@F_alk:
Something happening without a catalyst will happen faster with a catalyst.
Just like to point out I’ve heard this argument many times before in the last few months and it is completely bogus. Essentially it runs,“We better not do anything to pi$$ the terrorists off, 'cuz that might lead to more terrorism.” If we do nothing to anger the terrorists for fear of their terrorism, we are doing exactly what they want & justifying terrorism.
That is not exactly what i say:
The difference is between fighting terrorism, and fighting others where terrorists see themselves affirmed in the “rightfulness” of their deeds and therefore have the possibility to gain support from “their” people.
Fighting terrorism as a whole needs fighting the actual terrorists and fighitng the circumstances that let others become terrorists, if you forget the second, you will fight forever.
Now, that doesn’t mean the answer to terrorism is to invade every terrorist-sponsoring nation. Israel attacks every time they are hit by a terrorist act & its done nothing to improve the situation. So I am against that. But if we can mend a few fences, while cracking down on the terror networks–that is the way to go: IF it can be done…
agreed
…I argue that of the three available options–return Iraq fully to “normalized” relations to the outside world; continue w/ inspections & sanctions; and war, that war was the best out of 3 pretty lousy options.
…The UN sanctions were a joke, serving only to strengthen Hussein’s regime at the expense of his people (like the US sanctions against Cuba). Except the UN sanctions were weakening due to steady whittling away at their effectiveness … Since the whole world wants to get its hands on Iraq’s “black gold”–not just the USA–it was only a matter of time before the world started selling the guy weapons & again we would return to square 1–hell, there is evidence other countries were already selling Hussein weapons DURING the so-called embargo.
Hmm, i have heard that even US companies sold weapons during the embargo.
One thing that you didn’t mention in the above reasoning was inspections (wether combined with threat of force or not). And still, we are lacking any proof for the WMDs that Saddam Hussein should have. (btw, if there was proof that he has them, why is it then so difficult to locate them, once the existance is “proven”? Why were the UN-inspectors so utterly disappointed by the material given from the US agencies (leading to two or three “minor” hits on Iraqs weaponry in general)?)
So, taking this into account, i do not see more than two reasons why the invasion had to be done: humanitarian action and oil.
For cooperations selling weapons during the embargo: You know that i am no friend of capitalism, and this is just purest capitalism: The embargo promised huge profits, well illegal, but huge…. Can you blame people just for “overdoing” something good like capitalism ;)? With the “trickle-down”-effect, some of that money should have reached the lower levels, and everyone should be happy ;) :)?
Therefore I argue that eventually, unless the world decided to put up with Hussein’s shenanigans ad infinitum, all roads led to war as the “least poor” of the three poor options. The big regret is that the two sides in the big UN tussle could not come to some kind of agreement so as to present a united front. With the whole industrialized world behind us, there would be few outside the Islamic world for Hussein to spread his foolish propaganda to. As it is it falls on fertile ground…
Even with the whole industrialized world the ground would be as fertile i fear. And as you might have noticed, i disagree strongly with the automatism towards war. It is a poor sign though, that the one side who was about to “lose” in the UN didn’t try harder (beforehand) to convince (not with sugar and whip) members of the other side, but once the “defeat” was inevitable took action, stubbornly claiming they were “right”….
CC said already most that i would reply…
@Deviant:Scripter:
If some Islamic-Radical-Nutball is envious because his third-world country hasn’t produced anything meaningful in the last 100 years, then too bad. He can go to hell. In fact, we’ll even help him get there. :wink:
CC already picked on that attitude that is displayed by your “In fact, we’ll even help him get there.”…. Even if it was a joke, you should remember how much truth is in jokes.
And of course, well, what meaningful things did the US produce(invent) in the last 100 years :):
… the internet… the motorized flight (and that’s just in the 100 years) …
… tanks and nuclear bombs, if you count weapons… the transistor… rock’n’roll and later hip hop…
aynthing know others?
Personally, I’d rather not get swept up in your passivist attitude. I’d prefer to FIGHT someone who wants to kill me, rather than say: “Okay, you win Mr. Bad Guy…I’ll just let you have your way.”
