| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/18/2003 08:40:13 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by achiral:
how does a communist country deserve a veto? |
How does any country deserve a veto? |
|
|
|
03/18/2003 08:44:50 PM · #402 |
|
|
|
03/18/2003 11:34:38 PM · #403 |
Originally posted by achiral:
The Worm Chirac Strikes Again
this is one of the most two faced governments i have ever heard. they say they will veto any resolution authorizing the use of force. now they say they will help if our men get attacked by chem and bio weapons? no thanks, france is obviously just trying to end up on the right side of the war when it is all said and done. |
Hey now, stick to the facts. Or, at the very least, state your opinion clearly instead of foisting it on us in your url.
Using the veto as a bargaining chip is hardly new. France's denunciations and threats stem from their interest in pursuing all available diplomatic channels and by listening closely to UN inspectors. Even if they believe that the US' (and company) use of force is unnecessary and premature, they can still maintain their position against the use of bio/chem weapons. The two are not irreconcilable.
After all, diplomacy is just international poker where the stakes are often horrific and measured not just in "saving face", but in "the real faces of human beings". Give some consideration to the fact that France may have been merely bluffing, hoping to pressure the US, and others, to return to the UNSC table and work out a more diplomatic solution. The US has called the bluff and now France is showing its hand, while still attempting to avoid embarrassment.
Oh sure, you can say that there's no truth in what France says, that it has a hidden agenda, that it professes one thing while doing another. In this regard, though, it is not distinguishable from other nation states. Yes, there are very real economic and political consequences for France should the military action proceed in Iraq, but again the two are not irreconilable.
There is no "right side of the war". There will be a victor, yes, and there is no doubt as to their identity, but people will die and some will continue to argue the pointlessness of the action. Who can say what or whom benefits most? There is an unusually high disparity between the military power on both sides (assuming for the moment there are only two sides), but that is also true in other parts of the world.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2003 02:55:57 AM · #404 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
There is no "right side of the war". There will be a victor, yes, and there is no doubt as to their identity, but people will die and some will continue to argue the pointlessness of the action. |
We know who will benefit from the war and it's the Iraqi people. They will free from a murdering dictator, and free from being persecuted for speaking out, and free from being raped, tortured, executed, and dismembered by an insane, inhuman, evil dictator and his sons and cronies. And some will still say that all of this is pointless???
This attitude blows me away. It's really very scary that people actually call this action pointless. I guess that they can excuse Saddam but not the USA's backbone in doing something about it. Really sad.
Don't worry, when we go in and take Iraq (in 20 hours), we'll show you the results. I bet the happy Iraqi people afterwards, and the weapons we uncover will be "just a big lie" in the minds of a lot of people but that's their problem not ours. And "some people die", there's no doubt but you have to ask yourself if that is worth the security to the rest of the World and to the Iraqi people themselves, in the future. Well is it? If you say "no", you have your head in the sand.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2003 10:17:01 AM · #405 |
No one's saying Saddam should remain in power but there is a very clear process that must be taken to give this "Justice."
Imagine that the guy down the street was abusing his wife...You just can't go kill the guy, you have to take certain steps to bring "justice" to the wife...ie call a 3rd party.
The UN is that 3rd party. This war would be much more justified if that 3rd party agreed on the means of bring justice.
This current situation appears as if we went to the cops and the cops said hold on, we have to be certain. And then we go the next day ans bust in the front door shooting...possible killing the wife along with the mean old husband. Is this justice?
|
|
|
|
03/19/2003 10:35:40 AM · #406 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
No one's saying Saddam should remain in power but there is a very clear process that must be taken to give this "Justice."
Imagine that the guy down the street was abusing his wife...You just can't go kill the guy, you have to take certain steps to bring "justice" to the wife...ie call a 3rd party.
The UN is that 3rd party. This war would be much more justified if that 3rd party agreed on the means of bring justice.
