause that allowed the Gulf War to restart if Saddam Hussein was in breach of its conditions (which he was) its as simple as that. You could criticize the UN for passing UNSCR 678 with such an ambiguous interpretations as "obey or we will force you to by all means necessary" but what can you do? lesson learned

[gringo]

The UN had authorised into force UNSCR 678 in order to Liberate Kuwait from the occupying regime; UNSCR 687 recalled and affirmed that resolution and imposed disarmament obligations on Iraq as one of the conditions. UN Security Council 687 also allowed members to use all necessary means to enforce Iraqi disarmament and compliance with UN inspection and verification, this was a condition of the 1991 ceasefire

Then In 1998, the US and the UK bombed Iraq to “degrade” its WMD capability. The legality of the bombing in 1998 was that UNSCR 678 still governed and overshadowed the entire process.

Menzies Campbell said at the time

Some say that there is no proper legal basis because there is no single resolution of the United Nations Security Council that authorises the action taken during the past 24 hours. To them I say that, when considering the legal basis of the action, one must have regard to resolutions 687 and 688 with which the Gulf war was brought to an end, to the fact that they reflect voluntary undertakings freely entered into by the Iraqi Government to help bring the war to an end and that since then no resolution of the Security Council in respect of these matters has been anything other than entirely consistent with those obligations. When considering the legal basis of the action we must look at the body of resolutions as a whole and not seek to fasten on to one particular resolution or describe it or any other as deficient.


By Iraq breaching the terms this would revive the authorisation of force in UNSCR 678 which allows the US and the UK "Use any force necessary" This is the exact same legal argument used in 2003 when inspectors discovered ballistic missiles that Iraq that was in breach of its ceasefire agreement.

Weather you agree with the Iraq war or not and in hindsight it was a bad idea we can all agree on that. However if you look at the legalities of the situation you will find there is no basis for the 2003 to be illegal as explained above. Allot of politicians will voice the opinion that the war was illegal But the fact they see the invasion as illegal does not mean it was illegal.

I am sure NGB being a lawyer himself can agree with me in this. UNSCR 678 literally had a clause that allowed the Gulf War to restart if Saddam Hussein was in breach of its conditions (which he was) its as simple as that. You could criticize the UN for passing UNSCR 678 with such an ambiguous interpretations as "obey or we will force you to by all means necessary" but what can you do? lesson learned

   You do realise that Menzies Campbell opposed the war and has stated that it was in fact illegal. In the quote that you posted Campbell is talking about bombing in 1998 not the 2003 invasion. Here is what Campbell said about the 2003 invasion:
      "The illegality was then and is today easily stated. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits regime change. It is hardly surprising that a treaty formed immediately after the Second World War should do so since the Axis powers ignored the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of those whom they sought to annexe or conquer- just as the action against Iraq did."

      So Menzies Campbell, in whose words you have so much faith, agrees that the invasion was illegal. You have quoted him talking about the bombing in 1998 not the 2003 invasion. He is pretty unequivocal in the passage above, comparing the 2003 invasion to the annexations and invasions of the Nazis. It is good to see that you agree with Menzies Campbell but by extension you now also agree with "conspiracy nuts" like myself, Kofi Annan and even "self confessed lefties" and "crack smokers" like NGB, whose agreement you are now seeking despite insulting him earlier.
     This is what I mean when I say that you're not very good at this.
     He goes on to say:
     "The charter of the UN is not the only source of International Law. Custom and convention also play a part. It is a principle of customary international law that military action can only be justified when all other political and diplomatic alternatives have been exhausted. Until they were forced to leave Iraq by the impending military action the UN inspectors were still doing their job, as were those of the International Atomic Energy Agency. They were still receiving sufficient co-operation from the Iraqis in the search for WMD. In short, all the diplomatic alternatives had not been exhausted. Military action breached both the UN Charter and customary international law."

     You claim to be explaining the intricacies of International law to, "anyone who does not understand or cannot grasp the History or the legal technicalities of the conflict."
     It is lucky for us that you are around then isn't it David, to explain the legal intricacies for us. That you chose the opinion of someone who is a QC and has studied International law was a good start but unfortunately for you his opinion is the polar opposite of what you are claiming. You didn't do very well on the legal technicalities part, did you?
    Never mind, perhaps you will do better on the history of the conflict that you appear to believe you grasp well enough to explain to those who don't understand.
    Oh shit, you don't know the difference between 1998 and 2003. I think if I were you I would lay off attempting to teach History too. The kindest thing I could say about your grasp of History is that it is no worse than your grasp of international law.
     This is just embarrassing, David.
     