Hey, i also fight people who want to kill me…… but i don’t fight people who don’t. And sometimes, the people who want to kill you are your friends and allies… and sometimes your friends and allies fight you even though you don’t want to kill them.
(Example for the first: NATO would have “sacrificied” most of western germany in case of a WP attack.)
Let me get this statement straight. 5000 civilians die in a murderous attack, and you can’t understand why we want to seek vengeance?
I cannot understand how anyone claiming to be christian can use revenge and god in one sentence.
And i know the next may sound cynical, but it’s not meant like that: what is the main difference between 5000 and 3500 victims of terrorism? The second number is taken from northern ireland. And somehow, it seems like the British have learnt from that.
As long as we’re on the subject of quotations, here’s one.
I believe it was Toby Keith who proclaimed: “…We’ll put a boot in your a**, it’s the American way.”
Yup, it seems like thinking before acting never was your way.
@F_alk:
That is not exactly what i say:
The difference is between fighting terrorism, and fighting others where terrorists see themselves affirmed in the “rightfulness” of their deeds and therefore have the possibility to gain support from “their” people.
Fighting terrorism as a whole needs fighting the actual terrorists and fighitng the circumstances that let others become terrorists, if you forget the second, you will fight forever.
I agree, although fighting nations that sponsor terrorism–that is nations like Iraq–is an integral part of eliminating terrorists backing in the world. The way I see it (and this is speaking purely from my own experience in the world), most people are not capable of offensive killing or especially suicide attacks unless they are whipped into religious or quasi-religious fervor or are heavily trained. However, a few such individuals can accomplish much when supported by a great mass of people who while not “bloodthirsty” in a personal way, sympathize with the supposed “cause” of the bloodthirsty. I think that is what you are seeing in the Middle East today–a (relatively) few hate-mongers who are only able to do what they do because of the degree of popular support for their actions. These masses could hopefully be swayed by increased care and education about the good things about the West–combine that with hunting out the relatively few “killers” and you might be onto something.
But the one cannot work without the other.
Hmm, i have heard that even US companies sold weapons during the embargo.
One thing that you didn’t mention in the above reasoning was inspections (wether combined with threat of force or not). And still, we are lacking any proof for the WMDs that Saddam Hussein should have. (btw, if there was proof that he has them, why is it then so difficult to locate them, once the existance is “proven”? Why were the UN-inspectors so utterly disappointed by the material given from the US agencies (leading to two or three “minor” hits on Iraqs weaponry in general)?)
So, taking this into account, i do not see more than two reasons why the invasion had to be done: humanitarian action and oil.
For cooperations selling weapons during the embargo: You know that i am no friend of capitalism, and this is just purest capitalism: The embargo promised huge profits, well illegal, but huge…. Can you blame people just for “overdoing” something good like capitalism ;)? With the “trickle-down”-effect, some of that money should have reached the lower levels, and everyone should be happy ;) :)?
Actually I DID mention the inspections. As I have stated before the only intermittent progress that had been made through the inspections was at the point of a gun–either through the immediate implementation of military strikes, or the threat thereof. Thus: force is the only stimulus Hussein responds to. Without force, or the threat of force, the UN inspectors were playthings for Hussein–he could force them out, prevaricate, lie, delay, blow smoke or what have you and the UN could do nothing realistic about it. By making it abundantly clear that they would not sanction the use of force to back up the inspectors’ authority, the “anti-war” faction in the UN was playing a losing game. Now I ask you a serious question: if the antiwar bloc in the UN would not sanction war at this stage (as they say,“to allow the inspections to work…”) then tell me–under what circumstances exactly were these powers willing to sanction war? If you can only tell me Germany’s position I would be satisfied. I have seen no clear cut statement by any of the anti-war faction in the UN NOR the anti-war faction in the USA describing the conditions of their support for an attack. I hear:“Give the inspections time to work.” Forget about the 12 years they were already given to work–what exactly would constitute proof the inspections were “working” or “not working”? A few demolished missiles proves its working? The discovery of missiles supposedly nonexistent proves the inspections are not working? What…
Therefore; again I argue that the antiwar faction in the UN (and the USA)would not have favored war under ANY circumstances barring an Iraqi attack on another nation. If they would never sanction war, then the UN presence, the UN sanctions, the UN inspections are for nothing because Hussein will respond only to force or the REALISTIC threat of force.