This current situation appears as if we went to the cops and the cops said hold on, we have to be certain. And then we go the next day ans bust in the front door shooting...possible killing the wife along with the mean old husband. Is this justice? |
1. if you saw that on the street you could get away with a lot by defending the woman. murder? i don't know that's possible. if OJ did it, anyone can
2. you speak of there needing to be a very clear process. and that this 3rd party is the UN. i don't think it's really a third party since the US and Iraq are both in the United Nations. also things have been clear for those who want to see it that way. saddam just chooses to defy the clear will of the UN. now he will pay the ultimate price.
3. who are the cops? the UN? no it's the united states because we are the ones who are called on to solve the world's problems
|
|
|
|
03/19/2003 11:32:45 AM · #407 |
Originally posted by achiral:
3. who are the cops? the UN? no it's the united states because we are the ones who are called on to solve the world's problems |
You have not been called on. You have appointed yourselves. |
|
|
|
03/19/2003 12:01:43 PM · #408 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by achiral:
3. who are the cops? the UN? no it's the united states because we are the ones who are called on to solve the world's problems |
You have not been called on. You have appointed yourselves. |
yeah sorry we had to take initiative
|
|
|
|
03/19/2003 12:47:18 PM · #409 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by achiral:
3. who are the cops? the UN? no it's the united states because we are the ones who are called on to solve the world's problems |
You have not been called on. You have appointed yourselves. |
She does have a point.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2003 01:08:31 PM · #410 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by achiral:
3. who are the cops? the UN? no it's the united states because we are the ones who are called on to solve the world's problems |
You have not been called on. You have appointed yourselves. |
She does have a point. |
i think she will be proven wrong when the Iraqi people are dancing in the streets because the oppression of saddam is over. how can the world not be calling on the US to do something? i wasn't really focusing in on this dispute, but over the last century we have saved many people when others wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2003 02:18:38 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by achiral:
3. who are the cops? the UN? no it's the united states because we are the ones who are called on to solve the world's problems |
You have not been called on. You have appointed yourselves. |
She does have a point. |
i think she will be proven wrong when the Iraqi people are dancing in the streets because the oppression of saddam is over. how can the world not be calling on the US to do something? i wasn't really focusing in on this dispute, but over the last century we have saved many people when others wouldn't. |
If America helped every country that needed help, I wouldn't argue this, of course; but the helping is so selective. In fact, the helping will only happen if it is in the best interests of america. Where was America when Turkey invaded Cyprus?
Message edited by author 2003-03-19 14:19:33. |
|
|
|
03/19/2003 02:56:01 PM · #412 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
We know who will benefit from the war and it's the Iraqi people. They will free from a murdering dictator, and free from being persecuted for speaking out, and free from being raped, tortured, executed, and dismembered by an insane, inhuman, evil dictator and his sons and cronies. And some will still say that all of this is pointless???
|
Yes, yes. On and on singing the same song. Iraq is not special when it comes to atrocity; they just happen to be topical. And all along I thought this had something to do with resolution 1441. Perhaps it's just a matter of the ends justifying the means.
Rest assured, there will be some benefit to the Iraqi people (no one is denying Hussein is a monster), but who knows really? Afghanistan isn't exactly a hotbed of happy campers, but at least they'll have an oil pipeline. Hooray for war! Who benefits most from the Iraqi expedition?
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
This attitude blows me away. It's really very scary that people actually call this action pointless. I guess that they can excuse Saddam but not the USA's backbone in doing something about it. Really sad.
|
Which people called it pointless exactly? Where was all this gumption 10 years ago? I haven't heard anyone making excuses for Saddam, nor should they, but given Hussein's history, who could expect much from him. He is about as potent as Nicaragua was in the Reagan years.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Don't worry, when we go in and take Iraq (in 20 hours), we'll show you the results. I bet the happy Iraqi people afterwards, and the weapons we uncover will be "just a big lie" in the minds of a lot of people but that's their problem not ours. And "some people die", there's no doubt but you have to ask yourself if that is worth the security to the rest of the World and to the Iraqi people themselves, in the future. Well is it? If you say "no", you have your head in the sand. |
Honestly, who are these questions directed towards? They must be rhetorical questions. And who are you quoting exactly in this paragraph? Is it a matter of "taking" Iraq or liberating its people?