     
     
     

     

[David1819]

   You do realise that Menzies Campbell opposed the war and has stated that it was in fact illegal. In the quote that you posted Campbell is talking about bombing in 1998 not the 2003 invasion. Here is what Campbell said about the 2003 invasion:
      "The illegality was then and is today easily stated. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits regime change. It is hardly surprising that a treaty formed immediately after the Second World War should do so since the Axis powers ignored the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of those whom they sought to annexe or conquer- just as the action against Iraq did."

      So Menzies Campbell, in whose words you have so much faith, agrees that the invasion was illegal. You have quoted him talking about the bombing in 1998 not the 2003 invasion. He is pretty unequivocal in the passage above, comparing the 2003 invasion to the annexations and invasions of the Nazis. It is good to see that you agree with Menzies Campbell but by extension you now also agree with "conspiracy nuts" like myself, Kofi Annan and even "self confessed lefties" and "crack smokers" like NGB, whose agreement you are now seeking despite insulting him earlier.
     This is what I mean when I say that you're not very good at this.
     He goes on to say:
     "The charter of the UN is not the only source of International Law. Custom and convention also play a part. It is a principle of customary international law that military action can only be justified when all other political and diplomatic alternatives have been exhausted. Until they were forced to leave Iraq by the impending military action the UN inspectors were still doing their job, as were those of the International Atomic Energy Agency. They were still receiving sufficient co-operation from the Iraqis in the search for WMD. In short, all the diplomatic alternatives had not been exhausted. Military action breached both the UN Charter and customary international law."

     You claim to be explaining the intricacies of International law to, "anyone who does not understand or cannot grasp the History or the legal technicalities of the conflict."
     It is lucky for us that you are around then isn't it David, to the explain the legal intricacies for us. That you chose the opinion of someone who is a QC and has studied International law was a good start but unfortunately for you his opinion is the polar opposite of what you are claiming. You didn't do very well on the legal technicalities part, did you?
    Never mind, perhaps you will do better on the history of the conflict that you appear to believe you grasp well enough to explain to those who don't understand.
    Oh shit, you don't know the difference between 1998 and 2003. I think if I were you I would lay off attempting to teach History too. The kindest thing I could say about your grasp of History is that it is no worse than your grasp of international law.
     This is just embarrassing, David.
     
           

Once again your selective reading fails miserably. I know that quote from Menzies Campbell is from 1998 and I stated that if you bothered to read properly. Its the basis of the entire argument and even more importantly it shows how Menzies Campbell is prepared to contradict himself to manipulate public opinion.  Menzies Campbell knows full well the 2003 invasion was lawful just as he explained why the 1998 bombings of Iraq was lawful. What Menzies Campbell sais publicly about the 2003 invasion is what any politician does, that is say things that resonate with public opinion.

The 1998 and 1996 airstrikes on Iraq have the same directive ordinance as the 2003 Invasion.

Anthony Aust professor of international law at the London School of Economics said the following in 2004 I quote
it was lawful on the basis of earlier UN resolutions, such as 678 passed in 1990 and 687 in 1991, and subsequent action by the security council during the next decade. Resolution 678 was still in force. To say it was no longer effective because it was 13 years old is spurious. end quote

Sir Adam Roberts
Professor of international relations at Oxford University in 2004 - quote
Indeed, the 1991 ceasefire was contingent on full Iraqi compliance, and the coalition would not necessarily be bound by the ceasefire if Iraq did not comply. Many UN resolutions found that Iraq was not cooperating fully. end quote

Anyone with an objective mind will conclude the 2003 Invasion was in all respects 'Lawful' however if you want to argue if the war was Justified or not then that's a completely different argument all together.

At the end of the day Gringo I am the one who brings forward evidence from primary sources and quote from experts who know what they are talking about to back up my own claims. You on the hand simply mock and try to undermine the credibility of the material I present then you bring nothing except your own opinions not demonstrated by evidence and having to resort to conspiracy theories that are completely fictitious. The only one here causing embarrassment is yourself.

[gringo]

Once again your selective reading fails miserably. I know that quote from Menzies Campbell is from 1998 and I stated that if you bothered to read properly. Its the basis of the entire argument and even more importantly it shows how Menzies Campbell is prepared to contradict himself to manipulate public opinion.  Menzies Campbell knows full well the 2003 invasion was lawful just as he explained why the 1998 bombings of Iraq was lawful. What Menzies Campbell sais publicly about the 2003 invasion is what any politician does, that is say things that resonate with public opinion.

The 1998 and 1996 airstrikes on Iraq have the same directive ordinance as the 2003 Invasion.

