hey raso, you should put a warning on that last thread, their are yougsters who peruse these forums m8.Originally Posted by [b
hey raso, you should put a warning on that last thread, their are yougsters who peruse these forums m8.
Ok, let's have a stab at it
1)you mean the US was shamelessly trying to get what it was asking for? how horrible that a nation would try to get somthing it wants done through the UN. I have absolutly *never* heard of any other nation doing somthing so dispicable (sarcasm, thick)
The point is that the USA was trying to get a clear mandate/authority for military actions that the US knew it was going to embark on. Many UN nations saw through this. When the US realised it could never persuade such nations, along with the majority of world public opinion, to clearly authorise a US war the US then refused to play with the UN.
BTW - you should'nt need to signpost humour (sarcasm, thick) ... unless your aiming it at the lowest common denominator.
2) No nation needs permission from the UN to do any thing, they can ask for support from the UN for various reasons but if they do not get support it in no way means the nation cannot choose to act alone. On the other side, if the UN decides that a nation is aggressivly waging a war, which is illegal by international law, then the UN has to pass a resolution saying that the war is aggressive and illegal, then the offending nation has a grace period in which to back down before action is taken against them.
Wrong - the UN cannot pass a resolution saying that the war is aggressive and illegal, if the warmaker IS a member of the Security Council. Why? Because that member will veto it This is exactly the same reason why the US/UK withdraw the last proposed resolution - because they knew that France/Russia would veto it
This also EXACTLY the same reason why resolutions criticising/disapproving of Israeli actions also never get passed. The USA always vetos such resolutions.
Basicly, the us wanted help, didnt get any help, so now they stand alone. No US official EVER said that they would back down if there was no support from the UN, the opposit actualy, they always said they wanted help but would fight with out ANY allies if they had to.
Wrong - the US did not want help. They wanted the UN to justify/authorise a pretext for the USA to commit war on Iraq.
3)Your right, its all propoganda, there is pro war propoganda and there is anti war propoganda. Dont think that your opinion is based on more reliable sources then any one elses. The hidden agendas go bothways, there are many powers at be that would like to see bush burned for there own motives and they hype up the anti war movement similarly to how the bush administration is hypeing up the pro war movement. Although no weapons were ever found, that is not what the inspectors were supposed to be doing. The UN knew that it couldnt win a hide and go seek game with sadham, the inspectors were supposed to find out if sadham would cooperate. See if sadham would willingly show the inspectors what had been done with the chemicals and other illegal stockpiles, sadham never did and never will cooperate. The inspectors did there job, they found out that sadham was full of shit and had no intention of disarming, no weapons were found but they were never supposed to be found.
I agree with most of this. My only observation is that no WMD have ever been found and, of course, we all know it's impossible to find something that does'nt exist.
(Not that I'm saying Saddam has no WMD - we just dont know. Dont forget, the phrase WMD has onbly been bounded around in the wake of 9/11 by Bush - not Saddam)
4)There is a big differance between preparing for war and going to war. I dont see how you can acuratly assume that war was inevitable the moment the build up started. Primarly because, like you said, it cannot happen over night. It was neccissary to be prepared for war even though there was a chance there wouldnt be one.
The difference is far less than you would suggest. Consider this -
General Tommy Franks stated yesterday in his 1st press briefing that the USA has been planning the operation for 12 months (personally, I think this was a slip-up). Franks has been CiC for US Central command for 2 years. We all know that the staff of all US commands constantly plan for various scenarious in their respective theatres, and many plans exist (and are constantly tested via wargames) for the most improbable of scenarios. This the very role of such staffs in peacetime.
After the Gulf War of 1991 a variety of plans must have existed and been constantly enhanced by US Central Command for various hypothetical scenarios in the Middle-East.
What Franks told us yesterday was that SPECIFIC PLANNING FOR THE CURRENT INVASION OF IRAQ STARTED 12 MONTHS AGO
Now considering many different plans already existed - why start a new one 12 months ago - 6 months after 9/11?