If there were hidden caches of bio/chem weapons, surely the fear of blowing them up accidentally would be greater than allowing the UN inspectors more time to find any such remaining weapons. Who knows, maybe they'll only find aspirin.
I can't answer your question because it presupposes things which are tacitly false, like the security of the world depending on Iraq. It's not a James Bond movie and there is no secret death ray waiting to be deployed by Saddam. If Hussein were to attack/invade another country, as it did to Kuwait, the world community would be quick to respond. But he's just a bully, preying on the weak population of Iraq. Furthermore, the security of the Iraqi people has not been on the agenda up until now. Indeed, 500,000 people seemed an appropriate price to pay for sanctions against Iraq. Please don't take a position that is untenable.
By all accounts, Iraq was complying with 1441, albeit reluctantly. Of course, a monster like Hussein would be sneaky, protective, and unwilling to cooperate. A smiling, happy Saddam would be much more threatening.
A dose of truth from any nation state would be refreshing. For example, the US could openly admit that it's tired of bombing the shit out of Iraq week in and week out to no avail. It could admit that it's tired of OPEC having such tight control over oil prices and having a good tap of it in Iraq would help bring prices (artificially inflated by OPEC) down. It could admit that it sold bio/chem weapons to Iraq, that it's pissed off Saddam didn't tow the party line, and he's getting his now, in the end. It could admit that sanctions just aren't working quite like anyone hoped. It could admit that they didn't really mind Saddam being a monster so much in the past, but he's a good nit to pick right now. Finally, it could claim that while all of the above is true, the Iraqi people will enjoy some new freedoms, even if only for a short time.
By the way, congratulations on spelling everything correctly |
|
|
|
03/19/2003 02:56:14 PM · #413 |
Originally posted by achiral:
1. if you saw that on the street you could get away with a lot by defending the woman. murder? i don't know that's possible. if OJ did it, anyone can
|
Even in this case due process was accorded OJ. If we're really going to continue with this inappropriate analogy, what authority will the US accept as a courtroom for its violations against international law? It's a rhetorical question actually; we know the US has disdain for international law, rulings made by the International Court of Justice, and for the authority of the International Criminal Court. Again, the US is not alone here (but they aren't keeping good company) and I'm only singling them out for the purposes of this discussion.
Originally posted by achiral:
2. you speak of there needing to be a very clear process. and that this 3rd party is the UN. i don't think it's really a third party since the US and Iraq are both in the United Nations. also things have been clear for those who want to see it that way. saddam just chooses to defy the clear will of the UN. now he will pay the ultimate price.
|
Depending on circumstance, the third party would actually be the UNSC or the ICJ (possibly the ICC). Iraq has no voting status on the UNSC, nor is it likely anytime soon. UN membership is more akin to world citizenship, whereby member states agree to have the UN oversee certain international relations/events.
To abuse the analogy again, the police are no more a third party, as they are also citizens and must operate within the law.
Saddam may be defying the will of the UN, but by acting nearly unilaterally the US is also defying the will of the UN, even though they may believe they are acting in its spirit or for the best interests of the world; it's still just international vigilantism.
Originally posted by achiral:
3. who are the cops? the UN? no it's the united states because we are the ones who are called on to solve the world's problems
|
Yes, the UN has military forces, typically for peacekeeping purposes. These forces are from various member states. The UN is a ruling body, not the enforcing agent. UN membership implies following convention (where agreed) or UNSC resolutions (where necessary). If military action is required, member states can decide if they are to join the action. This is not so problematic.
Of course, everyone recognizes the sheer might of the US military, but it is not always called upon to solve the world's problems; for instance, it has not been called upon to attack Iraq. And no, it is not always present even when called upon.
