IRAN / USA

[0R0 + 6,251]

7 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

The wilful ignorance, lies, deceit, and bigotry shown by you and others on this site is beyond appalling. 

The USA invasion of Iraq was unilateral: it was opposed by the UN Security Council. Mr Kofi Annan expressed this clearly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

If you had searched quickly, you too could have found the link and perhaps hundreds of others. By not searching, you prove your bigotry.

You believe the UN SC is a law making and law abiding body. Nothing could be further from the truth. You should read the UNSC Charter and some of the myriad of resolutions. 

It may have been opposed. But the US claimed that Iraq had committed acts of war against the US and was not in compliance with the terms of ceasefire from the Kuwait war. In that case, the security council has no say, besides which, they can't say a thing without the US' vote. So there is no resolution on the books.

I don't believe any UN council or function or is done with an inkling of legitimacy and that international law is a convention that remains in force so long as the major powers find it convenient. 

So far as I understand it. The elimination of Iraq as a sovereign state was a legitimate outcome of the Kuwait invasion, the retaliation against it could have included a dismemberment of the country into several states. 

But putting that aside, what is the point the other UNSC members were making? It was that they didn't want the US to create a precedent of legitimacy to overthrow a government by war. But what of it was material if the US was convinced Iraq had attacked it? See above picture. 

We should also ask the same of Iran with its occupation of Northern Iraq, control of a large chunk of Syria, and Russia's continued activity on behalf of Assad, and Turkey's invasion of Syria. This is pointless. 

[remake it + 288]

26 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

It may have been opposed. But the US claimed that Iraq had committed acts of war against the US and was not in compliance with the terms of ceasefire from the Kuwait war. In that case, the security council has no say, besides which, they can't say a thing without the US' vote. So there is no resolution on the books.

I don't believe any UN council or function or is done with an inkling of legitimacy and that international law is a convention that remains in force so long as the major powers find it convenient. 

So far as I understand it. The elimination of Iraq as a sovereign state was a legitimate outcome of the Kuwait invasion, the retaliation against it could have included a dismemberment of the country into several states. 

But putting that aside, what is the point the other UNSC members were making? It was that they didn't want the US to create a precedent of legitimacy to overthrow a government by war. But what of it was material if the US was convinced Iraq had attacked it? See above picture. 

We should also ask the same of Iran with its occupation of Northern Iraq, control of a large chunk of Syria, and Russia's continued activity on behalf of Assad, and Turkey's invasion of Syria. This is pointless. 

It seems that if the USA claims it, then it is so, and thereafter they can commit whatever crimes they like because they make the rules and that is the end of the story.

[frankfurter + 562]

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/03/after-mossad-targeted-soleimani-trump-pulled-the-trigger/

"After Mossad Targeted Soleimani, Trump Pulled the Trigger" 

 

[remake it + 288]

47 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

The closing of an embassy and repatriation of its staff are by international law. All host countries can demand removal  of an embassy, and by that same law the embassy must be removed, indeed, not removing it is considered  an act of aggression. It is part of international law embedded in treaties everyone has signed to. 

Ah yes, these are the very same types of treaties that the USA selectively chooses from, depending on circumstances. 

[frankfurter + 562]

28 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

It may have been opposed. But the US claimed that Iraq had committed acts of war against the US and was not in compliance with the terms of ceasefire from the Kuwait war. In that case, the security council has no say, besides which, they can't say a thing without the US' vote. So there is no resolution on the books.

I don't believe any UN council or function or is done with an inkling of legitimacy and that international law is a convention that remains in force so long as the major powers find it convenient. 

So far as I understand it. The elimination of Iraq as a sovereign state was a legitimate outcome of the Kuwait invasion, the retaliation against it could have included a dismemberment of the country into several states. 

But putting that aside, what is the point the other UNSC members were making? It was that they didn't want the US to create a precedent of legitimacy to overthrow a government by war. But what of it was material if the US was convinced Iraq had attacked it? See above picture. 

We should also ask the same of Iran with its occupation of Northern Iraq, control of a large chunk of Syria, and Russia's continued activity on behalf of Assad, and Turkey's invasion of Syria. This is pointless. 