This is NOT conspiracy theory bullshit. These are the facts as Franks confirmed yesterday (and I'm quite sure Rumsfeld had a few words in his ear after such a slip of the tongue).
If you wish to know exactly when specific US units started moving to the middle-east area, I'll provide you a list together with the sources.
The USA started preparing for war 12 months ago - and were ALWAYS determined that they would go to war when the necessary assets had been positioned and the plan developed.
5)I cant seriously believe that you are suggesting we have a cookie cutter, one size fits all type of forign policy that says the US ether always attacks nations with these weapons or never attacks nations with these weapons. Ether policy would assuredly end in gloable destruction, the US cannot attack all those nations, yet i am shure it will have to attack some. I deplore the US's support of isreal, I consider isreal to be a regime based on terror and a bloody occupation. Yet im not going to argue that sadham should be allowed to continue his reign of terror just because other nations are allowed to. It would be nice if we could eliminate all the evil in the world, but if you demand all or nothing, you will get nothing.
Good and fair points - with which I totally agree. Nice to hear an American dissaproves of the current Israeli policies - sad to hear the American Government has just endorsed 11 Billion in economic and military aid to Israel.
6) were not talking about handguns and switchblades here, the weapons we are dealing with are capable of eliminating all human life from the earth. There must be some sort of regulation on these weapons, allowing any nation to have them is not an option and it is infinantly more dangerous to try and take away a nuke from a country that has it then to try and prevent a nation from getting one. Like most authority (police, teachers, governments) the US's authority is not based on always being right, The US's authority is based on being the only one capable (or apparently willing) to enforce such an authority *AND* the need of such an authority. EX: police would not exist if there was no need for them, police are often wrong, often jerks, yet you absolutly have to have them in a modern society.
This argument is based entirely on an assumption that Iraq does indeed possess WMD. The US administration has failed totally to provide any evidence in support of this assumption. Considering the intelligence apparatus the US has at it's disposal I, and many others, find this suspicious. Considering Bush specifially suggested to the American people, in his pre-war speech, that such hypothetical WMDs would be used by Iraq in order to create another 9/11, convinces me further the US is playing to the fears/anxieties/worries of the American people in justifying this war - rather than basing the justification on factual issues.
I think the original posters comments are quite valid in this respect. What DOES give the US the authority to determine which countries may possess which weapons, and start a war if any country MAY possess weapons that the US disapproves of. The UN certainly does'nt. Pax Americana?
7)lmao, now this i find funny. In the one place where it is *almost* impossible to argue the US is wrong you still manage to try. That boarder the turks want to protect is a boarder with the kurds, the turkish and the kurds HATE each other and turky is in screaming fits over the fact that the US wont allow turky to go in and occupy kurdistan. The kurds pose no threat to the turks mainly because any possible way for kurds to fight any one was ruthlessly eliminated by sadham hussain and the kurds. If you read some history on the subject you will see that the kurds have been royal screwed by every one they have ever come into contact with, two times by america, so if you have a problem with the US telling the turks to leave the kurds alone then I'd like to hear your moral reasoning on that.
I agree with this completely. I also find the Kurds have been royally screwed throughout history - but would far rather have them as allies than the Turks.
8)Werent we just on the subject of propoganda? this is such a good example. Lets also think about the alternatives, the us could NOT install a government, leave the iraqis to suffer under consistant uprising of warlords and bandits. Maybe we should install a new government then, but how about an ANTI US one... that would be great huh? I wonder if sadham would take the job...
I've never been convinced by the Oil theory. However, Bush's speech whereby he specifically stated one of the US's principal war aims was the seizure of Iraqi Oil fields did ... er ... cause me to rethink
It was also, IMHO, one of the more stupid and ill-considered sentences that have eminated from his ill-conceived statements.
