Iraq executest POW's, violates Geneva Convention, no Protest

@BigBlocky:

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.

1. 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.
2. Sanctions worked, he has no weapons see #1. Besides, it creates anti-american sentiment which the French like.
3. Oil for food worked, the French and Germans supplied the majority of stuff. See #2 and #1
4. Inspections worked See #3, 2, 1
5. More resolutions worked see # 4, 3, 2, 1
6. 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

1. If he did, and this was the basis for 1441, and if 1441 was the basis for war, then there is something wrong with Bush’s reason for going in. Maybe they will find something in Bagdad, but so far, if they are looking for wmd, they have been coming up empty
   2)i don’t really buy this. not yet. mind you, i’m not a big fan of sanctions (look at Cuba)
   3)again - i am not buying or using this as an argument. i don’t think many of “us” do
   4)no one is saying this either. we are saying that inspections can work, and they were in the process of working. It was nice of the American military to help move things along, but fullscale war?
   5)we don’t believe this either. after all, how could they? There was no time, and Bush couldn’t keep it in his pants any longer.
   6)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, and yet you think you can dismiss what we say by claiming these as the basis to our beliefs about unilateral action against a sovereign nation. Really, this is pretty ridiculous.

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.

@BigBlocky:

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….

@Ozone27:

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.

@BigBlocky:

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.