Correct; US claimed, but offered no proof. Simply a massive lie.  Like the Nazis: concoct a very big lie, mix with a few truths, tell it loudly and forever to make citizens believe it, and accuse any who oppose of cowardice and lack of patriotism. 

Do you know why Saddam sent his troops into Kuwait?  Do you even care? 

 

[Marcin + 519]

37 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

We should also ask the same of Iran with its occupation of Northern Iraq, control of a large chunk of Syria, and Russia's continued activity on behalf of Assad, and Turkey's invasion of Syria. This is pointless. 

When foreign powers would want to partition your country as was interest and active actions of US, Israel and Saudi Arabia (real club of friends of common beliefs) in Syria you would ask devil from hell to help you prevent it. Accidently and luckily for Assad, Russian interests were in line with his country interests, Russia wanted to keep his naval base in Tartus and Syrians to keep independence and their motherland.

The arguments that attacks by US, Israel and Gulf countries coallition was the answer for human rights attrocities of Assad against protesters is laughable. Syrian Army, one of the leading in Middle East in the first weeks of protests lost over 1,000 soldiers trying to fight with foreign jidadist mercenaries, very well equipped, trained and ruthless. You know that over 2 miilion civilians fled other regions of Syria to arrive at Damascus under protection of "butcher Assad". Ask non-Americans, Europeans, virtually any knowledgable person, you do not need to believe me, these are facts reported by various sources in many international media.

[James Regan + 1,776]

2 hours ago, remake it said:

Sir, an excellent reminder of what can be done by just a few Middle-eastern men on a mission!

I’m afraid to have to agree with a 🤖 and any retaliation for said mission is justified for any future acts which may bring sovereignty into any discussion.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

20 hours ago, Dr.Masih Rezvani said:

Saudi Arabia is really playing a devastating role against Iran. 

Trump killed Iranian commander to escape from impeachment - what I believe. 

But if Iran responds anything, then it will turn to mess in middle east and it will effect on Iranian oil supply.

How the heck can you possibly connect the Trump impeachment to the killing of an Iranian commander?

There is almost no chance that the Senate will remove him from office regardless if he actually targetted this commander or not!

Your bias is forcing you to take childish leaps of logic.

[remake it + 288]

13 minutes ago, James Regan said:

I’m afraid to have to agree with a 🤖 and any retaliation for said mission is justified for any future acts which may bring sovereignty into any discussion.

Then ask yourself why Saudi Arabia was not the target for said retaliation in this instance.

[remake it + 288]

8 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

How the heck can you possibly connect the Trump impeachment to the killing of an Iranian commander?

There is almost no chance that the Senate will remove him from office regardless if he actually targetted this commander or not!

Your bias is forcing you to take childish leaps of logic.

Except he has presented his case and you are simply wishing for an outcome that may or may not happen.

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, frankfurter said:

Correct; US claimed, but offered no proof. Simply a massive lie.  Like the Nazis: concoct a very big lie, mix with a few truths, tell it loudly and forever to make citizens believe it, and accuse any who oppose of cowardice and lack of patriotism. 

Do you know why Saddam sent his troops into Kuwait?  Do you even care? 

 

It was a false signal from Madeleine Albright that they could do it without opposition from the US, sort of a reward for the war with Iran. I don't remember the origin of the dispute with Kuwait, but IIRC it had something to do with Kuwait tapping oil in Iraq territory and had been going on for a long time.  

[James Regan + 1,776]

10 minutes ago, remake it said:

Then ask yourself why Saudi Arabia was not the target for said retaliation in this instance.

Usama Bin Laden was ostracized from KSA in 1988 he was stripped of his citizenship, so it would have made no sense to target a Sovereign Country that had nothing to do with it. Just a little tit-bit for you his father built my house in Dubai in 1975 and was funnily enough really good a putting buildings up and his son the contrary.

[remake it + 288]

6 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

It was a false signal from Madeleine Albright that they could do it without opposition from the US, sort of a reward for the war with Iran. I don't remember the origin of the dispute with Kuwait, but IIRC it had something to do with Kuwait tapping oil in Iraq territory and had been going on for a long time.  

