Just this week, the United States declared war on the sovereign nation authoritarian regime of Iraq, in contradiction of the Geneva Convention. On the grounds that the United States is a "sovereign" nation, Coalition forces started a campaign to eradicate Saddam Hussein's ruling party in Iraq.
The Geneva Convention, among other things, states that a country can't pre-emptively attack another sovereign nation. US President George W. Bush, in the eyes of the opposers of the war, went against the Convention when he invaded Iraq.
In my opinion, today's idea of a "sovereign" nation has to change. No country should be allowed to use the umbrella of sovereignity to blatantly break rules set in place by organizations like the United Nations. If these organizations want peace when the USA wants war, so be it: If a rule in the UN, or a convention that the USA has signed, prevents a war, don't go to war.
I think the UN is exactly what we need. Countries can choose wheter or not they want to be in the UN, but as long as they're in, they follow the rules or get punished. This does not only apply to wars, but to all rules and regulations carried trough by the organisations.
When I say have to, I mean have to. As in "this rule is against our interests, but we'll still follow it because we have to."
What are your thoughts on the subject?
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
they follow the rules or get punished.
Oh really? Iraq didn't follow the rules, they weren't going to get punished. Iraq had clear commands from the UN given directly to them that said disarm, they didn't. They were told to comply fully, they didn't. They were told to turn in documentation of weapons, they turned in a copy of an old one.
Now, they weren't punished for what they did/didn't do, or what rules they broke. Unless, that is, you consider stalling for them and putting in clearly ineffective inspectors for them to ruse a punishment.
I really don't see any reason why we should be "punished" for going to war when Iraq had had no "serious consequences" promised by 1441 before this war.
Besides, the entire point is null and void because 1441 gives us all the authorization we need, the security counsel unamiously approved it and no resolution has been signed preventing war. So what's the problem with us going to war, what are we breaking, really?
As for the other issue at hand, i do not think the United Nations should exist in a military or defense sense.
We are clearly seeing that a SC cannot make decisions for the good of a single country because sometimes countries have conflictiing interests. France, for on reason or another, does not want to take American interests into account, and will not go to war no matter what. And America has no interest for whatever it is that France wants to protect in protesting the war.
Therefore when an issue of individual interests arises in the national community, how can a group be expected to make a decision on war or peace?
The UN, i believe, should deal only with peacetime matters and leave the military decisions to individual and allied countries. Surely, whether you agree with war or not, you can accept that the UN just proved it's futility in dealing with matters of war. Why then continue to allow it's deception of usefulness to remain over our eyes and inhibit us further?
In other words, leave soverignty to countries. Those countries can make alliances and go to war as they please, granted they are willing to accpet the responsibilites and conseqences of such actions. No superpower truly wants war with anyone, so i think that any sort of World War can be eliminated from immediate concern. Other than that, countries can protect each other from agression through individual alliances and mutual interests without some overarching and useless body to make baseless resolutions it clearly does not always mean to keep.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
The Geneva Convention, among other things, states that a country can't pre-emptively attack another sovereign nation.
Wasn't there a little something about not torturing POW's too?
In my opinion
Well, while we're all entitled to have our own opinions, that doesn't make them correct... besides... you know what they say about opinions... they're like ***holes... everyone has them and they all stink.
I think the UN is exactly what we need. Countries can choose wheter or not they want to be in the UN, but as long as they're in, they follow the rules or get punished. This does not only apply to wars, but to all rules and regulations carried trough by the organisations.
Right... we can't get our own government to agree on anything but we're supposed to get all the different countries in the U.N. to fully agree all the time? Come on now... you should know better.
Well, the Iraqi's have violated the same Geneva Convention, by showing US troops in disrespectible positions.
Originally posted by pbguy1211
Wasn't there a little something about not torturing POW's too?[/B]
Yes, your government just tortured two POWs to death.
Originally posted by C'jais
Yes, your government just tortured two POWs to death.
of course we did... [/sarcasm]
did you even read the article?
specifically the part that read: "But King said this did not mean the deaths were the result of criminal acts by U.S. personnel."
