Electoral Member
Posts: 405 
April 9th, 2008, 03:03 PM
The War on Terrorism
Breaking the Silence
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...35028345509000
The War on Terrorism
Breaking the Silence
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...35028345509000
House Member
Posts: 3,381 
April 9th, 2008, 03:44 PM
I believe in Sovereignty over the UN. I never voted to give China a veto in world law did you?
Now if you think the US is doing a piss-poor job of world police, I agree. But until someone else steps up to the job, then Im not gonna piss on their cereal for stomping out some tyrants.
How to make a better world.
Step 1.) Disolve UN
Step 2.) Create new UN, restricted to democracies, mandate that one cannot recognize nor trade with non-member countries.
Step 3.) Systematically force the worst dictatorship (by vote) in the world into a democracy or die trying with mandatory commitments from all members. Doesn't need to be warfare, outright bribery of the old regime to stand down works too.
High in the Sky idealism I know. But seeing as real politik means that won't happen, I'll settle for what we have.
Quoting MikeyDB
I fully support anyone who wants to try bombing the USA to go for it, and see what happens. I also fully support whatever response is then doled out to that nation, hell, I'd support helping.
Zzarchov
And when the United States behaves like the aggressor do you support bombing the United States? You're notion seems to be that the U.S. has the authority of the "World Police" to regulate anyone anywherere any time they choose!
You see "through a glass darkly" when it comes to the history of American backed revolutions and weapons proliferation across this planet. You believe even though the stated reasons why the U.S. invaded Iraq proved to be false that some right exists for the United States of Universal Morality to intercede...based on what?
We're about to lock horns here Zzarchov and I'll advise you to get your game together.
And when the United States behaves like the aggressor do you support bombing the United States? You're notion seems to be that the U.S. has the authority of the "World Police" to regulate anyone anywherere any time they choose!
You see "through a glass darkly" when it comes to the history of American backed revolutions and weapons proliferation across this planet. You believe even though the stated reasons why the U.S. invaded Iraq proved to be false that some right exists for the United States of Universal Morality to intercede...based on what?
We're about to lock horns here Zzarchov and I'll advise you to get your game together.
I believe in Sovereignty over the UN. I never voted to give China a veto in world law did you?
Now if you think the US is doing a piss-poor job of world police, I agree. But until someone else steps up to the job, then Im not gonna piss on their cereal for stomping out some tyrants.
How to make a better world.
Step 1.) Disolve UN
Step 2.) Create new UN, restricted to democracies, mandate that one cannot recognize nor trade with non-member countries.
Step 3.) Systematically force the worst dictatorship (by vote) in the world into a democracy or die trying with mandatory commitments from all members. Doesn't need to be warfare, outright bribery of the old regime to stand down works too.
High in the Sky idealism I know. But seeing as real politik means that won't happen, I'll settle for what we have.
Council Member
Posts: 1,679
April 9th, 2008, 08:41 PM
I would agree that economic sanctions against Iraq were justified back in the 1980's when Iraq began using chemical weapons against civilians.
Unfortunately the US wouldn't support an arms embargo let alone an economic embargo against Iraq. At the time Iraq's invasion and war with Iran served American purposes. Even after it was known that Iraq was using CWs against civilians, the US helped Iraq to acquire WMD technology and provided intelligence to Iraq so they could use their CWs more efficiently:
I was also in favor of economic sanctions against Iraq during the early 1990's until such time as UNSCOM declared Iraq free of WMDs.
But by 1998 it was clear that Iraq no longer possessed a credible WMD threat and UNSCOM was no longer objective:
Iraq rightly expected that their cooperation with UNSCOM would be rewarded with at least reduced economic sanctions. Instead every time Iraq got close to the finish line, the US threatened to use its UNSC veto to maintain the sanctions and UNSCOM kept moving the finish line.
I expected that UNSCOM would remain objective as per their mandate rather than become a front for US intelligence gathering on Iraq's legal weapon systems:
So by 2003, when Bush was selling his Iraqi war plans, I was skeptical. I read UNMOVIC reports myself and I was convinced that after some initial hestitation Iraq was fully cooperating. By March 2003, it was obvious that Iraq was no longer a credible WMD threat.
Bush and his advisors were well aware that they couldn't start a war with Iraq if UNSCOM declared Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. So they pushed their plans ahead:
So "What exactly do I consider justified responses?"
... to a country proactively cooperating with UN weapon inspectors which had been disarmed of WMDs, with no credible military capability, suffering under crippling economic sanctions long after they had served their original purpose??
I was in favor letting UNMOVIC do their job. If they determined Iraq was no longer possessed WMDs, then out of compassion for the Iraqi people, the economic sanctions should have been lifted. But I would be in favor of continued arms embargo and periodic unannounced UNMOVIC inspections... indefinitely if necessary.
Quoting Zzarchov
Can you post a link to back up your point that Iraq fired gas weapons at Israel? I recall the SCUDs being armed with conventional warheads.
Earth, you act like the sanctions weren't justified...