9)lmao, revolutionary war? civil war? didnt happen? to long ago? well any how, they did happen. The civil war claimed more american lives then all other wars we have fought combined. Largely b/c both fighting sides were americans. Any how, I do see your point but your refrence to american never experienceing a homeland war is just not true. I think it is wrong to assume that america is quick to go to war b/c of that, I think just the opposit myself. I think it might of been this thread where some one stated (correctly) Polls during ww2 showed that 1% of the US population supported american involvement, the number soared to an amazing 2% when asked if they would support involvment should france and brittan be taken by germany. sufficed to say, america is not particully keen to rushing to war, the government often times has sticky fingers but the people are mostly isolationists.
Good point. However, I think the original poster was more refering to the concept of Total War as propogated in the 20C - rather than any 18C/19C wars. No one can deny the wars of the last century have been far more destructive in nature.
10)I might be mistaken, but I have a feeling that you dont know what war is ether. Or that you know what it is like to live under a terror regime like sadhams, I fail to see how our common ignorance would make your opinions superior to those who are equally as ignorant as yourself and I.
Both yourself and the original poster have raised valid points.
11) In your whole post i see countless refrances to how wrong every thing the US is doing is, war is wrong, Us diplomacy is wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Now, I hate to generalize, but like most anti war people i have had the pleasure of disscussing the issue with, I find you know exactly what is wrong with every thing the US is doing but have failed to ever include suggestions about a better way of doing things. Not war isnt enough, we have been Not waring with iraq since the peace treaty of the first gulf war and things have only become worse with each passing year. Diplomacy only works with leaders/nations that will keep there word when given to a diplomatic agreement. Sadham will agree to any thing, any demand, he just never follows through. Now, I ask you, you said what is wrong with the US and all it has done, so what is the right way?
Your argument does'nt address the points raised by the 1st poster. He's talking about the right of the US to change another countries/nations government (irrespective of how obnoxious it may appear to be to any US Administration) and culture by the application of Military Force - you're talking about the failure of US diplomacy in respect of Iraq.
Now im not trying to flame or put down any person(s) or opinions in this post. I understand that I have a natural moral disadvantage when trying to argue pro war because with no midigating curcimstances it is certian that war is a bad thing. So I researched my position and feel i have a resonable supply of facts and thought out concepts to support my positon. I dont feel im smarter then any one here so I'd like to keep any responses to my post of a debating nature. I do however feel i have reaserched the issue more thouroghly then most, and i thouroughly recommend that any one who wants to spend some serious library time reaserching the same thing. The UN meating minutes are *mostly* open to the public and that is a very good place to start.
Some of your points are quite valid. Others, IMHO, are not
Sad to see America denouncing Iraq treatment of Amercian POW (ie showing them on Iraq National TV is 'humiliating them'as violating the Geneva Convention.
Tell that to the unfortunates taken from Afghanistan now languishing in US concentration camps (the lucky ones) or likely being tortured in 3rd party countries (most of the them). I suppose SOME of them were terrorists
Once America dispenses with the international 'rule of law' (UN) and 'Geneva Convention' (by never declaring war) how can we demand any more from a tinpot dictator?
Imagine if Iraq swiped American advisors out of Saudi, kept them without trial or representation or any human rights, handed them over to 'unspecified' third parties for 'interrogation'? America does humanity a disservice by dismantling conventions that took decades to negotiate.
I'm ashamed my country supported breaking these conventions, and outraged by the propaganda we get fed.
Old age is a terrible price to pay for wisdom.