The US is held to a standard, higher than most, and with good reason. It purports to adhere to a higher standard, though it does not always act according to it, outside its borders at least. Again, the US is not exceptional in this way, except that it has the economic & military power to do whatever it wants. Any nation state with this much power should be held to a high standard, one which is hopefully mirrored by UN convention.
As far as the UNSC is concerned, the real problem is the veto. It's undemocratic and gives too much power to the narrow interests of a few nations. Just try and get any one of the permanent members to give up its veto though. If your country has veto power, write to your government officials asking them to give it up.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2003 04:09:10 PM · #414 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
How does any country deserve a veto? |
It's a historical thing. The countries in the security council with the veto were, at the time it was set up, considered "too powerful" to have anything forced upon them so they were given veto powers to prevent the UN being put in the awkward position of being asked to enforce something unenforceable.
I for one am all in favour of enforcing UN resolutions with force, but until I see the US government fighting to enforce all the OTHER outstanding (and, incidentally, un-vetoed) resolutions against other countries as well, it just smells of double standards... You can't pick and choose which resolutions to defend and maintain the moral high ground.
Bah. And I was going to avoid getting involved. |
|
|
|
03/19/2003 05:19:58 PM · #415 |
Originally posted by ganders:
It's a historical thing. The countries in the security council with the veto were, at the time it was set up, considered "too powerful" to have anything forced upon them so they were given veto powers to prevent the UN being put in the awkward position of being asked to enforce something unenforceable.
|
My question was actually rhetorical, but for the sake of friendly discourse I'll respond in kind.
You are mostly correct, that it is historical is obvious, but the political landscape post-WWII was uncertain, especially when the victorious consisted of staunch authoritarian communism on one side and democratic capitalism on the other. The real intent of the veto (we should properly refer to it as "great [p]ower unanimity") was to ensure that each side of the bipolar power structure was kept in check by other permanent members. It was a rational decision to maintain global political balance, albeit fear-based at the time.
I don't think this view differs greatly from yours, except that I don't think discomfiture was a motivating factor.
Originally posted by ganders:
I for one am all in favour of enforcing UN resolutions with force, but until I see the US government fighting to enforce all the OTHER outstanding (and, incidentally, un-vetoed) resolutions against other countries as well, it just smells of double standards... You can't pick and choose which resolutions to defend and maintain the moral high ground.
|
Sure, but you also have to look at the history concerning use of the veto too. Also, the resolutions to which you may be referring might not even support action of any kind. Any resolution adopted by the UNSC is, by design, without permanent member no-votes. Indeed, as I've posted before, the UN does not have any public record of resolution proposals that did not receive "great [p]ower unanimity". Which resolutions do you find require compliance (to some condition) coupled with action (military force) when incompliant? |
|
|
|
03/19/2003 11:15:28 PM · #416 |
Well it's all a "moot" point now... The war has started. I just saw on CNN that a 2000lb. "bunker buster" bomb was dropped on one of Saddam's palace's. Let's hope that him and his thugs were in that palace/cave and the whole thing is over as soon as possible. And hope that no innocents were killed. It's going to happen which nobody likes, but it's a fact that it will happen. It's the price we pay for freedom.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2003 10:00:56 AM · #417 |
Not a palace, a regular resident house... and apparently he's still alive and kicking...
I hope everyone realizes that if he escapes...Then there will be one helluva alliance between him and bin ladden. Imagine what will happen then.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2003 10:16:20 AM · #418 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Not a palace, a regular resident house... and apparently he's still alive and kicking...
I hope everyone realizes that if he escapes...Then there will be one helluva alliance between him and bin ladden. Imagine what will happen then. |
bin laden hates him what are you talking about
|
|
|
|
03/20/2003 11:13:10 AM · #419 |
I donno, The most effective thing to bring folks together is a common enemy.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2003 01:51:18 PM · #420 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
And hope that no innocents were killed. It's going to happen which nobody likes, but it's a fact that it will happen. It's the price we pay for freedom. |
Who are you to decide that the lives of innocents are a "price" to pay for their freedom? It sounds like they are some kind of currency you can spend!