Even with the whole industrialized world the ground would be as fertile i fear. And as you might have noticed, i disagree strongly with the automatism towards war. It is a poor sign though, that the one side who was about to “lose” in the UN didn’t try harder (beforehand) to convince (not with sugar and whip) members of the other side, but once the “defeat” was inevitable took action, stubbornly claiming they were “right”….
To convince “not with sugar & whip”? Then with what? Our good looks? That’s diplomacy, bro’. Do not insult my intelligence & suggest to me that France, Germany, Russia etc. are motivated by pure humanitarianism any more than we are. I didn’t hear any of you crying over the estimated 3,000,000 people who have been executed in Iraq since 1968, any more than we were. Now a few hundred killed in a productive action & everyone’s up in arms. Not trying to belittle human life here–1 life lost is a tragedy–just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Granted: the “Al’Quaeda-Iraq” connection was a huge diplomatic blunder since it was not backed by credible information. I agree that the present action in Iraq is “illegal” in the terms of the UN. That is unfortunate. I think it could & should have been otherwise. But BOTH SIDES are guilty of this FAILURE OF DIPLOMACY–that is, WAR. The inevitablility of armed conflict w/ Iraq should’ve been foreseen as far back as 1991 when–again–the UN would not mandate an invasion of Iraq proper. Please explain to me under what circumstances (besides Iraq invading another power) Europe would have been willing to fight–that is before the Coalition attack.
Ozone27
I agree, although fighting nations that sponsor terrorism … is an integral part of eliminating terrorists backing in the world. …But the one cannot work without the other.
I guess we agree pretty much here.
Something that would come to my mind as a next possible point to discuss is why a nation that sponsored a lot of anti-communist terrorism should be allowed to lead anti-“terrorist-sponsors” action. But it’s not like we really have to discuss that :).
Actually I DID mention the inspections. As I have stated before the only intermittent progress that had been made through the inspections was at the point of a gun.
I can accept that, you mentioned it in earlier posts.
By making it abundantly clear that they would not sanction the use of force to back up the inspectors’ authority, the “anti-war” faction in the UN was playing a losing game. Now I ask you a serious question: if the antiwar bloc in the UN would not sanction war at this stage (as they say,“to allow the inspections to work…”) then tell me–under what circumstances exactly were these powers willing to sanction war? If you can only tell me Germany’s position I would be satisfied. I have seen no clear cut statement by any of the anti-war faction in the UN NOR the anti-war faction in the USA describing the conditions of their support for an attack…
The thing that more or less all of the world’s nations disagreed was the quick automatism to war. None of the US/UK planned ultimatum to “totally disarm and prove it in a week or so, and we are to decide on our own then” was in any way realistic. It all was just a slightly hidden “we will go to war”. That is what the world didn’t want. Had the ultimatum had a longer timescale, and kept the decision of fullfillment to the inspectors or the security council, it would have looked different. Germanys position (not being a veto-member) was rather simple and the most extreme: No agreement to a war. The French, Russians and Chinese all left themselves small backdoors to the war and kept their veto against the UN-uncontrolled automatism of war. So, they very porbably would have agreed to a war after failure of the cooperation iraq-inspectors, or the inspectors finding the “smoking gun”. But, as you said as well, the Iraq increased its level of cooperation, from sec. council meeting to sec. council meeting. I firmly believe the Iraq would even have accepted a “robust madate” for the inspectors, well, we would have had to to avoid armed conflict. And yes, all that cooperation was only due to the threat of force. But, if someone bows to your commands because you threat to beat him up, do you then have to beat him up? Because he bowed? Because he wouldn’t have bowed without the threat? That just doesn’t make sense, next time, you can threat and the other one won’t care, because you are going to beat him up anyway. See what i mean?
So: reasons for France, Russia and China would have been: Iraq not complying, or the inspectors finding proof for either non-cooperation or other new breaches against the resolutions.