6) were not talking about handguns and switchblades here, the weapons we are dealing with are capable of eliminating all human life from the earth. There must be some sort of regulation on these weapons, allowing any nation to have them is not an option and it is infinantly more dangerous to try and take away a nuke from a country that has it then to try and prevent a nation from getting one. Like most authority (police, teachers, governments) the US's authority is not based on always being right, The US's authority is based on being the only one capable (or apparently willing) to enforce such an authority *AND* the need of such an authority. EX: police would not exist if there was no need for them, police are often wrong, often jerks, yet you absolutly have to have them in a modern society.Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Mar. 23 2003,18:38)] 6) were not talking about handguns and switchblades here, the weapons we are dealing with are capable of eliminating all human life from the earth. There must be some sort of regulation on these weapons, allowing any nation to have them is not an option and it is infinantly more dangerous to try and take away a nuke from a country that has it then to try and prevent a nation from getting one. Like most authority (police, teachers, governments) the US's authority is not based on always being right, The US's authority is based on being the only one capable (or apparently willing) to enforce such an authority *AND* the need of such an authority. EX: police would not exist if there was no need for them, police are often wrong, often jerks, yet you absolutly have to have them in a modern society.
7)lmao, now this i find funny. In the one place where it is *almost* impossible to argue the US is wrong you still manage to try. That boarder the turks want to protect is a boarder with the kurds, the turkish and the kurds HATE each other and turky is in screaming fits over the fact that the US wont allow turky to go in and occupy kurdistan. The kurds pose no threat to the turks mainly because any possible way for kurds to fight any one was ruthlessly eliminated by sadham hussain and the kurds. If you read some history on the subject you will see that the kurds have been royal screwed by every one they have ever come into contact with, two times by america, so if you have a problem with the US telling the turks to leave the kurds alone then I'd like to hear your moral reasoning on that.
I agree with this completely. I also find the Kurds have been royally screwed throughout history - but would far rather have them as allies than the Turks.
8)Werent we just on the subject of propoganda? this is such a good example. Lets also think about the alternatives, the us could NOT install a government, leave the iraqis to suffer under consistant uprising of warlords and bandits. Maybe we should install a new government then, but how about an ANTI US one... that would be great huh? I wonder if sadham would take the job...
I've never been convinced by the Oil theory. However, Bush's speech whereby he specifically stated one of the US's principal war aims was the seizure of Iraqi Oil fields did ... er ... cause me to rethink
It was also, IMHO, one of the more stupid and ill-considered sentences that have eminated from his ill-conceived statements.
9)lmao, revolutionary war? civil war? didnt happen? to long ago? well any how, they did happen. The civil war claimed more american lives then all other wars we have fought combined. Largely b/c both fighting sides were americans. Any how, I do see your point but your refrence to american never experienceing a homeland war is just not true. I think it is wrong to assume that america is quick to go to war b/c of that, I think just the opposit myself. I think it might of been this thread where some one stated (correctly) Polls during ww2 showed that 1% of the US population supported american involvement, the number soared to an amazing 2% when asked if they would support involvment should france and brittan be taken by germany. sufficed to say, america is not particully keen to rushing to war, the government often times has sticky fingers but the people are mostly isolationists.
Good point. However, I think the original poster was more refering to the concept of Total War as propogated in the 20C - rather than any 18C/19C wars. No one can deny the wars of the last century have been far more destructive in nature.
10)I might be mistaken, but I have a feeling that you dont know what war is ether. Or that you know what it is like to live under a terror regime like sadhams, I fail to see how our common ignorance would make your opinions superior to those who are equally as ignorant as yourself and I.
Both yourself and the original poster have raised valid points.
11) In your whole post i see countless refrances to how wrong every thing the US is doing is, war is wrong, Us diplomacy is wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Now, I hate to generalize, but like most anti war people i have had the pleasure of disscussing the issue with, I find you know exactly what is wrong with every thing the US is doing but have failed to ever include suggestions about a better way of doing things. Not war isnt enough, we have been Not waring with iraq since the peace treaty of the first gulf war and things have only become worse with each passing year. Diplomacy only works with leaders/nations that will keep there word when given to a diplomatic agreement. Sadham will agree to any thing, any demand, he just never follows through. Now, I ask you, you said what is wrong with the US and all it has done, so what is the right way?