Can we please get @DayTrader back so we can discuss the Crusades again.

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

When foreign powers would want to partition your country as was interest and active actions of US, Israel and Saudi Arabia (real club of friends of common beliefs) in Syria you would ask devil from hell to help you prevent it. Accidently and luckily for Assad, Russian interests were in line with his country interests, Russia wanted to keep his naval base in Tartus and Syrians to keep independence and their motherland.

The arguments that attacks by US, Israel and Gulf countries coallition was the answer for human rights attrocities of Assad against protesters is laughable. Syrian Army, one of the leading in Middle East in the first weeks of protests lost over 1,000 soldiers trying to fight with foreign jidadist mercenaries, very well equipped, trained and ruthless. You know that over 2 miilion civilians fled other regions of Syria to arrive at Damascus under protection of "butcher Assad". Ask non-Americans, Europeans, virtually any knowledgable person, you do not need to believe me, these are facts reported by various sources in many international media.

Not disputing the issue, not claiming a moral high ground for the US in the matter. Syria was a Soviet client state as was Iraq and the PLO. The model worked via the Pakistanis controlling the Taliban against the Russians in Afghanistan, so they used it in Syria. It is an old British tactic, but the idea that it can be contained to its targets is bunk. Very dangerous action, likely to backfire - just like Afghanistan did - including corrupting the Pakistani secret service. That does not make Assad any less of a butcher. His actions were documented as well. Besides which, like the rest of the region, Syria is a synthetic state with no cohesion those who are "Assad's people" would flee towards areas he controls, the rest may or may not have welcomed the jihadis. They were very obviously not what you would have wanted to do considering the outcome.

There are no clean hands in Syria, nor in Iraq. 

[remake it + 288]

17 minutes ago, James Regan said:

Usama Bin Laden was ostracized from KSA in 1988 he was stripped of his citizenship, so it would have made no sense to target a Sovereign Country that had nothing to do with it. Just a little tit-bit for you his father built my house in Dubai in 1975 and was funnily enough really good a putting buildings up and his son the contrary.

So let's put some facts on 911:

Hijackers by Airplane:
American Airlines Flight 11
Mohamed Atta - Egypt, tactical leader of 9/11 plot and pilot
Abdul Aziz al Omari - Saudi Arabia
Wail al Shehri - Saudi Arabia
Waleed al Shehri - Saudi Arabia
Satam al Suqami - Saudi Arabia

United Airlines Flight 175
Fayez Banihammad - United Arab Emirates
Ahmed al Ghamdi - Saudi Arabia
Hamza al Ghamdi - Saudi Arabia
Marwan al Shehhi - United Arab Emirates, pilot
Mohand al Shehri - Saudi Arabia

American Airlines Flight 77
Hani Hanjour - Saudi Arabia, pilot
Nawaf al Hazmi - Saudi Arabia
Salem al Hazmi - Saudi Arabia
Khalid al Mihdhar - Saudi Arabia
Majed Moqed - Saudi Arabia

United Airlines Flight 93
Saeed al Ghamdi - Saudi Arabia
Ahmad al Haznawi - Saudi Arabia
Ziad Jarrah - Lebanon, pilot
Ahmed al Nami - Saudi Arabia

Based on the above the USA attacked the sovereign nation of Saudi Arabia ooops.

[Papillon + 485]

On 1/5/2020 at 2:25 AM, remake it said:

It seems that if the USA claims it, then it is so, and thereafter they can commit whatever crimes they like because they make the rules

Well, unless reversed sir and they don't want to believe certain claims, then it is 'fake news' and everything is now false. The key phrase to remember, like this very site in fact, is 'pick and choose'. 

God Bless America for these morals, where American users here laughed at a recent comment here about 'Why did God put American oilfields in the Middle East?'  - Please ponder that American christian thinking for a moment.

On 1/5/2020 at 2:32 AM, frankfurter said:

Correct; US claimed, but offered no proof. Simply a massive lie.

And in related news.