It's easy to say that when you sit in a chair behind a computer far far away from the war. You will not be killed. But Iraqi civillians will be killed. That's why they didn't want this war. Why do you think it is just to ignore their wish? |
|
|
|
03/23/2003 02:32:00 PM · #421 |
| The problems with "precision targeting" are explained in this article. |
|
|
|
03/23/2003 04:35:23 PM · #422 |
nice one sentence "explanation" along with 10 paragraphs of crap. you can go ahead and buy into that bullcrap, but it's complete bunk, rhetorical bs that doese nothing for advancing an argument. |
|
|
|
03/23/2003 05:15:30 PM · #423 |
Originally posted by achiral:
nice one sentence "explanation" along with 10 paragraphs of crap. you can go ahead and buy into that bullcrap, but it's complete bunk, rhetorical bs that doese nothing for advancing an argument. |
You are prepared to offer specific, factual material, to counter the contention that we have no way of knowing which way fires will spread once we start them?
I experienced 3000 of my neighbors' homes burning in a conflagration started by a small fire which was inadequately extinguished the previous day. In peacetime, with fire-fighting efforts uninhibited by enemy bombing.
When this is over, we will see how much "collateral damage" there is. Until then, I keep my mind open to the possibility that there will be far more civilian damage than our military publically predicts. You seem to be the one "buying into the bullcrap" and refusing to keep an open mind until the un-spun facts are in... |
|
|
|
03/23/2003 05:51:31 PM · #424 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by achiral:
nice one sentence "explanation" along with 10 paragraphs of crap. you can go ahead and buy into that bullcrap, but it's complete bunk, rhetorical bs that doese nothing for advancing an argument. |
You are prepared to offer specific, factual material, to counter the contention that we have no way of knowing which way fires will spread once we start them?
I experienced 3000 of my neighbors' homes burning in a conflagration started by a small fire which was inadequately extinguished the previous day. In peacetime, with fire-fighting efforts uninhibited by enemy bombing.
When this is over, we will see how much "collateral damage" there is. Until then, I keep my mind open to the possibility that there will be far more civilian damage than our military publically predicts. You seem to be the one "buying into the bullcrap" and refusing to keep an open mind until the un-spun facts are in... |
NO. you posted claiming to have info about precision weapons not being precise. nothing in that sentence was about missiles not being precise. it was about blast radii of bombs that could be dropped, not what has actually happened. to date, Iraq TV itself has only claimed that 3 people have died as a result of bombings. IRAQ TV SAID THAT. but somehow you have the inside track on collateral damage. besides the fact that the article had no evidence against the precision of america's weapons, he claims that americans are terrorists, which just makes the author look silly. you are just once again getting ahead of the news and trying to create evidence for your extreme stance.
also if you and your lunatic reporter friend are correct, why are Iraqis not fleeing Baghdad en masse? people are going about their daily lives as if nothing is happening. this shows that people trust the accuracy of american missile technology. if there were 100s or thousands of people being bombed, most citizens would have been at the jordanian border already, but only a few have actually fled. so i'd like to know what you are talking about when you make outlandish claims based on an article written by a man that considers americans terrorists.
Message edited by author 2003-03-23 17:56:22. |
|
|
|
03/23/2003 11:07:28 PM · #425 |
Originally posted by achiral:
also if you and your lunatic reporter friend are correct, why are Iraqis not fleeing Baghdad en masse? people are going about their daily lives as if nothing is happening. this shows that people trust the accuracy of american missile technology. if there were 100s or thousands of people being bombed, most citizens would have been at the jordanian border already, but only a few have actually fled. so i'd like to know what you are talking about when you make outlandish claims based on an article written by a man that considers americans terrorists. |
See, this is why i wonder about you, archial. There're staying in the city because there's a huge military comming in almost every direction. Where are they going to go? There's not a trust of the weapons systems, many people have no choice.
|
|