Your argument does'nt address the points raised by the 1st poster. He's talking about the right of the US to change another countries/nations government (irrespective of how obnoxious it may appear to be to any US Administration) and culture by the application of Military Force - you're talking about the failure of US diplomacy in respect of Iraq.
Now im not trying to flame or put down any person(s) or opinions in this post. I understand that I have a natural moral disadvantage when trying to argue pro war because with no midigating curcimstances it is certian that war is a bad thing. So I researched my position and feel i have a resonable supply of facts and thought out concepts to support my positon. I dont feel im smarter then any one here so I'd like to keep any responses to my post of a debating nature. I do however feel i have reaserched the issue more thouroghly then most, and i thouroughly recommend that any one who wants to spend some serious library time reaserching the same thing. The UN meating minutes are *mostly* open to the public and that is a very good place to start.
Some of your points are quite valid. Others, IMHO, are not
ok i have to add to what wellington said and also state there are few countries that can wipe out all life on earth id say america ... maybe russia and longshot china france and uk. even if saddam stayed in power with the pressure and watchful eye kept on him he nor his succsessors would be able to build up that much of an arsenal (missle or chemcial) never
7)lmao, now this i find funny. In the one place where it is *almost* impossible to argue the US is wrong you still manage to try. That boarder the turks want to protect is a boarder with the kurds, the turkish and the kurds HATE each other and turky is in screaming fits over the fact that the US wont allow turky to go in and occupy kurdistan. The kurds pose no threat to the turks mainly because any possible way for kurds to fight any one was ruthlessly eliminated by sadham hussain and the kurds. If you read some history on the subject you will see that the kurds have been royal screwed by every one they have ever come into contact with, two times by america, so if you have a problem with the US telling the turks to leave the kurds alone then I'd like to hear your moral reasoning on that.
i have to agree with your view turkey going into kurish territory can only be bad
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
id also like to add how dare america use the un to its advantage but not follow itQuote[/b] (Fate Amenable to Change @ Mar. 23 2003,20:11)]Sad to see America denouncing Iraq treatment of Amercian POW (ie showing them on Iraq National TV is 'humiliating them'
Tell that to the unfortunates taken from Afghanistan now languishing in US concentration camps (the lucky ones) or likely being tortured in 3rd party countries (most of the them). I suppose SOME of them were terrorists
Once America dispenses with the international 'rule of law' (UN) and 'Geneva Convention' (by never declaring war) how can we demand any more from a tinpot dictator?
Imagine if Iraq swiped American advisors out of Saudi, kept them without trial or representation or any human rights, handed them over to 'unspecified' third parties for 'interrogation'? America does humanity a disservice by dismantling conventions that took decades to negotiate.
I'm ashamed my country supported breaking these conventions, and outraged by the propaganda we get fed.
how can the americans complain bout human rights violations (according to geneva convention) and not follow them themselves complete hypocrits
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
For our main subject: Well the doublespeak is obvious , noone disputes that. The U.N and Geneva are good only when they a)protect us b)do as we say. When they are against us they are bad and we do not believe in them :/
For those who still do not think that war is madness :
NOT FOR UNDER 18 , DEAD PEOPLE AND BLOOD :
Dead Iraqi soldiers , notice the white flag
( Was it a case of iraqis pretending to surrender to ambush the U.S soldiers or it is a case of surrendering troops being shot and killed? you choose)
Young girl liberated by 'precise' 'surgical' strikes ...For me this picture is enough proof that war is NEVER the solution. If this does not make you a pacifist then nothing will...
