Keep in mind, this is all pretty basic stuff. I know there are more accurate and specific definitions somewhere. I don't know where, but I've seen them in the past. I suggest looking into the UN Charter too.

As for Iraq, what exactly are you talking about? The Gulf War was ended by truce. Iraq violated that truce. In the most accurate sense, the Gulf War has never stopped. (Of course, one could also argue that using an international peacekeeping organization as a cover for spy activities might be a violation of such a truce as well, at least in spirit. At any rate, the war is still going.)

(For those of you who missed it, that was sarcasm).

------------------
Samaritan: "A good hot curry will help heal your wounds. That is, unless your religion forbids it".

Man: (Eyes growing wide) "No religion forbids a good hot curry".

Incidentally, the Serbian/Chechnyan link is stronger than many would think. The Russian response to the NATO war of agression (ie, not helping the Serbians except in small units and the brilliant move at the end of the war which confounded that idiot Clark) was calculated so as to be able to pull-off the war against the Chechens. (sidepoint on Chechnya: Why was the Baltic states recognized as independent yet Chechnya not? lollipop to the first person who can answer correctly!)

Moreover, even if the Kosovans had declared for independence, ala Croatia, (which was recognized instantly by the Germans, any surprise there?) the Serbians still would have had the right to invade. I cite for you the American Civil War. We've all agreed that Lincoln had every right to preserve the Union. Likewise, Milosevic had every right to preserve the Union of Yugoslavia. The United States and Germany (again, any surprise there?) prevented him from doing that the first time. The analogy I give you is if Great Britain had given the Confederacy the support they seeked and they won the Civil War. If Michigan then seceded, would Lincoln not have had the right to invade?

Keep in mind Simon, you don't want to argue Serbia with me. I'd wager I've spent more time researching that than any of you. Shit, I just say the word "Krajina" and I can preempt about ten of your arguements. Which reminds me, Krajina.

Daryus: Yeah, but they ain't white. Fuck em.

In a previous "life" (ie. career), I spent many hours aboard coalition aircraft over the southern no-fly zone, and when you get "painted" by an Iraqi SAM radar before even leaving friendly airspace, the line between "aggressor" and "defender" blurs very quickly.

Sure, I question our motives in the establishment the northern and southern no-fly/no-drive zones... but remember that Iraq was and is a defeated aggressor state. They forfeited a certain part of their sovereignty when they lost the Gulf War (for example, the right to manufacture weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, or the right to move military vehicles/weapon systems in certain parts of their territory). I'm certainly no historian, but weren't the same types of restrictions placed on Germany and Japan after they capitulated in 1945? I believe it is the intent of the United Nations to restore to Iraq her full sovereignty when she proves she can handle it responsibly. (I don't necessarily think this is the intent of the United States, but that's another story...)

And Daryus... "Economic sanctions aren't an act of war. Especially when they have killed a mere 1 million children under the age of 5." Didn't UNICEF determine last year that the root cause of these deaths (their number was far less than one million) was the mis-allocation of funds by the Iraqi government, in other words, their funneling of funds into military projects that they've supposedly agreed by truce to abandon?

------------------
Dane

"...and there was war in heaven..." The Bible, Revelation 12:7

Dane: No. But I'll address the embargo soon.

First, let's discuss Saddam Hussein. His war was a war of agression. One not at all opposed by the US. I point you to the comments by American ambassador April Glaspie who said, and I quote, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." Or perhaps I should point you to the comments of then assistant Secretary of State John Kelly, made to a congressional committee just two days before Iraq occupied Kuwait, that the US had no obligation to defend Kuwait against an Iraqi invasion. If such a conflict were to erupt, he said, it would be viewed by the United States as "a private matter" between the countries involved.
Incidentally, it seems Iraq was not committing an act of agression until the US wanted it to be an act of agression (of course, American definition of that term is very fluid, I assure you).

Anyway, regarding the sanctions, allow me to quote UNICEF.

quote:

---

"Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of the war."

---

Another thing we should keep in mind is the state of Iraq. Outside of Baghdad, there are no telephones. There are no refrigerated trucks ANYWHERE. Many places don't have electricity. That definitely makes distribution VERY difficult. Incidentally, who created those conditions?

And I point you to this. The sanctions extend far beyond the military. They are an attempt at cultural and literal genocide. Or have "we" vetoed giving the children toys, bicycles, film, ping pong balls, paper, textbooks, storybooks because they can be used as weapons? (well, they can, against Isreal and the US because if those Iraqi children are educated then when they grow up, the ragheads will know their history, and knowing history is dangerous to those who have committed the crimes)

Gawd, all this reading about Basra is making me feel wierd. It's almost surreal. I need to go lie down.

Should have pushed into Bagdad back during the whole Desert Storm thing, slagged Hussein, and found some nice old Western-Educated former medical doctor or something to replace him.