Therefore; again I argue that the antiwar faction in the UN (and the USA)would not have favored war under ANY circumstances barring an Iraqi attack on another nation. If they would never sanction war, then the UN presence, the UN sanctions, the UN inspections are for nothing because Hussein will respond only to force or the REALISTIC threat of force.
You take the Germans position as the positions of France, Russia etc. etc… Have you watched one of the sec. councils sessions? The Germans were the only one who had this total anti-war position (and even they left themselves the neutrality, they just would not agree but could say nothing instead of Nay). The others position disagreed with the american position, but hte american position was obvious in its outcomes (this automatism to war), so as long as the US didn’t give the UN a chance (but more used it as its plaything: here play with that, we then can do what we want), why should UN give the US a legitimation?
To convince “not with sugar & whip”? Then with what? Our good looks? That’s diplomacy, bro’. Do not insult my intelligence & suggest to me that France, Germany, Russia etc. are motivated by pure humanitarianism any more than we are.
“Sugar and whip” is very old concept of diplomacy. “Reason” came after it. Sure, noone was motivated by pure humanitarianism.
But blunt “agree and we give you money, disagree and we cut all the money you get from us” is not diplomacy, it’s blackmail. And no country wants to be blackmailed. So, the US should have given the world real proof and evidence, or -lacking this proof- try to buy off other countries without threatening. That could have worked. Instead the US tried to bully smaller nations into agreement. Just think you were a kid, would you join the street gang of the bully or the street gang were everyone is respected and woth equal rights?
Granted: the “Al’Quaeda-Iraq” connection was a huge diplomatic blunder. I agree that the present action in Iraq is “illegal” in the terms of the UN. That is unfortunate. I think it should & should have been otherwise. But BOTH SIDES are guilty of this FAILURE OF DIPLOMACY–that is, war. The inevitablility of armed conflict w/ Iraq should’ve been foreseen as far back as 1991 when–again–the UN would not mandate an invasion of Iraq proper.
I would call the whole affair a huge diplomatic blunder, and mainly from the US side. The German stance wasn’t that smart either, but not agreeing is not necessarily active opposition. But, it lead the US into total stubborness, calling each and everyone not agreeing “irrelevant”. How can the US believe the UN would decide in their way because they would be “irrelevant” otherwise? That again is blackmailing, and giving in to that would have made them irrelevant. The US very soon brought the UN into a position were giving in would have resulted in a massive loss of trust/face/national pride etc. for the UN itself and the member countries. If you are in a lose-lose situation (and that is what the US created), then there is no reason not to fight! There is none to fight, but hey, you don’t have anything to lose! Maybe the one who made you lose can suffer a bit for that. …. That’s the way humans think, and that was not taken into account by the US gov’t at all! So, the US took a stance even less flexible than Germany. I think it is their fault for the failure of diplomacy for the most of it. And it seems the “even distibution of fault” is something that not many except the US see.
You take the Germans position as the positions of France, Russia etc. etc… Have you watched one of the sec. councils sessions? The Germans were the only one who had this total anti-war position (and even they left themselves the neutrality, they just would not agree but could say nothing instead of Nay). The others position disagreed with the american position, but hte american position was obvious in its outcomes (this automatism to war), so as long as the US didn’t give the UN a chance (but more used it as its plaything: here play with that, we then can do what we want), why should UN give the US a legitimation?
I’ve been reading your posts, and I can’t help but wonder why you continously refer to it as an “automatism” of war. Hmmm, did we not try:
1.) 12 years of opportunity to disarm
2.) Economic sanctions
3.) Oil for Food (which Saddam took advantage of–big surprise :roll:)
4.) ANOTHER round of inspections
5.) ANOTHER UN resolution (1441)
6.) A clear opportunity for Saddam to leave his country and save everyone from war
My point is, there WAS no quick rush to war. We did everything that could be asked of us, including (most importantly) having patience on the issue.
For your second part, it was abundantly clear that France told us that they would veto a vote-for-war at any cost. As soon I can look up some sources, I’ll list them. But you’re trying to tell me that Germany was the only country who was adamantly oppossed to war? :o
France did promise to veto any resolution or plan that lead to war no matter what. Presumably 10 more years of sanctions would be ok for France as that would cause huge hatred towards America and this benefits France.