Αξιζει φιλε να πεθανεις για ενα ονειρο, κι ας ειναι η φωτια του να σε καψει.
http://grumpygreekguy.tumblr.com/
if bush can truely do this for his popularity and his economic intrests than i am really starting to doubt wether he is or is not evilQuote[/b] (rasoforos @ Mar. 23 2003,21:07)]For our main subject: Well the doublespeak is obvious , noone disputes that. The U.N and Geneva are good only when they a)protect us b)do as we say. When they are against us they are bad and we do not believe in them :/
For those who still do not think that war is madness :
NOT FOR UNDER 18 , DEAD PEOPLE AND BLOOD :
Dead Iraqi soldiers , notice the white flag
( Was it a case of iraqis pretending to surrender to ambush the U.S soldiers or it is a case of surrendering troops being shot and killed? you choose)
Young girl liberated by 'precise' 'surgical' strikes ...For me this picture is enough proof that war is NEVER the solution. If this does not make you a pacifist then nothing will
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
I'm not taking a side here... merely offering what was shown on every major news network I turned on tonight. A Chemical Weapons factory was taken near the town of Nafja (believe that was the name) in Iraq. Maybee it was planted there by the US, maybee it is run by the Bedouins, I'm in no place to say,and anything is possible. In the event it was infact Iraqi, (There was allegedly an Iraqi General in command of the installation, so I imagine either Iraq has a lot of Generals to give commands to, or it is of some importance) than it is one more example of Iraqi leadership's deception. (Maybee they just forgot to include it in the dozen or so declerations of such facilities since the end of hostilities in 1991... I know I sometimes forget where my wallet is, so why not a top secret chemical weapons lab?) And yes, these being the declerations given to the UN, so that their inspectors could take inventory of such things, and dispose of them... this going into effect after 1991, and lasting a dozen years. Now, whether or not this sort of thing justifies the war, is another matter...
Many people prove that in their lifetime, they have learned much. It is unfortunate that all to often, stupidity was the teacher.
How justified is Saddam ,and his gang of thugs, carrying out the brutal oppression of the Iraqi people?
Gassing the Kurds, gassing the Iranians, torture, murder, etc.
All these examples are well documented.
Now, ask yourself if the war against Saddam is justified.
e tu Brute
how justified is america in disobeying the un and the geneva convention and attacking a country for the very same reason
how justified is america to decide who rules what country
how justified is america to attack a country just incase that country attacks it
now ask youself do you want innocent blood spilled in your name ?
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
well with the discovery of two yes TWO chemical sites that wherent anounced and are camoflaged and guarded and mined and barbed wired im thinking the US is as justified as it can get
British Army: be the best
You are mistaken Yellow Knight... As per the more than a dozen Complete and Final Declerations of Weapons and Production Facilities (these having additions each time, and only then, after said items discovery) and the statements by all levels of Iraqi leadership both durring the most recent inspections, and even now, Iraq does not posses chemical weapons, nor the means of production.
As a side note... Russia was found to have been in direct breach of the UN conditions passed in and after '91 with their Sales/supply of high tech military hardware to Iraq.
Many people prove that in their lifetime, they have learned much. It is unfortunate that all to often, stupidity was the teacher.
In my opinion the problem is that US and Britain resort to lynch law.
The question is not if iraq has WMD's or at least facillities to build them, nor if they treat their own people bad (That was never a reason, maybe when vietnam invaded kambodscha).
The point is that's exactly what the UN has to decide. And if there is no decision for war there should be no war.
What about doing away with that 'veto-right' for all the oh so great nations?
Civilised men do not act like US and Britain do at the moment. This is very very important.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm gonna live forever....
... or die trying...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now Bush is demanding that all countries worldwide sieze Iraq government financial assets and wire them to the US Federal Reserve bank. Any country that doesn't comply will suffer financial consequences. He said that the reason for this demand is that it's in the best interest of the United States.
_________Designed to match Original STW gameplay.
Beta 8 + Beta 8.1 patch + New Maps + Sound add-on + Castles 2
rofl i guess the money is in danger and needs to be put under americas protection .... lol
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
LoL...we don't want any innocent Dinars getting gassed
I think the 'official' explanation is something like: convert Dinars to your own currency & send the funds here for safekeeping (yeah, right; Iran's funds are still sitting here from '79), since the Dinar will be worthless if Iraq loses the war.