With respect, Papillon. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Papillon

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Then ask yourself why Saudi Arabia was not the target for said retaliation in this instance.

It should be clear that Saudi government was not involved with the 9/11 attacks. So why would they be a target? That the perps held Saudi passports makes no difference, it was not a Saudi state operation. Iraq was only marginally involved, and the main location of the training camps was Afghanistan. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Can we please get @DayTrader back so we can discuss the Crusades again.

Don't know a lot about them but I'm sure it was the 'good' type of killing, like their whole book is ...   

''All is calm, all is bright ...''

Oh. Not so silent a night, but the dead sure are.

la la la ... 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Guest
extra sarcasm needed as it is a resolution

[Boat + 1,324]

2 hours ago, remake it said:

It seems that if the USA claims it, then it is so, and thereafter they can commit whatever crimes they like because they make the rules and that is the end of the story.

Yep. The consequence of Italy, Germany and Japan drawing the US in world war. Winners write the laws. Some countries like to live in the teeth of the tiger and complain bitterly when bitten rather than just survive and do the best for their people. If your a country that consistently wars, dreams of expansion or allows your religious leaders to expand conflict. Don’t expect anything but trouble. Kind of a simple concept. Iran, Russia and N Korea etc love to poke the tiger. Even when the bones of tiger kill are strewn across decades. Many foreigners of this ilk may be educated but have questionable common sense. Try working for a living and help your neighbor and leave that tiger alone.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Papillon said:

The red arrows go here gentlemen, just to the right  ---->>>

Nope, green from me Papi for the quality sarcasm 🤣, but from Americans, yes it will be red. Enjoy.

Note the i   @remake it

23 minutes ago, Boat said:

 The consequence of Italy, Germany and Japan drawing the US in world war.

Took you long enough to help out.

Just sayin'

Fortunately this won't get many reactions. Phew.

Edited January 5, 2020 by Guest

[Boat + 1,324]

28 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Nope, green from me Papi for the quality sarcasm 🤣, but from Americans, yes it will be red. Enjoy.

Took you long enough to help out.

Just sayin'

Fortunately this won't get many reactions. Phew.

Just ask for help anytime. Glad to help. BTW I believe I have used one red arrow ever. And hey I’m American. Sigh the right red propaganda I deal with. The width and breadth of extremism. And I did warn ya’ll about Trump. Lol

If Trump would have had this Iranian on a deck of cards like GW did maybe the killing would have been more popular and certainly not as surprising. If he wasn’t golfing he might of thought of that.

Edited January 5, 2020 by Boat

[Hotone + 412]

6 hours ago, frankfurter said:

Do you know why Saddam sent his troops into Kuwait?  Do you even care? 

 

I was working for a unit of Schlumberger when 911 happened.  Some of my colleagues told me that Schlumberger was responsible for the slant drilling that took Iraqi oil from across the Kuwait border.  Saddam was already aggrieved that he bore the human and financial costs for fighting the Persians.  He was incensed that a fellow Arab country didn't share the costs and even took his oil.

Oh, and he mistakenly thought he had the greenlight from the US to invade Kuwait.  This turned out to be false unlike the greenlight he had for the starting the Iran war, and using poison gas.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

8 hours ago, 0R0 said:

I don't believe any UN council or function or is done with an inkling of legitimacy and that international law is a convention that remains in force so long as the major powers find it convenient. 

^ spot on

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

6 hours ago, remake it said:

Can we please get @DayTrader back so we can discuss the Crusades again.

I like your humorous side.

[James Regan + 1,776]

5 hours ago, 0R0 said:

It should be clear that Saudi government was not involved with the 9/11 attacks. So why would they be a target? That the perps held Saudi passports makes no difference, it was not a Saudi state operation. Iraq was only marginally involved, and the main location of the training camps was Afghanistan. 

Unless your thinking is that KSA runs state supported terrorism such as Iran for example then KSA would have been a legitimate target as @remake it is expressing an opinion on, maybe he’s right lots of Saudis there but should we judge a a whole nation by a bad batch of eggs? Plus why would the US bomb the most strategic partner in the region that would only start conspiracy theories 🤔🤔