Anthony Aust professor of international law at the London School of Economics said the following in 2004 I quote
it was lawful on the basis of earlier UN resolutions, such as 678 passed in 1990 and 687 in 1991, and subsequent action by the security council during the next decade. Resolution 678 was still in force. To say it was no longer effective because it was 13 years old is spurious. end quote

Sir Adam Roberts
Professor of international relations at Oxford University in 2004 - quote
Indeed, the 1991 ceasefire was contingent on full Iraqi compliance, and the coalition would not necessarily be bound by the ceasefire if Iraq did not comply. Many UN resolutions found that Iraq was not cooperating fully. end quote

Anyone with an objective mind will conclude the 2003 Invasion was in all respects 'Lawful' however if you want to argue if the war was Justified or not then that's a completely different argument all together.

At the end of the day Gringo I am the one who brings forward evidence from primary sources and quote from experts who know what they are talking about to back up my own claims. You on the hand simply mock and try to undermine the credibility of the material I present then you bring nothing except your own opinions not demonstrated by evidence and having to resort to conspiracy theories that are completely fictitious. The only one here causing embarrassment is yourself.

   So not put off by the fact that your previous post was thoroughly dismantled, you decide to come back for more.
    So far we have Kofi Annan(sec. Gen. of the UN at the time) who presumably knows what he is talking about, the ICJ, Phillippe Sands and Menzies Campbell, with whom who you can't seem to decide whether you agree with or not.
     Menzies Campbell(presumably one of your ever so reliable primary sources, although interestingly Kofi Annan et al. are not seen as primary sources by you), it seems is a reliable source when he appears to support your argument but an opportunist when he disagrees.
     Anyway let's move on to your new sources to see if they in any way strengthen your argument. Also, bear in mind that you have just accused me of "selective reading".

     First of all you quote Anthony Aust, somewhat selectively it could be said. For anyone who is interested in reading the whole of the article it was in the guardian on the 2/3/04, under the title, "Was the war legal? Leading lawyers give their verdict".
      In light of David's accusations of "selective reading", perhaps David should read the whole article and then get back to us with his thoughts/knee jerk bigoted opinions. Anyway, I digress, let's get back to Anthony Aust, who David obviously wouldn't dream of quoting "selectively" from.
        Your quote begins with the words "it was lawful". You appear to have missed the first seven words of his opinion, which has the effect of misrepresenting his views, so I will enlighten you.

      "There is a good legal argument that it is lawful on the basis of earlier UN resolutions, such as 678 passed in 1990 and 687 in 1991, and subsequent action by the Security Council during the next decade. To say it was no longer effective is spurious..."
       There is more that you missed out, that we shall come to in a moment, but firstly you could do with thinking about the  what the difference is between stating that something is "lawful" and claiming that "there is a good legal argument that it is lawful" and whether missing out those qualifying words is an honest way to "debate".
      He goes on to add, "A second resolution would have been desirable to put the position beyond all doubt and politically, but if the issue ever came before the international court of justice, it could be argued either way with equal cogency. I have been a lawyer for long enough to know you can never predict the outcome of a legal case. What is clear however is that there was legal justification for the government's position."
      Anthony Aust, far from supporting the legality of the invasion, as you claim, is in fact sitting very firmly on the fence. He has basically said that a case could be made but concedes that an equally cogent case can be made that the invasion was illegal.
      Legal justification for the government's position is also very different to saying that the invasion was legal but these fine distinctions are above your reading level.
      Your first expert does not support your argument at all and you were only able to claim that he did by selectively quoting from him and misrepresenting his opinion.
      This is pretty poor stuff even by your own usual standards and the second expert you have chosen is even less supportive than Anthony Aust.

     You quote Sir Adam Roberts even more selectively.
        "There was in principle a possible case for the lawfulness of the resort to war by the US and it's small coalition. In a series of resolutions since 1990, the UN security council had authorised the US and partners to restore peace and security in the region, and that included helping to ensure Iraqi compliance with disarmament arrangements. Indeed, the 1991 ceasefire was contingent on full Iraqi compliance, and the coalition would not necessarily be bound by the ceasefire if Iraq did not comply. Many UN resolutions found that Iraq was not cooperating fully.
        The crucial weakness in the case for war was that the US and UK governments overstated the Iraqi threat, and underestimated the effectiveness of the ongoing processes of inspection and containment.
        The governments have to be judged by the information available to them at the time. However, even by that standard the case for the lawfulness of the war looked, and looks, thin. The failure to plan properly for occupation makes it thinner still."
       I have highlighted in red the part that you quoted in order to allow anyone reading judge who of us is selective in their reading.
       Your second expert is even less supportive of your position than Anthony Aust and in fact he tends towards the opinion that it was unlawful.

       That to support your position you have had to misrepresent expert views is laughable. The sub headline in the article that you have quoted from,"As ministers face new challenges on the legality of the invasion of Iraq, Owen Boycott talks to international law experts to find that most think it was illegal"

      The two contributors that you selectively quote from do not support your position and this is the best you could do from the article. You are either stupid or dishonest.