Note to all: This is an emotional time for everyone. Remember to resist the urge to get too wound up, and that there are fellow humans on the other end of our postings, who have feelings too, and deserve our respect. Thanks.
Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.
I believe you're missing the point.Quote[/b] (LittleGrizzly @ Mar. 23 2003,23:42)]how justified is america in disobeying the un and the geneva convention and attacking a country for the very same reason
how justified is america to decide who rules what country
how justified is america to attack a country just incase that country attacks it
now ask youself do you want innocent blood spilled in your name ?
The war isn't against Iraq, or the Iraqi people.
The war is against Saddam, and his murderous thugs.
Removing him, and his regime will benefit Iraq, and the rest of the world.
Btw, if you're referring to this so-called innocent blood as Saddam, and his thugs; then I'll assure you, I'll sleep very well at night.
e tu Brute
surely that should read -
... and that there may be fellow humans on the other end of our postings, who may have feelings too ...
Quite right...I cannot conclusively prove the I exist, much less you (or you, or you, or you).
This could be all simply a pigment of my imagination.
Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.
Personally speaking, I don't exist.Quote[/b] (KukriKhan @ Mar. 24 2003,11:36)]
This could be all simply a pigment of my imagination.
I know this because my ex-wife always used to tell me so
almost every country harms some of its own people at some point.
I would not advocate watch someone beat someone else to death when you have the power to prevent it.
If the violence is going on - and you feel that it is unjust - go ahead and interfare.
(the general principal I would think the wisest: do unto others as you would want them to do unto you - paraphrasing it)
In my case it would be to stop violence if I have the power, but refrain from starting beating the attacker to death.
Also, in this case (Iraq war) - who is beating who to death?
Debatable at present. It all depends on whether your refering to casualties or public opinion.
Ahhh womenQuote[/b] (Wellington @ Mar. 24 2003,12:32)]Personally speaking, I don't exist.Quote[/b] (KukriKhan @ Mar. 24 2003,11:36)]
This could be all simply a pigment of my imagination.
I know this because my ex-wife always used to tell me so
I needed the laugh though , thanks for adding some humour to this topic
Some reading material :
Remember the iraqi children
We support the coallition , lets hope our people never know though....
Amnesty international expresses fears for the Civilians in Iraq
Plea to Iraq to respect the POWs by Amnesty International
Αξιζει φιλε να πεθανεις για ενα ονειρο, κι ας ειναι η φωτια του να σε καψει.
http://grumpygreekguy.tumblr.com/
Russia threatened to veto any proposal at that time. A country going to war is always a big deal and the protestation at the US/UK not getting a resolution is that the UN Secruity Council no longer has competing superpowers who veto each others motions. The world was looking forward to a new kind of multi-lateralism. Now the US is behaving like any power that bestrides the world like a collosus. It will have its aims implemented, regardless of any others oponions.
Those eyes would break the heart of any soldier.... ....but missiles have no heart.
...Another child 'liberated' by a surgical strike...the total dead are about 150-200 , the injured may approach 1000 but noone knows... war is madness... was is NEVER the solution...there is still time to give peace a chance. I prefer to dream than to participate in the terrible reality the strong decided i should live.
Αξιζει φιλε να πεθανεις για ενα ονειρο, κι ας ειναι η φωτια του να σε καψει.
http://grumpygreekguy.tumblr.com/
you just got to wonder how long will bush continue this madness ?
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
This is a problem. I dont like that these countries have been forced to resort to vigilantism.
(bad meaning rape, murder, torture, attempted genocide, chemical/biological weapon use)
In my opinion, US and Britain are at fault for vigilantism, but the greater crime is to allow this regime to persist. Civilised men do not sit still while Saddam is allowed to thrive.