Can you let the investigation happen before you hang us?
he's right. If you read it, you'd know it sounds like they just punched each other to death. "Blunt Force."
Oh, and they happened over 3 months ago.
Well, nothing is sure in that article, we don't know the true causes of death, the motives, or the techniques that might have caused it. We have no clue if this violates the convention or not, and it is a single, isolated incident.
We have video footage flaunted by the Iraqis that show EXECUTED soldiers as well as brutally treated POWs. That is, unless you think all the soldiers were conviently shot in the middle of the forehead and nowhere else on the battlefield by accident.
Oh, and i'd like to get back on topic but something has been said cercerning it since i last posted.
Originally posted by pbguy1211
did you even read the article?
specifically the part that read: "But King said this did not mean the deaths were the result of criminal acts by U.S. personnel."
Can you let the investigation happen before you hang us?
Think for a minute.
Camp delta is tightly guarded in the extreme. They're not gonna let the prisoners beat each other to death - it'd take several minutes and before that, the guards escorting the POWs would have intervened easily. Each cell is used by only one prisoners.
Did you really have no idea that your country tortures its most valuable prisoners as a standard procedure in interrogation. When they refuse to talk, they're shipped to Egypt (who have no qualms against extracting information in any possible way) and shipped back again along with the information.
Oh, and they happened over 3 months ago.
And your point is? That it doesn't matter?
Originally posted by C'jais
Camp delta is tightly guarded in the extreme. They're not gonna let the prisoners beat each other to death - it'd take several minutes and before that, the guards escorting the POWs would have intervened easily. Each cell is used by only one prisoners.
OH! I'm sorry! I didn't know you've been there before and were the foremost expert on the Afghan camps we have set up.
Don't be so quick to be the judge, jury, and executioner.
Originally posted by pbguy1211
OH! I'm sorry! I didn't know you've been there before and were the foremost expert on the Afghan camps we have set up.
They do let reporters in once in a blue moon, except they're not allowed to see the prisoners. But the cells, the insane security and the guards they're allowed to see.
Don't be so quick to be the judge, jury, and executioner.
That's the job of your country. (
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95169)
Originally posted by C'jais
That's the job of your country. (
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95169)
It's an initiative they have taken to do what they feel is right. And since no "higher being" dishes out pamphlets on what is right and what is not, the best one can do is stand up for what they believe is right, instead of waiting for that presumably non-existant higher being.
In that way, I guess Saddam and Bin Ladin may justify their "righteousness", but the stronger one always ends up being "more right" because winners write history.
Given that, the best we can do is support the side whose cause you believe in more. And I know which cause I'm up for.
Originally posted by krkode
It's an initiative they have taken to do what they feel is right. And since no "higher being" dishes out pamphlets on what is right and what is not, the best one can do is stand up for what they believe is right, instead of waiting for that presumably non-existant higher being.
The best one can do is control those people whose power can kill millions of people. A safety grid of control should be mandatory, so that the powerful countries can't just run things the way they think it should be run.
Democracy and peace should be what's strived for, as it's proven time and time again that it's the two cores of a satisfied population.
Thus, given this premise, the UN should not be dismissed.
no, the UN should not be dismissed. But the security should, or at least the veto powers of certain countries. In fact, most likely those powers should, because the council should decide, not one country veto and that's that.
As for the dumb camp thing, those guys probably want suicide, and might do something even so stupid as slamming themselves in to the bars. There's something wrong when terror is used as a weapon.
ever heard of suicide by cop?
that could be the case here as well. not that i'm saying it was, just a possibility.
*Returns*
*Reads whole thread.*
Sigh.
Everyone, what do you want me to do, list every
TIE Guy, what you said on 1441 is all valid: But you know, if Iraq had followed UN Resolutions in the first place we would not have this dilemma, would we?
Personally, I think stating the acts of dictatorships as reasons why UN doesn't work isn't stating good examples, simply for the reason that Dictatorships do not care.
Iraq is still debated, and we are split on wheter or not it was right, so maybe it was a poor example on my end (1441 DOES give you the right to go to war, of course:)).
Pbguy, Heavyarms: This is not a thread to debate Iraq. What do you want me to do, list every violation ever commited to UN rules by any country? I didn't mean to be biased, okay?!
The point is, if you can't follow the rules of the UN, don't join. And we still want the UN. Of course it can't force dictatorships to follow instructions, but democracies should.
Oh really? Iraq didn't follow the rules, they weren't going to get punished.
I meant "in the world I'm proposing". Iraq wasn't going to be punished by the UN in the real world, but I didn't state so either. I'm afraid you misunderstood a bit, my rightist friend.
As for the other issue at hand, i do not think the United Nations should exist in a military or defense sense.
We are clearly seeing that a SC cannot make decisions for the good of a single country because sometimes countries have conflictiing interests. France, for on reason or another, does not want to take American interests into account, and will not go to war no matter what. And America has no interest for whatever it is that France wants to protect in protesting the war.
Therefore when an issue of individual interests arises in the national community, how can a group be expected to make a decision on war or peace?
The UN, i believe, should deal only with peacetime matters and leave the military decisions to individual and allied countries. Surely, whether you agree with war or not, you can accept that the UN just proved it's futility in dealing with matters of war. Why then continue to allow it's deception of usefulness to remain over our eyes and inhibit us further?
In other words, leave soverignty to countries. Those countries can make alliances and go to war as they please, granted they are willing to accpet the responsibilites and conseqences of such actions. No superpower truly wants war with anyone, so i think that any sort of World War can be eliminated from immediate concern. Other than that, countries can protect each other from agression through individual alliances and mutual interests without some overarching and useless body to make baseless resolutions it clearly does not always mean to keep.
I think the UN might have been wrong on that one.
Iraqi war is wrong... as long as there is an alternative.
If the UN really could make Saddam disarm all his weapons, fine. However, this would take really long, and that's why Bush wanted a war so badly. The key point is that the UN didn't recognize Iraq as a big threat. If they had, they may have voted for an invasion.
I think a better example is Afghanistan. It was recognized a threat after 9/11 (duh), and a lot of countries joined in to invade it.
I think the UN should remain, but it should be a bit less biased towards peace, which is not always the right answer (although I think it was for Iraq).
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Personally, I think stating the acts of dictatorships as reasons why UN doesn't work isn't stating good examples, simply for the reason that Dictatorships do not care.
That's clearly not the point. The point isn't that Iraq wasn't doing anything, for that's the be expected. The point is that the UN wasn't going to do anything about it?
You know the possible (likely) chemical weapons factory Coalition troops found? The UN inspectors had been to the city and they hadn't even checked it. A 180 acre facility in camoflogue that has at least the potential to make WMD agents and they didn't even look in the windows. What more do you need to show that inspectors were not the way to go?
There was clearly no other way to go (the inspectors were a stalling attempt from the very beginning, IMO, or at least after the first deadline), but still the UN planned to do nothing.
That is point, not that Iraq didn't comply.
Is it just me or to be a sovereign nation dont the people actually hafta elect their officials?
well, they had an election... and saddam won legitimately getting all 100% of the votes! yeah! legitimate!
Is it just me or to be a sovereign nation dont the people actually hafta elect their officials?
In many sovereign nations people elect solely by party. Then, when a party wins the electoin, the party leader becomes President/State- or Prime Minister. While it results in less political freedom, it has the advantage of knowing educated people elected your leader :p.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
In many sovereign nations people elect solely by party. Then, when a party wins the election, the party leader becomes President/State- or Prime Minister. While it results in less political freedom, it has the advantage of knowing educated people elected your leader :p.
Well, would you rather have random people running that the public new nothing about? Political parties ensure that a qualified and publicly known/exposed canidate is elected. I really don't have a problem with voting straight ticket Republican (when i'm able to vote, that is) because i know i can trust the party to nominate people that have roughly the same views as i do, at least more so than any other canidate that has a chance of winning.
Still, a nation can be "sovereign" without haveing elections, but sovereign simply means that they exercise their own control of what happens inside their country and outside matters dealing with their country.
Well, would you rather have random people running that the public new nothing about? Political parties ensure that a qualified and publicly known/exposed canidate is elected. I really don't have a problem with voting straight ticket Republican (when i'm able to vote, that is) because i know i can trust the party to nominate people that have roughly the same views as i do, at least more so than any other canidate that has a chance of winning.
I guess this topic is hopelessy off-topic, so I'll shoot. I guess this is interesting to you, as you seem heavily into politics.
You make a good assumption, based on the info I gave you, but you're wrong about one thing.
The people running our country are not random, unknown characters. They are "elected" annualy as party leaders in "elections" inside by the members of the party. The public perfectly well knows who the party leader of each political party.
For example: The leader of the SV party in Norway is Kristin Halvorsen. She just got rechosen as Party Leader a couple of months ago.
Also, in a way you can say people have several candidates for each cause, as we have 8 parties instead of 2. This means that if you're a right-wing and didn't like Bush, you could just vote for the other right-wing party (such as the right-wing Norwegian Labour Party instead of the Norwegian Right Wing Party).
You may ask why we choose to sacrifice political freedoms like we do. Well, the advantage I mentioned holds true: The people who choose the State Minister candidates choose them solely on political skills. In peoples' elections, it's been proven (trough surveys) that some people vote based on looks, gender, race, orientation, and so on. This is obviously a minority, but still.
The other obvious advantage is that you don't have to be in the high- or middle-class in order to become State Minister (because for obvious reasons there are no presidental campaigns).
I'm not questioning a 300 years+ old system. The Constitutional Monarchy, however, is almost as old (constitution signed in 1814), which should mean it works just as well.
But how can you get anything done with 8 parties. No one side would have the ability to pass legislation (assuming your "congress" works in similar fashion to the US's). Therefore multiple sides would have to come together to pass anything and every party would want to add or subtract or ammend something, no? Maybe it doesn't work this way in real life, but i just can't imagine anything getting done in a timely fashion unless it was something so basic that no one would object to it. I can just imagine if there were 8 parties in the US senate, with 12 or so for each party, and absolutely nothing would happen. One party could stall all legislation, and it would take so much inbetween work and bartering to get anything even to the floor. Too much chaos for me.
Why not just combine all the right-wing parties and all the left-wing parties? They all want basically the same thing, and people could still hold individual views inside a larger party, but it would be so much easier (it seems to me) to coordinate and implement legislation.
I'm gonna take a stab at this: Tie Guy they aren't like the US in that they vote close to party lines, I think they vote for what they want, because they still represent their parties, but there is more than one liberal and so on, so alliances and such in their parliament probably exist.
As you say though that what the US did was wrong, well, do I need to go tell you what Iraq did wrong? Instead of using a hospital as normal people do, they filled it with soldiers, 3000 chem suits, and had antidote vials for mustard gas. I don't think they have chemical weapons [/sarcasm]
Now for Soverignty: you are right, the definition of soverignty should change, as well as some things at the UN, particularly no more veto power, because in particular, the UN showed that a couple of members don't like something, but the rest do (most of the swing states were eventually for war, but no vote was called because of veto threats) which means things happen which everyone else wants to. Not a great system, IMO.
Originally posted by Tie Guy
But how can you get anything done with 8 parties. No one side would have the ability to pass legislation (assuming your "congress" works in similar fashion to the US's).
I'm guessing it doesn't, though I'm not sure.
The last century, my country has had only minority governments, meaning that the parties in the government had less than 50% of all the mandates, which in turn means they couldn't pass legislation on one damn thing without counseling the opposing side.
Did we get anything done? Yes. More laws have been passed compared to your country. They're forced to cooperate, and thus forced to represent the entire political spectrum in my country.
So yes, we did get things done, in fact, more than your government. Then again, most of all the parties here are interested in preserving the welfare state so it makes things go a bit more smoothly. But we also have our fair share of rabid nationalists and communists (though they're in moderation compared to certain other countries).
Originally posted by Heavyarms
Now for Soverignty: you are right, the definition of soverignty should change, as well as some things at the UN, particularly no more veto power, because in particular, the UN showed that a couple of members don't like something, but the rest do (most of the swing states were eventually for war, but no vote was called because of veto threats) which means things happen which everyone else wants to. Not a great system, IMO.
Ahem.
Again, lets bring up the facts for a change.
Your country has used its veto power over 70 times since WW2. France, which you claim stops UN decision making in its tracks, have used it 6 times.
38 times USA has used its veto power to prevent intervention against Israel's breaking of UN resolutions.
Say again?
Americans do things their own way. (
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/blankley.htm) )
The Irish do things their way. (
http://www.liebreich.com/LDC/HTML/Opinion/TimCollins.html)
Happily, rumours of growing pessimism have been proved wrong. (
http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/pt_the_war_on_iraq.html)
And if all else fails, you can always make your own UN, now that the old has been rendered defunct. (
http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/us_forms_own_un.html)
Myself, I like soveriegn nations. But that doen't mean I agree with a given war.
yeah, but I'm ready to give up that power, that power brought around as much hate against the Americans. Oh, it didn't? Let's see... France,Russia,Germany, and China were the main 4 nations against the war, and might have been the only 4. The US, Spain, and GB had enough votes to win support for war, except they were afraid of a veto. If a vote had been won, there wouldn't be protesters. I think Bush would give up some power, I don't think he is on a power trip with the presidency. (enter c'jais to try to prove to me the president is on a power trip.)
They would not be able to get the 9 votes they needed, and that is why they didn't bother to start the voting. There are many more countries opposing the war, and all over Europe, the people are opposing the war.
BTW, Russia, China and Germany were the three countries who suffered most from WW2.
yeah, so I guess what I hear in the US from the media is complete and utter Bullsh*t, isn't it? I was told we were only one vote away. Ya know, I could be wrong, maybe you have heard different.
Originally posted by Heavyarms
I was told we were only one vote away. Ya know, I could be wrong, maybe you have heard different.
You were one vote away because you bullied, threatened and bought the loyalty of many security council members.
I guess the US media didn't tell you this either.
that's funny, c'jais, I didn't know you tapped the presiden't phone line. I don't know how you got that load of BS.
Originally posted by Heavyarms
that's funny, c'jais, I didn't know you tapped the presiden't phone line. I don't know how you got that load of BS.
Through the European media, perhaps?
And please drop that hostile attitude right now.
So I guess Cnn and Sky News are now just lying political tools, huh, C'Jais?
And don't tell me ever to lose my attitude.
@ Qui-Gon
Japan
@ Heavyarms
I ask you to do 2 things, take the chip off your shoulder, and take a deep breath, getting an attitude about it only weakens your arguments, I should know this one from experience.
@ Discussion
I'm personnally done debating over the war with Iraq. It's already happening, vote or no. Yes the US most-likely was "persuading" countries to vote pro-war, but the even if it did pass the veto most likely would have come. But the time was right, so the coalition went in. All you can do now is support the quick end of a dictatorship, and help clean up afterwards.
On the cleaning up note, after the war has already been fought France has agreed to take the lucrative rebuilding contracts in Iraq fo itself to help out.
They're a huge help offering to take care of the big-money deals that offer maximum profit with little input into the war effort.
But how can you get anything done with 8 parties.
Yes, actually a lot gets done with 8 parties, although I agree, it should be more like 3 or 4 parties, not necessarily 8?
Heavyarms (I think) is right in assuming that our parties ally and cooperate.
So I guess Cnn and Sky News are now just lying political tools, huh, C'Jais?
11News and at least one other channel which name I have now forgotten are biased. This is a fact.
Now with that out of the way, let's get back on topic.
Originally posted by Artoo
@ Qui-Gon
Japan
Japan didn't lose nearly as much as the countries I listed.
German losses: 3-5 million soilders, 2-4 million civillians.
Chinese losses: 1,3 million soilders, 10 million civillians
And on top of the list: Russian losses: 7 million soilders, 7-13 million civillians
Behind these three countries comes Poland, with 350 000 military losses and 5-6 million civillian losses.
Then comes Jugoslavia with 400 000 ML and 1.0-1.4 CL
Then comes Japan, 1.0-1.3 ML, 300,000 CL
Then comes Romania, with 520,000 ML and 465,000 CL
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
11News and at least one other channel which name I have now forgotten are biased. This is a fact.
Were you thinking about Fox News too? Don't know what 11News is, but Fox News are not to be trusted, as they are buddies with Bush and extremely biased.
Nice double-post BTW.
Anyway you thing CNN and can be trusted? They are in cohorts with the liberals and extremely biased.
If you thought the above statement was ridiculous, you now know how I felt about your statement about FoxNews. FoxNews is targeting a republican audience, the audience that until it had no news that gave things a conservative slant. They are merely doing the same thing as CNN except CNN gives theirs a liberal slant.
There is not a news station out there that does not put it's spin on what's happening, it's what makes it worth watching, they are competing for a thing called ratings ya know. So if you want the facts, watch both and divide the opinions down the middle.
Personally my heroes are Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Shepard Smith, but to each his own as the slogan goes.
Also now I have reason for people not to riot peacefully demosntrate in America at least. It's a threat to the nation. Police forces are having to detain people who get out of hand in the riots instead of devoting themselves to looking for terror threats.
Any opinion on that?
Personally, my opinion is that CNN is actually pretty Bush-friendly. FoxNews, however, is little more than Republican and Bush-supporting propaganda. I went to their website, and it's at least as bad as I thought, if not worse. Each single article supports the war, none of them critizise it, and they make a very false view of stuff. I mean, FoxNews even have their own show where a guy goes and talks crap about Germany and France. That is extremely childish, to bash them just because they don't agree with you.
Nearly all of the France-bashers here doesn't know anything about their opinions anyway. For your information, they aren't directly anti-war, they just think the UN inspectors should be able to continue their work on disarming Saddam, as the weapon inspectors asked for themselves. Now, after 12 years, the working on disarming Saddam is finally getting results, but then US comes and ruins it all.
Although u must admit, it was thanks to US pressure that the whole disarming thing started.
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Personally, my opinion is that CNN is actually pretty Bush-friendly. FoxNews, however, is little more than Republican and Bush-supporting propaganda. I went to their website, and it's at least as bad as I thought, if not worse. Each single article supports the war, none of them critizise it, and they make a very false view of stuff. I mean, FoxNews even have their own show where a guy goes and talks crap about Germany and France. That is extremely childish, to bash them just because they don't agree with you.
I suppose you are talking about Bill O'Reilly. He's not even a Republican, he's a registered independent.
Oh, and i've heard plenty of reports, from FoxNews, CNN, and others that the news in France, for instance, has almost nothing but anti-war stories, and that is coming from reporters in France. A BBC reporter even admited and chastised the BBC for putting an extreme anti-war slant on one of his reports. Maybe you don't want to trust American news stations, but i'm willing to bet it's mostly because you are only watching European news stations. It certainly works in reverse for my case.
Nearly all of the France-bashers here doesn't know anything about their opinions anyway. For your information, they aren't directly anti-war, they just think the UN inspectors should be able to continue their work on disarming Saddam, as the weapon inspectors asked for themselves. Now, after 12 years, the working on disarming Saddam is finally getting results, but then US comes and ruins it all.
Like CDog said, the US made the progress happen. The inspectors were getting nowhere until 280,000 coalition troops entered the area. Coincidence? I think not. It was all just a time game, a delay tactic, he wasn't really giving up anything major at all.
Now, after 12 years, the working on disarming Saddam is finally getting results, but then US comes and ruins it all.
Yeah, um... they did have twelve years, right? And the US put the pressure to try to get him out, but it was just one big delay tactic, anyone will tell you that.
Originally posted by Tie Guy
Oh, and i've heard plenty of reports, from FoxNews, CNN, and others that the news in France, for instance, has almost nothing but anti-war stories, and that is coming from reporters in France. A BBC reporter even admited and chastised the BBC for putting an extreme anti-war slant on one of his reports. Maybe you don't want to trust American news stations, but i'm willing to bet it's mostly because you are only watching European news stations. It certainly works in reverse for my case.
But the difference between USA and Europe is that USA is one nation, Europe is lots of nations, and therefore loads of different news channels, so there is few here who watches very much BBC, and no one are watching French news channels. And if you absolutly want to know, our goverment has not taken any real stand in the Iraq-case, but they won't support in the war unless approved by UN. So I guess the gov's pretty neutral. Anyway, there are two main tv channels, NRK and Tv2. Tv2 is pretty neutral in the case, while NRK is slightly more Bush-supporting. Of course, I also read the papers. You have BT, wich is a tiny bit against war, but not much. Then there is VG, wich is much more positive to Bush and war. And also Dagbladet, wich I don't really know.
Like CDog said, the US made the progress happen. The inspectors were getting nowhere until 280,000 coalition troops entered the area. Coincidence? I think not. It was all just a time game, a delay tactic, he wasn't really giving up anything major at all.
It was partly because of the military pressure. But the inspections were getting somewhere, Blix said so himself. He also said that it wasn't any minor weapons that had been destroyed.
Anyway, now UNICEF have reported that 100,000 children below 5 years are in danger of dying of malnutrition, diarrhea and dehydration in Basra because the fights have cut the power and the water supplies. Wich proves my point about civillians doesn't die of bombs in wars, but of other things.
@ Qui-Gon
Hmmmmm, I see what you mean about bashing something that doesn't agree with you. (FoxNews)
And you say nearly all don't know why they have their opinions, well I know why I have mine, and I've stated it already in other threads as much as you'd like to think me ignorant, I'm not.
Also as previously stated, 11 years... nothing was found, all of a sudden he has pressure put on him by the Coalition, and a few small things start to appear. Hmmmmmmmm... why didn't they appear before I ask you.
Also if you think the UN inspectors were doing a good job, no less than 3 days ago, Coalition forces captured a "supposed" chemical weapons facility in southern Iraq. If they were doing such a good job, why didn't the inspectors find in 12 years what the Coalition forces took merely a week to get to.
And guess what the first thing coalition forces are doing when they get into areas like that? They are handing out food, water, and supplies to the needy. The first person treated on the battlefield in the first battlefield hospital was an Iraqi soldier for crying out loud, this is unheard of. If children are dying it is because of the Saddam regime, not because of what the Coalition is doing.
@ Debate
Have you heard of what is on the front page of both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times? Front page articles talking about the horrors of the war. How the US troops are encountering fierce resistance. And also the Los Angeles Times printed an interview they had with a Saddam appointed translator in the city, how the war is sooo horrible, and things are sooo bad, and you know what was in the background of her picture? Coalition forces handing out supplies with people flocking to them.
They might as well have had an interview with the Saddam propaganda machine itself, can we at least sell them the space instead of letting them spread their propaganda for free?
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
It was partly because of the military pressure. But the inspections were getting somewhere, Blix said so himself. He also said that it wasn't any minor weapons that had been destroyed.
Can you really expect anyone to admit their own futility? Especially when Blix was the one being fooled and led around. Of course he thought the inspections were working, because he has an inate desire to validate his own existance and job. If the inspections fail, he fails, and he doesn't want that. Plus, he's clearly an anti-war advocate, he's said so many times in numerous interviews. Can you really expect a unbiased opinion out of him, especially on such a subjective matter?
Looks at profile...
Don't bad mouth Uncle Rupert! ;)