Sure, it'd have gotten us screamed at in Arabic by our allies... but people'd be a lot less hungry.

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

I think the best equation with Iraq is the US circa the Mexican War. America, a very young nation, recklessly invades another country, one they have no right to invade, but it works out for economic reasons. They easily conquer them, since the other country is pretty much defenceless. Now, let's say Prussia, who was greatly superior, came running over with England, France, and Austria all in tow. They proceed to beat the shit out the US. Then, they completely cut the US off from the rest of the world (except for the tobbacco and cotton which they themselves take in exchange for small amounts of food). They regularly destroy American fortifications, even after they're rebuilt. They then restrict the American's ability to develop rifles, ships or smoothbore cannons (which, as for the latter two, everyone else already has). Whenever they choose, Prussia and Austria destroy the US armories and pursue a scorched earth policy, decimating whatever meager military the US builds.

Who here would've liked that? Well, see, we're Americans (white Europeans, at that) so it better not happen to us!

Back in late June, Isreali war planes struck two power stations near Beirut, blew up a telephone communications facility and destroyed two bridges linking Beirut with the south, as well as bombing a four story building in Baalbeck during their 8 hour bombardment of Lebanon. At least 9 people died, while over 60 were wounded. The damage to the electrical and communications plants alone is estimated to be over $50 million dollars.

The air attacks were launched in retaliation for rocket attacks on settlements in Northern Isreal by Hezbollah.

Major General Dan Halutz, assistant chief of operations, said future attacks would target "all sources of power in Lebanon, not just Hezbollah, to convey a message that no one is imune to an Isreali retaliation."

Did the United States engage in a bombing campaign against Isreal? Let us look at the statements of US State Department spokesman James Rubin for the answer.

"This situation escalated dramatically as a result of Hezbollah firing barrages of Katyushas into northern Isreal. Isreal retaliated with strikes against civilian infrastructures in Lebanon."

Interesting.

Oh, on another note, I'm glad we stopped Slobodan Milosevic's brutal strikes on Kosovo.

Of course, since no such global outlook existed at the time (indeed, only the U.S. really pushed the global view, and then not until after WWI), the analogy is rather moot.

Yes, yes, we all know the initial Serbian attacks on Kosovo Albanians were "in response to actions by KLA terrorists..."
Of course, the Nazis claimed they were responding to earlier Jewish attacks during Kristallnacht, too.

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

Moreover, let's just say your little fantasy trip there is correct. That can apply to anywhere. The Isrealis claim that Hezbollah fired those rockets. I'm going to pretend I'm First now.

"Yeah, Hezbollah did it. And the Jews were responsible for the Nazi Holocaust. Why aren't we bombing the Isrealis into the stone ages?"

Oh, wait, that's not right. I left out one little bit. That naivity, that absolute trust in everything CNN tells you. That undying patriotism. Let's try it again.

"So? It was obviously Hezbollah. Even if it wasn't, we need to support Isreal. Afterall, we're Americans. We have a natural connection to any country founded on driving someone off of their land and then exterminating them."

See, that's the problem with Americans. They don't seem to understand that even if Belgrade was worthy of bombing, so is Jerusalem and Ankara and Lima and Mexico City and Jakarta and Moscow and Beijing and Madrid.

So, where are the bombs?

None of you people will ever understand anything about this war until you understand the true reasons for it. I dare anyone of you to tell me what General Jackson was known for before commanding KFOR. If you can reconcile that, then I will truly believe you. Until one of you give me a good explanation over Jackson, you're all just brainwashed CNN viewers.

You're straying back into ad hominem arguments again, the same thing that got you ridiculed last time.

Well, let's see, I know Hezbollah did it. I know Israel overreacted. Israel didn't invade again, despite having been invaded twice in recent memory, and certainly having the capability to carry it out.

I know the best way to deal with a terrorist organization is to quietly hunt down and silently eliminate that organization's members (something, apparently, nobody but the Russians and Israelis ever knew how to do, and they've forgotten), rather to invade an entire country. Of course, the USSR's plan for dealing with a terrorist attack was to have tanks outside Tehran the next morning, (which is why, despite the ayatollah's identifying BOTH the US and the USSR as 'great satans,' they never seemed to attack the Reds much) but nobody'll say that out loud.

Personally, I think Hezbollah is a much larger threat to Israel's security than the KLA ever was to Serbias, but you're welcome to argue otherwise. I could be wrong. Who's blown up more buses?

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

Yet, you have no problem supporting Isreal. Yet you applaud the bombing of Serbia.

You've yet to address that. You've yet to address why the US is not bombing all those other countries I've mentioned. You've yet to tell me how Michael Jackson is involved. You've yet to tell me why the US was really in there.

Work on those, then I'll get back to you.