France supplied 22% of the imports of Iraq, another good reason for the status quo.
Germany does not seem so against it right now. Typical politics, acquiece to public pressure then back pedal to appease the other side.
DS, some people are ‘true believers’, try to argue with a good catholic that god doesn’t exist and that evolution is fact. You can’t expect to convince that believer nor can you expect to convince other believers. The basis of belief is that belief in of itself is all that one needs. Evidence that goes against the belief is a mere test of the belief and need not be examined with an open mind.
BB
Arguements of the believer.
He did disarm, and even if he didn’t the US helped him get the stuff, the US created Saddam, what do you expect from Saddam. It’s not his fault, it’s the Americans fault.
Sanctions worked, he has no weapons see #1. Besides, it creates anti-american sentiment which the French like.
Oil for food worked, the French and Germans supplied the majority of stuff. See #2 and #1
Inspections worked See #3, 2, 1
More resolutions worked see # 4, 3, 2, 1
What right does the allies have to prevent a insane dictator from butchering a few more million. Just because Saddam is responsible for more deaths of Islamic peoples than any other figure in the history of humanity does not give anybody the right to do anything. You must wait until he directly attacks your country. Then you must get permission from the French to do anything. Besides, see #5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Thankfully, the decision has been made and finally somebody has done something to end the nightmere of the Iraqis.
BB
France did promise to veto any resolution or plan that lead to war no matter what. Presumably 10 more years of sanctions would be ok for France as that would cause huge hatred towards America and this benefits France
France supplied 22% of the imports of Iraq, another good reason for the status quo.Germany does not seem so against it right now. Typical politics, acquiece to public pressure then back pedal to appease the other side. .
I think this was a problematic and hypocritical stance by France - it was inappropriate, self-serving, and did nothing for the peace process, but i think that it accelerated the push for war.
w.r.t. Germany - like American or Canadian or any other world leader has never done the same? I don’t have a problem with Germany taking a position for peace, and then re-evaluating the situation as it changes.
DS, some people are ‘true believers’, try to argue with a good catholic that god doesn’t exist and that evolution is fact. You can’t expect to convince that believer nor can you expect to convince other believers. The basis of belief is that belief in of itself is all that one needs. Evidence that goes against the belief is a mere test of the belief and need not be examined with an open mind.
BB
now i don’t want to jump to any conclusions here, but are you being metaphor by comparing spiritual/religious belief to the belief in one’s position? Kind of an interesting comparison given that 2 of the sides in this conflict (the two warring ones) invoke God and God’s will in their struggle. Bush is all about using religion, and the way that he ties religion in with the need to go killing a bunch of people for oil (right right, this isn’t about oil . . . blah blah blah bullsh*t) is hypocritical and sacriligious. The same goes for Saddam.
My beliefs about this war are, i don’t believe, as deeply rooted as my faith in The Lord, but my beliefs do affect the way i feel about this war. Also do not insult Yanny, F_alk and myself with innuendo about lack of objectivity and having a closed mind (retracted if you were being simply philosophical and not speaking metaphorically with regards to our feelings in regards to this war)
Arguements of the believer.
- He did disarm, and even if he didn’t the US helped him get the stuff, the US created Saddam, what do you expect from Saddam. It’s not his fault, it’s the Americans fault.
- Sanctions worked, he has no weapons see #1. Besides, it creates anti-american sentiment which the French like.
- Oil for food worked, the French and Germans supplied the majority of stuff. See #2 and #1
- Inspections worked See #3, 2, 1
- More resolutions worked see # 4, 3, 2, 1
- What right does the allies have to prevent a insane dictator from butchering a few more million. Just because Saddam is responsible for more deaths of Islamic peoples than any other figure in the history of humanity does not give anybody the right to do anything. You must wait until he directly attacks your country. Then you must get permission from the French to do anything. Besides, see #5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Thankfully, the decision has been made and finally somebody has done something to end the nightmere of the Iraqis.