Will innocents be killed in the conflict? Yes, and this is horrible and regretable. Of this there is no question. We just believe that the world will be a better place without Saddam. Iraq will be a better place.
What we obtain to cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. --Thomas Paine
This is my world
And I am
World leader pretend
Just a couple of thoughts:
The UN has a long way to go to be considered a viable multi-national organization with regards to security of the world. Iraq has violated the spirit of multiple resolutions passed by the UN to disarm in the wake of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. The international community viewed Iraq as a security threat and ordered it to disarm. Iraq refused. The UN passed sanctions on Iraq that served only to make Iraqi innocents suffer, but did nothing to facilitate changes in Iraq's regime that would support integration back into the international community. Until a better mechanism is in place for the UN to enforce its own resolutions, it will be nothing but a nice meeting place for foreign leaders.
So why does the UN not work? Nation's self-interests. France and Russia have lucrative oil contracts with Saddam, oil contracts that seem to be in violation of the UN sanctions, and that would certainly be null and void with a regime change. There are also some reports/rumours that French companies have had a role in assisting Saddam's development of WMD. France and Russia have a vested interest in keeping Saddam in place, and rightfully did their part in their nation's interests to object to this war.
US interests? In the wake of 9/11, the US is scared stiff about terrorism and rightly views that certain states (N. Korea, Iraq) that have developed WMD pose a grave security risk, as these states are known to sell arms to the highest bidder. Its well known that resolving Iraqi intransigence did not even enter into the Bush administrations vision until after 9/11, so any other argument for the US going to war now (ie oil interests) just doesn't hold water. I totally agree that the US should disarm Iraq and remove Saddam, and that this should be done immediately, as it is long since overdue.
So you have a loggerhead, and you have nations acting outside the UN, which as many posters have said before is pretty common. Yes, it would be great if the UN backed up its resolution. Absent that, the US has an obligation to itself and to the world to remove the danger.
Moving forward though, the US needs to step up and set a better example to the world so that the world does not view such actions with a cynical eye and poison international relations.
Suggestions:
*Hold yourself to the same standards you set for others. As the big kid on the block, you can't expect others to enforce rules you openly flaunt. The Kyoto treaty and the International Court of Justice are prime examples of the US needing to work within the framework of the international community. Much of the world's animosity right now is geared to this double-standard.
*Rethink diplomatic ostracism. The idea that you'll punish countries/dictators by not recognizing them is laughable in the information age. If you want to facilitate change, keep the lines of communication open...as the famous saying goes, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Ostracizing Iraq, Iran, Libya, N. Korea has done nothing to effect change in those countries...in fact it has only made things worse.
*Get rid of your own WMD. Set the example. As long as other countries view that WMD equates to power, they will want them, and some will go through any means necessary to acquire them. Redefine the power equation so countries no longer view these weapons as desirable.
Good forum, great posts by people, good humor...I like it
Just responding to something from Wellington yesterday, there were several items listed by the UN after the first Gulf War that would be categorized as WMD (VX Nerve Gas, Anthrax, Ricin, etc). It is a fact that Saddam used WMD to suppress the Kurds back in 88/89. It is a fact that Saddam possessed these weapons in 1991. The inspectors that were in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 were there to ensure that Saddam's weapons programs were shutdown and that the existing WMD were destroyed. Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998 when there was still a laundry list of unaccounted for weapons. The list was carried over to the latest resolution asking Saddam to account for them.
Now we could take it at face value that Saddam destroyed all of these listed weapons after he kicked out the inspectors (interesting move, why would he do that?), but I think that would be a little simple. There appears to be enough soft evidence (evasion, missing documents, inaccessibility to scientists) to support that Saddam continues to possess them.
Welcome to the Org Goatus. You certainly dove in up to your goatus maximus on your first post.
This space intentionally left blank
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks