1. Cubans aren't just commies. Drop the stereotypes NOW.
There's a reason why I used the "s. I know they aren't all communists.
The suggestion (from the French Ambassador to the UN for instance) to "wait until we have proof" is really the same thing as saying "don't do anything ever." This is appeasement.No.
If they didn't search for WMDs, that'd be appeasement. But they searched for it, and many of the ones they found, they made Saddam destroy.
The only two things I heard in the news about inspectors was stuff like "1 missile found and destroyed" and "no missiles in X city." Never "Saddam refuses to destroy the three missiles found in a bike workshop".
Originally posted by Wilhuf
If by "we" you mean the French representation to the UN, it was by sitting by and doing NOTHING while in Iraq, THOUSANDS died, and THOUSANDS more languished in illegal, unjust imprisonment, many subject to continual TORTURE.
...while thousands of Americans have died due to firearms because the Bush administration has failed to concentrate about other things than destruction and revenge.
And if your idea of "nothing" is to step up weapon inspections in Iraq, maintain an international pressure to make Saddam disarm peacefully, and try to maintain a stabile world with negotiations, then they are doing nothing.
Oh, and BTW, you hear a lot of these torture chambers, but you never see them. Why is that, do you think?
The suggestion (from the French Ambassador to the UN for instance) to "wait until we have proof" is really the same thing as saying "don't do anything ever." This is appeasement.
If everyone in the world would rush to war like the Bush administration does, have you then any idea of how many (unnessisary) wars there would be? I must say that Bush is not doing a good impression for other countries.
Just because it is difficult and perilous does not mean that Freedom and Democracy should not be stood up for.
Yeah, we see how much "freedom and democracy" the Iraqis have gotten :rolleyes: .
2. Cuban nationals SHOULD have the same human rights as Americans. Unfortunately they DONT enjoy them in their own country because of the Castro government and CP. The US, because of this, has enacted a series of economic embargoes against Cuba for the past four decades.
Oh, most of them are all fine. Even more of them would be fine if the economic embargoes were dropped. Do you really think damaging their economy is a good way of being nice to Cuba?
3. The Cuban representation on the UN Security Council has between little to nothing to do with representation of the actual will of the Cuban people. The same is true for Libya.
And the rest of the world countries.
People must learn that a country and it's goverment are two VERY different things.
Exactly. And the US recommendation was driven by the Iraqi statments that UN inspectors' "security could no longer be guaranteed." That is diplomatic parlance for "get out or we'll kill you!"
Wrong. The day after the inspectors were pulled out, USA did massive bombing at Iraq. There is no doubt that this was the reason of why they were pulled out.
Originally posted by Wilhuf
BTW a US veto on the security council is a GREAT thing, given that countries such as LIBYA and CUBA are on the HUMAN RIGHTS Committee
Yes the taste of power is sweet, and thankfully the US uses that sweet power to promote FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. :)
None of those countries with the right to veto is a GREAT thing. Some of the countries are using their veto powers for the wrong reasons, some more than others (with the US most likely abusing it the most, with its outrageous 73 times since 1990).
And if you really believe that the US is only using its veto to promote freedom and democracy, then perhaps it is you who should "stick its head out of the sand", "face reality" and look at the facts. :rolleyes:
For example: In early december 2002, the US vetoed a resolution condemning violence in the Middle East, specifically the killing of U.N. employees by Israeli soldiers and the destruction of a U.N. warehouse filled with food for needy Palestinians.
Of course it's not only the US who is misusing its power to veto, but to assume that the US is using it to only promote freedom and democracy is plain out ignorant or just VERY naieve. :(
It's the pinnacle of ignorance and naivete to spout on about "human rights" and not ACT to protect them.
And if your idea of "nothing" is to step up weapon inspections in Iraq, maintain an international pressure to make Saddam disarm peacefully, and try to maintain a stabile world with negotiations, then they are doing nothing.
This is the course the UN followed for 14 years from 1991 up until 2003. Essentially it amounted to nothing, since it failed to gain Iraqi disarmament and cooperation. It is an irrefutable fact that Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector of the much-vaunted UN himself said that Iraq was NOT fully co-operating with inspection teams.
Originally posted by Wilhuf
It's the pinnacle of ignorance and naivete to spout on about "human rights" and not ACT to protect them.
Exactly! This has been exactly what the US has done many times with its abuse of its veto power since 1990. The Security Council made numerous resolutions to step in and act to protect human rights, but the US vetoed many of them (while in the meantime "spouting on about human rights"). Blaah, the hypocracy of it all! Glad we agree on at least one thing.
Yeah, we see how much "freedom and democracy" the Iraqis have gotten
Iraqis have enjoyed more freedom and democracy in the past few weeks than during the entire 30 years of Baath tyranny.
Take the Shiia pilgrimage to Najaf for example. This pilgrimage was BANNED by the Baath Party. For the first time in decades, immediately following the US-led coalition sweep through Iraq, thousands of Iraqi Shiias made this pilgrimage openly. This was possible ONLY because the US and its allies used force to destroy the Hussein regime.
A few UN inspectors wandering about the Iraqi countrside would NOT have brought about a change of this magnitude.
As to the "nonexistent torture chambers," all you have to do is watch TV news or read a newspaper. There are dozens of reports on wrongful Iraqi imprisonments and torture. A cursory glance at the almighty UN's own Comission on Human Rights reports revealed a pattern of widespread violation by Iraq of almost all human rights, including torture. See a sample UNHCHR report on Iraq. (
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/a7ceb0d6cd8b23bd80256820005404cf?Opendocument) The complete list is here (
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/FramePage/Iraq%20En?OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=15&Expand=2) .
Were the Cubans "Fully Cooperative" during the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Were the Russians "Fully cooperative" during the Cold War?
Are the North Koreans "fully cooperative" during the Nuclear Missile Crisis we see today?
Are the Israelis "fully cooperative" when countries try to end violence in the Middle East?
No. Do you go to war against any of those? No.
Essentially it amounted to nothing, since it failed to gain Iraqi disarmament and cooperation.
*Is clueless* What makes you think that? The impression I got was that Saddam destroyed several of the weapons.
Cooperation? I ask again, if it's so important that UN member countries and countries affected by the UN cooperate, why doesn't the US Administration give a damn? If it's so important that treaties are followed, why doesn't the US Administration follow them?
Comic:
Bush has determined that only blatant and total disregard of UN treaties and rules can stop Saddam's blatant and total disregard of UN's treaties and rules
:)
Take the Shiia pilgrimage to Najaf for example. This pilgrimage was BANNED by the Baath Party. For the first time in decades, immediately following the US-led coalition sweep through Iraq, thousands of Iraqi Shiias made this pilgrimage openly. This was possible ONLY because the US and its allies used force to destroy the Hussein regime.
A few UN inspectors wandering about the Iraqi countrside would NOT have brought about a change of this magnitude.
Of course not. But they wouldn't have killed thousands of people, either.
PS: Please stop double-posting and use the EDIT button.
There are probably a lot more things we agree on than disagree on. :) (Star Wars?) But I bet it is off topic.
I think the Iraqi operation was really a first (well, second actually) of its kind. The first real military operation with a real humanitarian agenda. Although one could say that the US-led wars in Kosovo and Bosnia were also humanitarian in nature.
The impression I got was that Saddam destroyed several of the weapons.
Yes Uncle Saddam had a few Al-Samoud missiles destroyed , right before the US operation. But notice the CONTEXT. There were several HUNDRED THOUSAND US SOLDIERS parked right next door, ready to go in. How many missiles did the Iraqis destroy BEFORE the US military buildup in Kuwait? ZERO.
Actually this example is a good demonstration of how the THREAT of force, not ACTUAL force can in fact affect change, up to a point. And it demonstrates vividly how inaction really wont unshackle the oppressed.
If it's so important that treaties are followed, why doesn't the US Administration follow them?
The US does obey international treaties it ratifies. In the case of Operation Iraqi Freedom the US claimed it was following UN resolutions requiring Iraqi disarmament.
BTW in 1991 as part of the cease-fire arrangement between the US and Iraq, Iraq agreed to disarm itself of CBRN and WMD. So, from a "legal" standpoint, the US already had the paper backing it needed.
But they wouldn't have killed thousands of people, either.
If by "they" you mean Pilgrims, I have no idea what you mean. If by "they" you mean Americans, I have to say, the Iraqis, led by the Baath regime would be the ones doing the killing.
As many as 50,000 Shiaas were alleged to have been killed by Iraqi military units during a Shiaa uprising in Basra in the early 1990s. The US sat by and did NOTHING, while Iraqis used helicopter gunships to put down the rebellion, which took place within the Southern No-Fly Zone. This is just plain WRONG.
IMO, the US OWED the Iraqis liberation to somehow try to set right that grave injustice.
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Weapons that blow up church services.
Originally posted by Wilhuf
The anti-Americans here (and you ARE an anti-American) cannot justify their complaints that Iraqi Freedom is of some kind of Imperialist exercise.
I disagree with both of the points you made a half-a@@ attempt at promoting.
First, I find it hard to understand how you can call someone who disagrees with a policy as anti-American. This is obviously an attempt inciting anger, resentment, shame, or some other emotion that those lack critical thinking skills would likely feel. A sad attempt at controlling the psyche of someone in a chat forum...
In fact, dissent and the refusal to settle for the status quo is VERY American. Some of our greatest patriots refused to accept the government's stand on many issues: Rosa Parks, Dr. King, John Brown, Mother Jones, Charles Young, and Chief Seattle to name a very few. I see it as un-American to sit idly by and watch what you consider to be against your convictions of honor and good sense become the norm for your government. At the very least, you should SPEAK OUT.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
Yes, that quote says it nicely.
Originally posted by Wilhuf
Yes the taste of power is sweet, and thankfully the US uses that sweet power to promote FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. :)
As it was promoted in:
[list=a]
Chile - 1973
Where we helped General Pinochet overthrow the democratically elected Salvador Allende. Pinochet's brutal rule eventually was blamed for the deaths of thousands of students, union organizors and other "anti-Chileans."
Guatemala - 1953
Where the U.S. corporate-controlled United Fruit Company was about to be nationalized by the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz. We weren't about to stand for that (loss of economic control of a region). 40 years of death squads and torturers trained by American SpecOps was the outcome after this regime was changed.
Indonesia - 1957
We use disinformation, lies, and blackmail to replace Pres. Sukarno with General Suharto (see a trend of generals here?). Over 1 million are killed in Indonesia and American weapons and training are instrumental in this and the invasion of the sovereign nation of East Timor. The population was perhaps 700,000 before Suharto's forces killed nearly 200,000.
Columbia - now
The U.S. backed the Cali Cartel in order to get rid of Pablo Escobar... seems that Escobar was speaking some 'anti-American' sentiments (perhaps he was a history major as well as a drug dealer) and anti-imperialist rhetoric. We are being overwhelmed by the flow of drugs comming from the Cali Cartel, now fortified and solidified.
[/list=a]
Of course there are many, many more examples: Iran, Afganistan, Cambodia, The Congo, Cuba, El Salvador, Panama, Philippines, etc.
Forgive me if I use precedent to mistrust my government's intentions. Especially when I see evidence of corporate favortism and exclusive corporate contracts. True, the war will cost the American taxpayer a bundle. It already is. But the few at the top of the pyramid will make out like bandits. There are Trillians of dollars (or Euros....) to be made in the Iraqi oil fields. There are billions that can be saved by corporations that have insurances about supply and pricing.
Economic control of the region.
In the 1950's, the Eisenhower doctrine stated, the United States “is prepared to use armed forces to assist” any Middle Eastern country “requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism.” In other words, no one is allowed is to f^ck around in the Middle East or its oil fields except the United States.
I don't think things have changed much. If they have, show me the evidence.
One thing I do find fascinating about your post's Wilhuf, is the condescension that eminates through the text:
1. Cubans aren't just commies. Drop the stereotypes NOW.
A good example. I'm fascinated that you feel the need to command. Your views go lock-step with the right-wing fascist attitudes that get spouted from the mouths of Ari Fleisher and Darth Rumsfeld. The fascists around here (and you ARE a fascist, evidenced by your comments about aggressive nationalism and militarism) simply amuse me. I'm going to have to consider them along with the UFO nuts and Religious Fundamentalists in my quest to answer "why do people believe."
Also:
Originally Posted by: Vagabond Super Moderator
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Weapons that blow up church services.
I see SuperMods aren't above spamming....
None of Skin Walker's comments is really a contribution to the debate. If I were back in my old position as a supermoderator, I'd post a warning about personal attacks (e.g. you, Wilhuf are a fascist). But then if I did would have to forgo the following:
You, SkinWalker, are a hyppocrite. First you complain about "condescenscion" and in typical forum hyppocrite fashion, throw out amateur labels such as "you are a fascist, religious zealout UFO Nut." Unlike you, I find these labels neither amusing nor fascinating. But I do find them small minded. (Well, the UFO Nut part is pretty funny). :beam2:
Skinwalker's comments are appropriate and even representative in a way: it's one thing to talk about the need for pluralism, open-mindedness, world unity, understanding, and the need for all peoples to live as they see fit, free from the dictates of foreigners.
But it is supremely ironic, as I've said, to hear the same individual, when confronted with the need to actually fight, kill, go to war, and to do the unspeakable to uphold those beliefs. It saddens me to see people of conviction positively shrivel when it is time to act. This kind of reaction from people who normally say "o yes I believe in freedom and democracy" to the Liberation of Iraq is utterly dissapointing.
Ok so maybe you've gone to an anti-liberation protest, or even ransacked a Starbucks, but it's strange to see people of such conviction talk about Human Rights and yet, when it comes time to use violence to set right the cruel deeds of a tyrant (Hussein), they just cannot bring themselves to act. It is a total failure to connect one's personal beliefs in freedom and pluralism with the actual real life world, and its requirement for deeds.
BTW the Eisenhower doctrine was a desecndent of the Truman Doctrine, which was born out of a need to contain Soviet Totalitarianism. A cursory look at Stalin-era human rights will make obvious why the Truman and Eisenhower Doctrines were born. Both have minimal relevance in today's post-cold war era. But I do appreciate SkinWalker's half-*ssed pedantry!
On the other hand, I think Vagabond's joke about WMD had far more insight than anything SkinWalker's list of irrelevent history synopses could conjure. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Guffaw!
Nobody here has yet established how ANYTHING short of armed conflict in Iraq to remove the Baath Regime would actually HELP the Iraqi people.
It seems we're in for another debate in the UN about terminating sanctions on Iraq. Apparently the Russians and the French want to keep on punishing the Iraqi people by upholding economic sanctions? Are these countries out to make the Iraqis suffer as much as possible? Or are they really just trying to score 'points' against the US (again)?
Originally posted by Wilhuf
None of Skin Walker's comments is really a contribution to the debate. If I were back in my old position as a supermoderator, I'd post a warning about personal attacks (e.g. you, Wilhuf are a fascist). But then if I did would have to forgo the following:
Personal attacks is something you should be wary about yourself. Your tone is very condescending, and I've seen you refer to other people as ignorant and naive before.
You, SkinWalker, are a hyppocrite. First you complain about "condescenscion" and in typical forum hyppocrite fashion, throw out amateur labels such as "you are a fascist, religious zealout UFO Nut." Unlike you, I find these labels neither amusing nor fascinating. But I do find them small minded. (Well, the UFO Nut part is pretty funny). :)
Read Skinwalkers post again, this time in context to your own. You said: "and you ARE an antiamerican" - Skin just did the exact same to you, in a try to make you see the irony in what you are now saying. In short, he was trying to be funny. If you have the power to call someone in here Antiamerican, we have the power to call you a fascist as well - it goes both ways. Mind you, I don't encourage this behaviour but I'll justify its use when its biting you in the behind.
It's strange to see people of such conviction talk about Human Rights and yet, when it comes time to use violence to set right the cruel deeds of a tyrant (Hussein), they just cannot bring themselves to act. It is a total failure to connect one's personal beliefs in freedom and pluralism with the actual real life world, and its requirement for deeds.
You've set a precedent, that's for sure. Pre-emptives strikes are now encouraged, thanks to you. N. Korea could technically nuke San Fran on account of you threatening their sovereignity and using terrorism against civilians (yes, you've done that).
Just drop this. The UN does act and help oppressed people. If we total the amount of time the US has vetoed against such an action versus the amount of times it has actually helped, you'll be looking like a sore pacifist. And don't forget all the corrupt dictatorships you've not only supported, but helped establish. They are very relevant in this discussion.
Nobody here has yet established how ANYTHING short of armed conflict in Iraq to remove the Baath Regime would actually HELP the Iraqi people.
And you're willing to do the same to every oppressing dictatorship everywhere in the world, right? Start with N. Korea. Remove the kid gloves. Roll in and save the day.
And you're willing to do the same to every oppressing dictatorship everywhere in the world, right? Start with N. Korea. Remove the kid gloves. Roll in and save the day.
That is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Undoubtedly the rest of the world will b*tch and moan, but, in the long run, it is preferable to totalitarnianism.
Just because you agree with skinwalker, c'jais, doesn't mean you need to caution me about tone. You should have cautioned skinwalker first.
My tone is condescending, this thread needs an arrogant voice to present another, apparently unpopular view. Review my posts . I haven't made any personal attacks against forum members. Except SkinWalker, who used direct namecalling. So, I guess I'm just defending myself.
Another question : what kind of mind says "well the US has supported dictatorships in the past, so it really shouldn't remedy the situation?" In other words, just because the US has had relationships with nasty regimes in the past it should NEVER do anything to knock out the bad apples. This is tremendous fallacy!
If the US fell victim to this twisted "reasoning", the US would never have entered World War II.
Originally posted by Wilhuf
That is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Undoubtedly the rest of the world will b*tch and moan, but, in the long run, it is preferable to totalitarnianism.
Good to hear. BTW, my country did support you in the Iraq war, for what it's worth.
Just because you agree with skinwalker, c'jais, doesn't mean you need to caution me about tone. You should have cautioned skinwalker first.
Again, Skin was making a parody on you, but everyone should watch what they say in this heated debate, I agree.
EDIT: silly typo.
OK so when I defend myself, it's condescenscion, and when skinwalker posts personal insults, it's parody. ROGER THAT.
C'jais there were many countries who supported the coalition in Iraq. Even the mighty Uganda!
Pre-emptives strikes are now encouraged, thanks to you.
If by "you", you mean me, it's not my fault! If by "you", you mean the United States, just look at Germany. In 1939 German Blitzkrieg set a precedent for preemptive strikes back when premption wasn't cool! Even World War I had pre-emptive strikes (interlocking international allegances, for example, requiring Germany to preemptively attack France).
Originally posted by Wilhuf
OK so when I defend myself, it's condescenscion, and when skinwalker posts personal insults, it's parody. ROGER THAT.
How can you defend yourself if you're the one who delivered the first attack? A pre-emptive strike, perhaps? ;)
C'jais there were many countries who supported the coalition in Iraq. Even the mighty Uganda!
Oh yeah, but we sent a submarine and a warship!!! :D
A pre-emptive strike, perhaps?
Har har haw. :p
From your clues I am trying to figure out your country of nationality...
Norway?
Originally posted by Wilhuf
That is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Undoubtedly the rest of the world will b*tch and moan, but, in the long run, it is preferable to totalitarnianism.
And after North Korea, you can "deal" with Syria, before taking control over Zimbabwe, and after that China, because they are after all, anti-American communists, and I am sure you can "find" some relationships with Al-Quida there too. After China, you go after Russia for the same reasons as with China, except that you are going to "disarm" Russia. And after that, you take down France and Germany, because since their leaders isn't chosen by USA, the countries are dictatorships. And after that, the eastern European countries because they are communism dictatorships, before taking down Scandinavia, who also are communists and socialists, and then taking down all the countries you don't like in Africa, before occupying UK and then take a final charge against Australia and the southern European countries.
Don't you think?
This is supreme irony. The question crystalizes the justification for the US operation in Iraq. Hussein has killed innocents. THOUSANDS of them. And has occupied other countries (Kuwait, Iran) without any real reason.
So does the Bush administration. Should we attack the USA then? Well, if Europe were thinking like the American goverment does right now, then that would be possible.
OK so when I defend myself, it's condescenscion, and when skinwalker posts personal insults, it's parody. ROGER THAT.
Hehe, this is funny. You call us anti-Americans because we do not agree with your beliefs, and that is defending yourself? And when Skin does the same thing to you to show how dumb it is, then you make more personal attacks than Skin has done in his whole forum time. Makes me glad you aren't a supermod, to be honest.
Originally posted by Wilhuf
From your clues I am trying to figure out your country of nationality...
Norway?
Close.
Move one down, and one to the left. When you reach England, you've gone too far.
You call us anti-Americans because we do not agree with your beliefs, and that is defending yourself?
If your belief is that Americans are ignorant and are imperialists, then yes I do NOT agree, and I do believe it is an anti-American attitude.
Should we attack the USA then?
This kind of thinking IS anti-American.
Move one down, and one to the left
If by "down" and "left" you mean "south" and "east", you run smack into the UK. How about Scottland!
Originally posted by Wilhuf
If by "down" and "left" you mean "south" and "east", you run smack into the UK. How about Scottland!
Well well, it depends on where you start in Norway. Count Sweden as the "down" one.
EDIT: Of course, I wouldn't be dissapointed if you can't find me country. It's a wee small one.
I would be dissapointed though, as I'm a cartographer!
Denmark!
And after North Korea, you can "deal" with Syria, before taking control over Zimbabwe, ... snip ... And after that, you take down France and Germany, because since their leaders isn't chosen by USA, the countries are dictatorships. ..snip...
Is that the kind of thinking that is popular in Europe? No sarcasm intended in this question. Do Europeans truly fear US domination?
Originally posted by Wilhuf
I would be dissapointed though, as I'm a cartographer!
Denmark!
:D
YAY!
Yay! :atat: :atat: :atat: :atpt: :burst1:
Denmark was my first guess actually when I noticed your Scandinavia reference in your tag, but you gave me bad directions! :eets:
Originally posted by Wilhuf
If your belief is that Americans are ignorant and are imperialists, then yes I do NOT agree, and I do believe it is an anti-American attitude.
That is not my beliefs. I disagree with the American foreign politics, and that's all.
This kind of thinking IS anti-American.
1. I do NOT think we should attack the US.
2. Why? Is it anti-Iraqian to think that Iraq should be attacked?
Is that the kind of thinking that is popular in Europe? No sarcasm intended in this question. Do Europeans truly fear US domination?
Not really. But no country in Europe has ever feared Saddam either.
From your clues I am trying to figure out your country of nationality...
Norway?
What's wrong with Norway then? :mad:
If there is no real threat from the US taking over the world, why waste bandwidth complaining about the possibility? :quesyel: This is complaining about America for complaining's sake...
Is it anti-Iraqian to think that Iraq should be attacked?
To a limited extent, yes. After all, destroying the Baath regime would mean that some, even many Iraqis in the Baath regime would have to die. Obviously the US knew that going in, and CENTCOM established measures to minimize Iraqi civillian casualites.
There were a few British citizens who may have feared Iraq, btw. Last I read, five percent of UK citizens approved of the US operation in Iraq :cheers:
I think it was foolish to pretend that Hussein wasn't really a problem. And it was even more foolish to do nothing about it. That seems to be a core difference of opinion at the UN.
Equally foolish is the failure of this forum to recognize the French and Russian economic interest in preventing US intervention in Iraq. You must realize the French and Russians had $BILLIONS invested in the Iraqi food for oil program.
While many complain that the US conducted operation Iraqi Freedom in order to profit (which basic accounting disproved), they failed to recognize how much the Russians and French had to GAIN by maintaining the status quo by blocking intervention through the UN. The UN is just another TOOL which countries use to advance their own national interests. The US is not the only party involved in this game.
First, Wilhuf, I've no interest in mounting any attacks against others here in this forum, pre-emptive or retaliatory. I merely wanted to point out the problem with making statements of "anti-Americanism" based on the position one takes in the matter of one United States policy. I (and others here) are decidedly very much behind many of the US policies and against some others.
My main point with my poor attempt at irony was that one cannot judge based upon limited information. I don't actually believe you to be a fascist.
Second, one thing that I notice about Americans is that when most people display the flag, they do so as hard working truck drivers, waitresses, construction workers and the like. To them, this is a good part of what the flag represents. To others of the world, however, our flag represents the things I pointed out in my previous post.
This is why I think how we do things in the world is just as, or more, important than why.
I don't disagree that Saddam was brutal and needed to be removed for the sake of the Iraqi people. But I also think that we cannot ignore the precedent that the action creates. If we don't take action in the future against poor rulers, then we look hypocritical. If we do, we look like a bully. This is why I think the WMD question was more of a justification than an actual reason. I think that by catagorizing the brutality and evil deeds that Saddam conducted, we might have been able to rally support of the world's public in an outcry that the UN could not ignore.
How many people know of the plight of the Marsh Arabs, for example? Saddam drained the wetlands that provided their way of life and mounted helicopter attacks against the people on a regular basis to drive them out. He didn't like them, because he couldn't control them.
Instead, the rest of the world sees the Halliburton scandal, Bush's heavy hand, callous disregard for UN decisions, etc., etc.
I don't think any of the people in this forum who are critical of the way the Bush admin handled the Iraqi crisis believe for a minute that Saddam deserved to stay in power. But you have to admit, the Bush admin has made a few public relations blunders in the past two years in regard to world opinion.
World opinion is vital. The way the world views our country is important for every American traveling abroad. It is largely what fuels the terrorist mandates against the U.S.
Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease.
Oh yeah, but we sent a submarine and a warship!!!
Denmark has a warship:eek:?? What'll the next thing be, that Sweden has an army?
If by "you", you mean me, it's not my fault! If by "you", you mean the United States, just look at Germany. In 1939 German Blitzkrieg set a precedent for preemptive strikes back when premption wasn't cool! Even World War I had pre-emptive strikes (interlocking international allegances, for example, requiring Germany to preemptively attack France).
I don' think anyone pre-emptively attack anyone toady thanks to Nazi-Germany.
What he meant was that according to global rules since WW II, Pre-emptive strikes have been banned. Now that the US has done it, others can do it to, as in "starting to do it again". If Syria finds a legal loophole and invades Israel pre-emptively, that's okay to you?
But they wouldn't have killed thousands of people, either.
If by "they" you mean Pilgrims, I have no idea what you mean. If by "they" you mean Americans, I have to say, the Iraqis, led by the Baath regime would be the ones doing the killing.
What I meant was that no, of course the UN weapon inspectors would never have toppled Saddam's regime. You're right at that. But freeing Iraq was not their intention in the first place, so you can't say their mission was unsuccessful because of that.
To re-phrase.
The Weapon Inspectors didn't free Iraq, but they [the Weapon inspectors] never killed thousands of Iraqis, either.
There were a few British citizens who may have feared Iraq, btw. Last I read, five percent of UK citizens approved of the US operation in Iraq
Hardly out of fear. The Iraqis don't have missiles that can hit the UK, and if they were to try to invade the UK, they'd fail miserably. They *might* try terrorism, but increased security could ward off terrorism.
we cannot ignore the precedent that the action creates. If we don't take action in the future against poor rulers, then we look hypocritical. If we do, we look like a bully. This is why I think the WMD question was more of a justification than an actual reason. I think that by catagorizing the brutality and evil deeds that Saddam conducted, we might have been able to rally support of the world's public in an outcry that the UN could not ignore.
I agree 100 percent.
I hope I've made it clear why I support operation Iraqi Freedom. The justification is the end of the Baath regime and its tyranny, plain and simple. I wish it were only so easy for the US to approach the UN and say : hey, Iraq has a horrible human rights record, the time to act is now.
Unfortunately that is not the way the UN works. As you've outlined, the UN meets this kind of thinking with great skepticism. "Why should we, the UN, whose very members represent countries whose governments are atricious violators of human rights, do anything to support this precedent? The UN can't just intervene every time some local despot cracks a few skulls." I just don't see the UN lining up to rally against one of its own. I wish they would, but they don't. (Let us not forget for example how our European Allies did not want to intervene in Bosnia in the early 1990s because of Human Rights.)
Clearly the US had to use WMD as a reason for wiping Saddam. A precedent was already established in 1991 as part of the cease-fire. Besides, at the UN, Human Rights violations really aren't sufficient grounds for intervention. Although they SHOULD be.
In the case of Iraqi Freedom, the ends DO justify the means, even if no great stockpiles of CBRN are found. (Although as I've demonstrated earlier, Iraq does have a CBRN capability.)
Actually the message the US has sent is a good one : fly straight and narrow, or you're next. The era of the US turning the other way while civillians suffer is coming to a close.
Originally posted by Wilhuf
Actually the message the US has sent is a good one : fly straight and narrow, or you're next. The era of the US turning the other way while civillians suffer is coming to a close.
In a way, I hope you're right.
Do you believe the humanitarian reasons was the justification used by the Bush administration all along? They didn't start using it until the very end, you know.
Now humanitarian aid is important to Bush?
Then why doesn't the States give more in financial aid to other countries? There's some percentage number estabilishing how much a country should give in humanitarian aid. The USA is still below that percentage.
If humanitarianism (is that a word?;)) matters so much to Bush, why doesn't he give more money to developing countries?
The US was the number one donor of financial aid to Afghanistan before September 11th. But that didn't stop Usama Bin Laden (a very wealthy Saudi) from launching terror attacks from Afghanistan. Nor did it stop the Taliban from giving Al-Qa'ida safe harbor. Financial aid only goes so far to combat terror.
Besides, why should the US pay tribute to petty dictators like Saddam Hussein?
The US did bring up the Baath human rights record, but certainly could have made it a more prominent centerpiece in their case at the UN.
As I said, I doubt the UN particularly cared enough to actually take out the Hussein leadership because of their human rights record.
The US was the number one donor of financial aid to Afghanistan before September 11th. But that didn't stop Usama Bin Laden (a very wealthy Saudi) from launching terror attacks from Afghanistan. Nor did it stop the Taliban from giving Al-Qa'ida safe harbor. Financial aid only goes so far to combat terror.
Besides, why should the US pay tribute to petty dictators like Saddam Hussein?
You got me wrong here. I'm talking about humanitarian aid in general, such as fighting HIV in other countries, for example. You do realize that you could probably save as many lives that way as you claim to be saving in Iraq?
Let's say 1000 people die a month under Saddam. So if your argument to invade Iraq is that youo save 1000 people per month, why don't you just give aid to Ethiopia and save 1000+ people per month?
You still save 1000 lives per month, but without killing anyone. But then again, most people are convinced humanitarian reasons were not the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq (neither was WMDs, most likely, as Bush should have figured Saddam didn't have too many of them).
Originally posted by Wilhuf
The US was the number one donor of financial aid to Afghanistan before September 11th. But that didn't stop Usama Bin Laden (a very wealthy Saudi) from launching terror attacks from Afghanistan. Nor did it stop the Taliban from giving Al-Qa'ida safe harbor. Financial aid only goes so far to combat terror.
Besides, why should the US pay tribute to petty dictators like Saddam Hussein?
We were never talking about giving money to dictators and bad regimes. But refugees and people who are starving, or people dying of diseases due to dirty drinking water, they need help, don't you think?
BTW, USA has to increase their foreign aid by seven times to reach the UN target.
USA has to increase their foreign aid by seven times to reach the UN target.
That's what I'm saying. My point, again, is that if the USA took the money they spent on invading Iraq and spent it on humanitarian aid to developing nations, they'd save far more lives and not even kill anyone.
Which they didn't, which rules out humanitarianism (if that's a word:rolleyes:) as the primary reason for invading Iraq.
So the reasons are:
WMDs: Which he didn't have. Invalid statement.
Humanitarian aid: Which could be applied to other countries instead of Iraq, and a lot easier too. I guess the reparation costs ($80 billions?) could have saved, what, houndreds of thousands from starvation by planting crops, digging canals and wells for water supply, and building hospitals and schools to make the inhabitants self-sufficient. Courtesy of GWB, with no foreign protests.
Arresting or killing Saddam: Which is hardly a reason for going to war. If a desperado is holed up in a saloon with 40 people and you know 10 of them are going to get killed when you storm the saloon, will you still do it, or try to come up with an alternative solution?
Democracy: But this, neither, was the main reason, was it? This, however, comes the closest to being a good reason for an invasion.
Other reasons (oil, revenge, etc.): These are, to me, conspiracy theories and don't hold true.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Democracy: But this, neither, was the main reason, was it? This, however, comes the closest to being a good reason for an invasion.
But is it fair to invade another country only because they have another ruling system than your own? Even dictatorship has its good sides. It isn't fair to occupy another country because you don't like the way they are ruled in this country.
I said it was ALMOST a reason to invade, not an actual reason.
We need more pro-war people in these forums. This debate is like "5 posts against war, 1 for war, 5 posts bashing the 1 post for war, then 2 more against war, 1 more for war...":)
Hey, I'm for war. But I don't see much use in the debate.
Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. We do it because we can, and because no one can stop us. I can't really articulate that statement into 5 different essay replies, so I don't try.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Other reasons (oil, revenge, etc.): These are, to me, conspiracy theories and don't hold true.
I think that Oil is the simple reason. I didn't used to believe that, and if you look at some post I made back in February, I discounted it as a reason. Then I started looking into how the oil industry works. Then I started looking into past conflicts and disputes over oil. Then I started to understand how serious the governments, NGO's and transnational corporations see oil. Oil is more than just the crap that makes our cars go.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I said it was ALMOST a reason to invade, not an actual reason.
I know that, I just commented other's belief about democracy being an actual reason.
We need more pro-war people in these forums. This debate is like "5 posts against war, 1 for war, 5 posts bashing the 1 post for war, then 2 more against war, 1 more for war..."
I agree, we should get TheHobGoblin, Father Tourqe and CagedCrado in here, those would make the debate so much more fun.
Well it's been 11 weeks and no WMD.
Blair sighted as late as 72 hours before the war that Sadam could launch his WMD within 45 minutes. But now says they believe this info was wrong. Duh.
George Tenet CIA Director admits now they had no proof and were going on good "faith" from their international sources. Which they now admit were uh............. wrong.
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says all WMD were destroyed by the Iraqis on the eve of the war. Anybody got the balls to say they believe this idiot?
Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfelds step & fetch boy admitted on TV this week the only reason they pushed they WMD issue was because they needed a "good war banner" to inspire people.
I sure hope these fools at least, criminals at worst pay for this disaster.
Why do all the pro-war people diss the United Nations for not wanting to invade Iraq anyway? The United Nations were formed after World War II to promote peace, not "wars of liberation". The world was devastated by the destruction the 5-years global war had caused, and wanted an organization that could aqcuire peace by cooperation. Not by bullying of allies, violation of the unwritten freedom of speech laws, and general bashing of allies.
US Pro war: We want a war, for these reasons *lists reasons*
Anti-war: *Read reasons* We disagree, and these are our reasons. *Lists reasons*
US Pro-war: *Without reading AW's reasons* PANSIES!! *general bashing and totally wrong analogies, ie. 'we helped you during WW2 so you do as we tell you to'*
Sigh.
Not finding any weapons still don't mean nuthin. If Twinkies were the current evil, we would use that excuse to attack another country. As it is now, we just replaced "communist" with "terrorist" as our current evil. WMD are bad in the terrorism sense, so that was our excuse. Do you think we could just say "because we want to"? Greed is unbecoming, so admitting to it as our reason to impose our will on others just isn't going to happen.
And the rest of the world can remember the truth for twenty generations, but no one in the States will give a sh*t. They can rub it in our face with one hand while the other hand continues to accept our money and achievements, and pray they aren't next.
If it was so terrible, such a wrongful act, then when can I expect the righteous retribution? What's that? Never? Ok, just let me pencil that in my day planner, "app: Country to defy the U.S. at Never o'clock, on the 10th day of Never, 200Never".
Sure, it sucks. I would empathize, but I have trouble with that considering I'm an American. Kinda hard to be mad at myself because I live in a country who follows the foriegn policy of "Do whatever the hell I want".
Is it right? Who knows? I'd say it's right for me, but it really isn't much of a factor in my life. It would be a factor if I lived in Iraq, but we've already covered my geographic location. So as it stands, it's just a passing news fad, maybe in five years I can watch informational war shows on the History Channel, or from here on out to eternity I can have it thrown in my face anytime I have a discussion with someone who resides in another country.
If it was so terrible, such a wrongful act, then when can I expect the righteous retribution? What's that? Never? Ok, just let me pencil that in my day planner, "app: Country to defy the U.S. at Never o'clock, on the 10th day of Never, 200Never".
Hmm, the problem is that the rest of the world cannot do that. Sadly.
Sure, it sucks. I would empathize, but I have trouble with that considering I'm an American. Kinda hard to be mad at myself because I live in a country who follows the foriegn policy of "Do whatever the hell I want".
Why would you be mad at yourself? Unless you stereotype, you can't say all Americans are pro-war.
Is it right? Who knows? I'd say it's right for me, but it really isn't much of a factor in my life. It would be a factor if I lived in Iraq, but we've already covered my geographic location. So as it stands, it's just a passing news fad, maybe in five years I can watch informational war shows on the History Channel, or from here on out to eternity I can have it thrown in my face anytime I have a discussion with someone who resides in another country.
There are going to be discussions on it in USA to, believe me. I've been trough dozens.
Well it's been over a year since I started this thread.
Plenty enough time to find something. Can anybody site a single report of a WMD?
I swear you can hear a pin drop.
Well, Wilhuf and I had debated this topic privately before the U.S. invasion, and he's a good friend of mine. But on this topic we strongly disagree.
While I did agree at the time that Saddam was someone who the world could do without, it was the reckless way in which the lead-up to the invasion was carried that I so strongly objected to. Specifically:
1. That Bush had plans to invade Iraq before the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
2. That Bush's arrogance and lack of diplomacy toward our allies and the U.N. alienated the U.S. around the world.
3. That Bush unilaterally decided to invade before the weapons inspectors had completed their search for WMD.
4. That Bush did not invade Iraq with the overwhelming force needed, not only to conquer the Iraqi military, but to maintain security.
The concerns I voiced before the invasion were:
1. If no WMD are found, there will be an outcry of illegitimacy, that the U.S. illegally overthrew the government of a sovereign nation that posed no immediate threat to either the U.S., any of its allies, or any of Iraq's neighbors. This came to pass.
2. That the U.S. would find itself essentially going it alone in Iraq, with very little help from the rest of the world. This came to pass.
3. That the U.S. would find itself fighting a Vietname-style guerilla war, with no easy exit strategy. Thus far, this too has come to pass.
I know my comments may appear to some as hindsight, but this are the very concerns I pointed out prior to the invasion.
There was a right way to do this, and a wrong way. The best analogy I can think of is this: suppose you needed money from the bank to remodel your house. The right way would be to go to the bank, take the time to fill out all the paperwork, and obtain a loan. The wrong way is to march into the bank and shove a shotgun up the teller's nose and tell them to fill up a bag with cash from the vault - this is essentially what Bush did - do things the wrong way. And now that he's found himself in a mess in his remodeling project, he just can't seem to understand why no one from the bank will come over and help him out. Bush just seems to lack any social awareness. Leaders of nations are no different than anyone else - if you don't possess the interpersonal skills treat people respectfully, then those people aren't going to lift a finger to help you. Rather, they're going to enjoy sitting back and watching you fail, which is exactly what I would be doing were I the leader of one of the nations that Bush has alienated the U.S. from.
To make matters worse, now that Bush hasn't found any WMD in Iraq, his transparently obvious contingency plan was to try to make a vaporous connection between Iraq and Bin Laden, has been shown to not be true. Which leaves Bush with the only justification being that Sadam was a bad guy that needed to go. That's it. If we were just going to start invading countries with bad guys, I can think of more worthy candidates than some 3rd-rate dictator without WMD.
And as a result of all these events, particularly all of Bush's excuses for the reasons he invaded Iraq, and his failure to accept any of the responsibility for the rush to war, Bush's administration has virtually zero credibility with the rest of the world.
And sadly, the U.S., which once was perhaps viewed as more an ideal of democracy, success, and freedom around the world, is now loathed as the American Empire, invader and occupier, and hypocrite that holds other nations accountable to laws that it ignores. Bush has strongly lead the U.S. in the wrong direction.
Originally posted by Breton
If they do not find any WoMDs in Iraq, Bush has made war on false reasons, he has also lied to his people and to the whole world. If there is no WoMDs in Iraq, the only right thing for Bush to do would be to resign. The CIA, Clinton (who most of you democrats voted for) and many other people, TOLD Bush that Saddam had WMDs, bush didnt lie to anything, if anything, he was lied to. Bush acted on perhaps false information, but how was he to know it was false? and besides, they have already found weapons that were illegal to have according to the UN.