BB
it’s been interesting to see the response of the Iraquis so far. Many of them seem quite pleased that the Americans have “liberated them”. Many have returned from whatever country they were living in to Iraq to fight them, and some 1250 odd civilians are dead not living the nightmare because they’ve been collateral damage. They are indeed lucky to have had their “nightmere” ended, i suppose.
@F_alk:
The thing that more or less all of the world’s nations disagreed was the quick automatism to war. None of the US/UK planned ultimatum to “totally disarm and prove it in a week or so, and we are to decide on our own then” was in any way realistic. It all was just a slightly hidden “we will go to war”. That is what the world didn’t want. Had the ultimatum had a longer timescale, and kept the decision of fullfillment to the inspectors or the security council, it would have looked different. Germanys position (not being a veto-member) was rather simple and the most extreme: No agreement to a war. The French, Russians and Chinese all left themselves small backdoors to the war and kept their veto against the UN-uncontrolled automatism of war. So, they very porbably would have agreed to a war after failure of the cooperation iraq-inspectors, or the inspectors finding the “smoking gun”. But, as you said as well, the Iraq increased its level of cooperation, from sec. council meeting to sec. council meeting. I firmly believe the Iraq would even have accepted a “robust madate” for the inspectors, well, we would have had to to avoid armed conflict. And yes, all that cooperation was only due to the threat of force. But, if someone bows to your commands because you threat to beat him up, do you then have to beat him up? Because he bowed? Because he wouldn’t have bowed without the threat? That just doesn’t make sense, next time, you can threat and the other one won’t care, because you are going to beat him up anyway. See what i mean?
So: reasons for France, Russia and China would have been: Iraq not complying, or the inspectors finding proof for either non-cooperation or other new breaches against the resolutions.
But the inspectors DID find evidence–if not of the vaunted “smoking gun” (that is, a chemical weapons factory), then certainly of Iraqi bad faith. I wasn’t at all stating “threaten to beat him up, then when he complies, beat him up anyway…” I’m saying when you threaten to beat him up if he doesn’t comply, then when he doesn’t comply you just threaten him again, the whole process just makes you look ridiculous. According to the reports of the UN inspectors (which I watched religiously) there was ample evidence of Iraqi BAD FAITH–that is, saying you want to comply but acting otherwise.
As far as France, Russia etc. being willing to act if the inspectors said go–that is just a smokescreen. It’s preposterous that the decision for war or peace lies in the hands of a small group of academics. The job of the weapons inspectors was to observe & report, & make recommendations. The decision for war or not was always in the hands of nations & governments. They just chose to interpret Iraqi bad faith in the most favorable possible light for internal & external political reasons.
I would call the whole affair a huge diplomatic blunder, and mainly from the US side. The German stance wasn’t that smart either, but not agreeing is not necessarily active opposition. But, it lead the US into total stubborness, calling each and everyone not agreeing “irrelevant”. How can the US believe the UN would decide in their way because they would be “irrelevant” otherwise? That again is blackmailing, and giving in to that would have made them irrelevant. The US very soon brought the UN into a position were giving in would have resulted in a massive loss of trust/face/national pride etc. for the UN itself and the member countries. If you are in a lose-lose situation (and that is what the US created), then there is no reason not to fight! There is none to fight, but hey, you don’t have anything to lose! Maybe the one who made you lose can suffer a bit for that. …. That’s the way humans think, and that was not taken into account by the US gov’t at all! So, the US took a stance even less flexible than Germany. I think it is their fault for the failure of diplomacy for the most of it. And it seems the “even distibution of fault” is something that not many except the US see.
Your argument has everything to do with US diplomacy & little-to-nothing to do with Iraq: just like the arguments of the antiwar powers (& the antiwar faction in the US). As I have agreed, US diplomacy in the GW Bush era is clumsy and counterproductive. But what the US was saying may sound insulting but it was TRUE! If the UN says–disarm in 15 days & 12 years later is still giving Iraq more breaks, the UN begins to look irrelevant. If the UN starts an oil-for-food program with a spending cap, then progressively loosens the cap until 1999, whereupon they remove the cap totally–it begins to lok like the UN is simply a vehicle for the member nations to get rich off others misfortunes without having to feel bad that their cash is going to the purchase of more weapons. The US delegation to the UN ought to have been more willing to compromise on the timing & the circumstances for war, but the antiwar powers ought to have been more willing to compromise on the possibility of war in the 1st place. So you see, its not all about the US being uncompromising–its about everyone losing sight of the purpose of the UN presence in Iraq in favor of narrow political vendettas & infighting.
As I stated, war was basically inevitable unless Hussein began to really act in good faith vis-a-vis the UN resolutions. Inevitable that is unless you are tacitly willing to accept his right to rule over Iraq in order to prevent war & prolong a favorable situation for the major powers at the expense of the people of Iraq. Sorry life isn’t always sunrise & moonbeams but thats the way it is.
Ozone27
you really think that you are making us look stupid with these arguments don’t you? i mean no body has been using these arguments
You’d be surprised how many people are using that argument. All you gotta do is open up the newspaper or listen to a politician. :roll:
@Deviant:Scripter:
you really think that you are making us look stupid with these arguments don’t you? i mean no body has been using these arguments
You’d be surprised how many people are using that argument. All you gotta do is open up the newspaper or listen to a politician. :roll:
i’m thinking that BB was being facetious when he said that we have to wait until Saddam directly attacks our country and then get permission from the French. I have never ever heard anyone say either of these things. '91 he attacked Kuwait, not America, and i was all for intervention. I didn’t give a s**t if the French wanted it or not. And there are a few other regimes that i think could use similar intervention. The fact that America is dwelling on this one makes many of us very suspicious of its motives.
Why would it make you suspicious? Saddam is just as guilty as any one of those other regimes.
I was being facetious with all my 8 points actually.
If people believe no country as the right to pre-emptive action then they believe countries must wait to be attacked (then prove who attacked them I guess) before taking any action. So I suppose as long as say Saddam just killed 5 million shites Iraqis and 5 million kurdish Iraqis that would be regretable but certainly nothing one ought to intervene militarily to prevent this. Certainly prevention of genocide isn’t even pre-emptive defensive action.
France intervened unilaterally in the Ivory coast recently. Well, it was to ‘defend’ French nationals but they went much further. Although of a dubious legality it was the right thing to do as it did prevent lots of bloodshed. It’s a pity they can’t see the logic in Iraq. I am 100% convinced that over the next 10 years less Iraqis well die now then if Saddam had been left in power.
France did promise to veto any resolution or plan that lead to war no matter what. Presumably 10 more years of sanctions would be ok for France as that would cause huge hatred towards America and this benefits France.
Strange reasoining in the end, quite anti-french. I could ready ouyr first sentence differently, and it would come closer to the truth: lead to war no matter what. That was what the US wanted: a blanko-cheque by the UN. That’s what the others didn’t want to give.
DS, some people are ‘true believers’…
Now say you aren’t one….
But the inspectors DID find evidence–if not of the vaunted “smoking gun” (that is, a chemical weapons factory), then certainly of Iraqi bad faith.
But still they complied under the pressure/threat.
I wasn’t at all stating “threaten to beat him up, then when he complies, beat him up anyway…” I’m saying when you threaten to beat him up if he doesn’t comply, then when he doesn’t comply you just threaten him again, the whole process just makes you look ridiculous. According to the reports of the UN inspectors (which I watched religiously) there was ample evidence of Iraqi BAD FAITH–that is, saying you want to comply but acting otherwise.
But still, the Iraqis complied, even if unwillingly. The point is (to me) that either you follow the laws of the international community, or you don’t. If you don’t, then any international laws can expected to be broken by you if you see fit. Why should any other dictator/regime/government which tries to get WMDs now stop it when threatened? It would be more reasonable to trey and get them before anybody has assembled an intervention force.
And it seems, we have heard/interpreted the inspectors reports quite differently.
As far as France, Russia etc. being willing to act if the inspectors said go–that is just a smokescreen. It’s preposterous that the decision for war or peace lies in the hands of a small group of academics. The job of the weapons inspectors was to observe & report, & make recommendations. The decision for war or not was always in the hands of nations & governments. They just chose to interpret Iraqi bad faith in the most favorable possible light for internal & external political reasons.
Well, if they had observed, reported and recommended differently, who knows how France, Russia and China would have decided…… the point is that i have never heard any criticism of the inspectors that was “beyond hope”. I think the governments did not interpret the faith but the actions of the Iraqi gov’t.
But what the US was saying may sound insulting but it was TRUE!
Except for the “evidence” that the Iraq works on WMDs and cooperates with Al Quaeda etc……
Again: Why should i believe one lying man but not the other?
The US delegation to the UN ought to have been more willing to compromise on the timing & the circumstances for war, but the antiwar powers ought to have been more willing to compromise on the possibility of war in the 1st place. So you see, its not all about the US being uncompromising–its about everyone losing sight of the purpose of the UN presence in Iraq in favor of narrow political vendettas & infighting.
We surely can argue about whose fault it was in the first place…. but it’s true, when the pace was raised, it turned into these vendettas. That’s what i blame both parties for. And in such a situation, it’s hard to blame the Iraq for following its “best strategy”.
As I stated, war was basically inevitable unless Hussein began to really act in good faith vis-a-vis the UN resolutions. Inevitable that is unless you are tacitly willing to accept his right to rule over Iraq in order to prevent war & prolong a favorable situation for the major powers at the expense of the people of Iraq. Sorry life isn’t always sunrise & moonbeams but thats the way it is.
Yup. And as i see it, you think that the “right to rule a country” lies not in the hands of that countries people only. I guess that is another point were our opinions differ.
If people believe no country as the right to pre-emptive action then they believe countries must wait to be attacked (then prove who attacked them I guess) before taking any action. So I suppose as long as say Saddam just killed 5 million shites Iraqis and 5 million kurdish Iraqis that would be regretable but certainly nothing one ought to intervene militarily to prevent this. Certainly prevention of genocide isn’t even pre-emptive defensive action.
No single country has the right to pre-emptively attack. For genocide, it is not a single countries responsibility either. And for your last sentence: Read it again please, now that you have some temporal distance: Yes, it certainly is not.
How many wars have been started “pre-emptively” because one nation claimed/thought a minority of its own people would suffer in another country? Would this scenario be a legal war, or could it be just an excuse used by that nation?
But still, the Iraqis complied, even if unwillingly. The point is (to me) that either you follow the laws of the international community, or you don’t. If you don’t, then any international laws can expected to be broken by you if you see fit. Why should any other dictator/regime/government which tries to get WMDs now stop it when threatened? It would be more reasonable to trey and get them before anybody has assembled an intervention force.
And it seems, we have heard/interpreted the inspectors reports quite differently
I disagree a bit here. I don’t think this war is a question of legal or illegal.
I don’t think you can sum up this war in one question at all. It is a clouded and complicated issue. (I spelt issue wrong…dumb. :oops:)
If one is going to agrue the legality of this war than one has to say that action in Kosovo was illegal and should not have been done. The UN, as a body, did not approve it. However, the question is was it the right thing to do? I would think yes.
The UN is just as much to blame for all of this( if you’re playing the blame game) that anyone else.
U.N. resolutions are meaningless if the body is not willing to enforce them.
Both the Security Council and the General Assembly would rather chose paralysis than admit it.
The UN should stop pandering to the tin-pot tyrants who abuse its processes.
I will also say that the war-hawkish advisers of the states did take a heavy handed approach to this. But, again who am I to really say, I don’t know what goes on in high political office. :D
Ahhh ghoulie.
finally a war-hawk i can relate to.
@Mr:
I disagree a bit here. I don’t think this war is a question of legal or illegal.
I don’t think you can sum up this war in one question at all. It is a clouded and complicated iusse.
It truly is, and everyone has different emphasises of importance on different questions on that issue.
If one is going to agrue the legality of this war than one has to say that action in Kosovo was illegal and should not have been done. The UN, as a body, did not approve it. However, the question is was it the right thing to do? I would think yes.
But the situation was different: First it was NATO going in, second the UN later de facto approved the action.