He went to war with Iran, attempted to annex Kuwait, fired gas weapons (against the rules of war) at Israel, fought a war with Saudi Arabia and the nothern third of his Iraq became an autonomous region (through self determination and sacrifice) after he attempted genocide upon them, thereby blocking out Turkey and other nations from doing trade anyways.
What exactly do you consider justified responses?
If its not war, its not sanctions. Other than unenforceable words, what do you suggest is an apporpriate response for Genocide, attempting to Annex neighbouring countries and the use of weapons of mass destructions (gas weapons)
He went to war with Iran, attempted to annex Kuwait, fired gas weapons (against the rules of war) at Israel, fought a war with Saudi Arabia and the nothern third of his Iraq became an autonomous region (through self determination and sacrifice) after he attempted genocide upon them, thereby blocking out Turkey and other nations from doing trade anyways.
What exactly do you consider justified responses?
If its not war, its not sanctions. Other than unenforceable words, what do you suggest is an apporpriate response for Genocide, attempting to Annex neighbouring countries and the use of weapons of mass destructions (gas weapons)
I would agree that economic sanctions against Iraq were justified back in the 1980's when Iraq began using chemical weapons against civilians.
Unfortunately the US wouldn't support an arms embargo let alone an economic embargo against Iraq. At the time Iraq's invasion and war with Iran served American purposes. Even after it was known that Iraq was using CWs against civilians, the US helped Iraq to acquire WMD technology and provided intelligence to Iraq so they could use their CWs more efficiently:
Quote:
Sure I was in favor of imposing economic sanctions against Iraq back then.
How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons
By NORM DIXON
On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, "Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas". Quoting anonymous US "senior military officers", the NYT "revealed" that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided "critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war"...
...There is no doubt that the US government knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. On March 5, 1984, the State Department had stated that "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons". The March 30, 1984, NYT reported that US intelligence officials has "what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass producing the lethal chemical warfare agent".
However, consistent with the pattern throughout the Iran-Iraq war and after, the use of these internationally outlawed weapons was not considered important enough by Rumsfeld and his political superiors to halt Washington's blossoming love affair with Hussein.
The March 29, 1984, NYT, reporting on the aftermath of Rumsfeld's talks in Baghdad, stated that US officials had pronounced "themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the US and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name". In November 1984, the US and Iraq officially restored diplomatic relations.
According to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, in a December 15, 1986 article, the CIA began to secretly supply Iraq with intelligence in 1984 that was used to "calibrate" mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. Beginning in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography ... to assist Iraqi bombing raids".
Iraqi chemical attacks on Iranian troops--and US assistance to Iraq--continued throughout the Iran-Iraq war. In a parallel program, the US defence department also provided intelligence and battle-planning assistance to Iraq...
http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
By NORM DIXON
On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, "Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas". Quoting anonymous US "senior military officers", the NYT "revealed" that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided "critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war"...
...There is no doubt that the US government knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. On March 5, 1984, the State Department had stated that "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons". The March 30, 1984, NYT reported that US intelligence officials has "what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass producing the lethal chemical warfare agent".
However, consistent with the pattern throughout the Iran-Iraq war and after, the use of these internationally outlawed weapons was not considered important enough by Rumsfeld and his political superiors to halt Washington's blossoming love affair with Hussein.
The March 29, 1984, NYT, reporting on the aftermath of Rumsfeld's talks in Baghdad, stated that US officials had pronounced "themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the US and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name". In November 1984, the US and Iraq officially restored diplomatic relations.
According to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, in a December 15, 1986 article, the CIA began to secretly supply Iraq with intelligence in 1984 that was used to "calibrate" mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. Beginning in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography ... to assist Iraqi bombing raids".
Iraqi chemical attacks on Iranian troops--and US assistance to Iraq--continued throughout the Iran-Iraq war. In a parallel program, the US defence department also provided intelligence and battle-planning assistance to Iraq...
http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
I was also in favor of economic sanctions against Iraq during the early 1990's until such time as UNSCOM declared Iraq free of WMDs.
But by 1998 it was clear that Iraq no longer possessed a credible WMD threat and UNSCOM was no longer objective:
Quote:
During the previous year, Iraq had allowed UNSCOM to go anywhere, at any time and talk to anyone. During that year when Iraq fully cooperated with UNSCOM, nothing substantive was found. IN fact nothing has ben found to justify economic sanctions against Iraq since about 1995.
...TARIQ AZIZ, Deputy Prime Minister, Iraq: UNSCOM is back to its old games, to its old tricks, games of confusing the major issues and the minor issues, since this is the wish of the American administration to perpetuate the situation, to prolong the current situation, to keep the sanctions on the people of Iraq. As long as this is the American wish, you are serving the American policy...
...AMBASSADOR RICHARD BUTLER: It's a slightly weird thing, because, as I said, we're doing quite well in missile and chemical. I mean, we were getting there. If this was a five-lap race, you know, we were halfway into the fifth lap. Why stop the race when you're getting towards the finishing line? I don't know....
http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html
...AMBASSADOR RICHARD BUTLER: It's a slightly weird thing, because, as I said, we're doing quite well in missile and chemical. I mean, we were getting there. If this was a five-lap race, you know, we were halfway into the fifth lap. Why stop the race when you're getting towards the finishing line? I don't know....
http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html
Iraq rightly expected that their cooperation with UNSCOM would be rewarded with at least reduced economic sanctions. Instead every time Iraq got close to the finish line, the US threatened to use its UNSC veto to maintain the sanctions and UNSCOM kept moving the finish line.
I expected that UNSCOM would remain objective as per their mandate rather than become a front for US intelligence gathering on Iraq's legal weapon systems:
Quote:
By 1998, every country on the UN Security Council knew Iraq had been disarmed of its WMD technology and no longer posed a credible WMD threat. But the US used its position as a veto power on the UNSC to maintain the sanctions knowing Iraq no longer possessed WMDS and the sanctions were causing a humanitarian catastrophe:
...Back in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes. "United States officials said today that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors," the New York Times reported (1/7/99). According to the Washington Post (3/2/99), the U.S. "infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency." Undercover U.S. agents "carried out an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. and U.N. sources," wrote the Boston Globe (1/6/99).
Each of the three news stories ran on the papers' front pages. At first, U.S. officials tried to deny them, but as more details emerged, "spokesmen for the CIA, Pentagon, White House and State Department declined to repeat any categorical denials" (Washington Post, 3/2/99). By the spring of 1999, the UNSCOM spying reported by the papers was accepted as fact...
http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html
Each of the three news stories ran on the papers' front pages. At first, U.S. officials tried to deny them, but as more details emerged, "spokesmen for the CIA, Pentagon, White House and State Department declined to repeat any categorical denials" (Washington Post, 3/2/99). By the spring of 1999, the UNSCOM spying reported by the papers was accepted as fact...
http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html
Quote:
Legality of US/UK no fly zones
...Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press....
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press....
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
Quote:
In 2001, top Bush advisors knew that Iraq posed no credible threat and said so publicly:
27 JUNE 2001
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan: The question of no-fly zones is one of the issues that the Iraqi authorities have discussed with me each time we have met. This no-fly zone was imposed by two members of the Council, and they are enforcing it. I know that there is a question of whether this is an action sanctioned by the Security Council or one unilaterally imposed by the two countries. I noticed recently that Iraq had indicated than the air action had killed 23 people, which the United States and the United Kingdom denied. But I hope that as the Council continues its discussions and its attempts to find a way out of this impasse, we will be able to move forward, and that sooner rather than later the issue of no-fly zones will also be put behind us.
You know my position on this, and I have indicated that when you analyse and read the Security Council resolutions I do not see the Security Council resolutions as a basis for that. But there is a debate. The two countries believe that the Security Council has given them legitimacy to enforce the no-fly zone....
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sgsm7865.doc.htm
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan: The question of no-fly zones is one of the issues that the Iraqi authorities have discussed with me each time we have met. This no-fly zone was imposed by two members of the Council, and they are enforcing it. I know that there is a question of whether this is an action sanctioned by the Security Council or one unilaterally imposed by the two countries. I noticed recently that Iraq had indicated than the air action had killed 23 people, which the United States and the United Kingdom denied. But I hope that as the Council continues its discussions and its attempts to find a way out of this impasse, we will be able to move forward, and that sooner rather than later the issue of no-fly zones will also be put behind us.
You know my position on this, and I have indicated that when you analyse and read the Security Council resolutions I do not see the Security Council resolutions as a basis for that. But there is a debate. The two countries believe that the Security Council has given them legitimacy to enforce the no-fly zone....
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sgsm7865.doc.htm
Quote:
Iraq No Threat
...In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."...
...Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."...
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle6456.htm
...In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."...
...Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."...
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle6456.htm
So by 2003, when Bush was selling his Iraqi war plans, I was skeptical. I read UNMOVIC reports myself and I was convinced that after some initial hestitation Iraq was fully cooperating. By March 2003, it was obvious that Iraq was no longer a credible WMD threat.
Quote:
Just a few months after March 7 2003, UNSCOM would likely release a definitive report clearing the way for economic sanctions to be lifted against Iraq.
SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003
Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC
Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix
...Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC
Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix
...Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
Bush and his advisors were well aware that they couldn't start a war with Iraq if UNSCOM declared Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. So they pushed their plans ahead:
Quote:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2003 President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. (NOTE: Ignoring that the US used UNSCOM to spy on Iraq's legal weapon systems and as a result discredited UN weapons inspections. Ignoring that the US knew Iraq was no longer a credible WMD threat and that any WMDs if they existed would be far past their best before date. Ignoring that UNSCOM was only a fe months away from resolving all remaining key disarmament tasks...) That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. (But refused to talk directly to Iraq) We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. (yeah right, did anyone by this whopper?)
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. (To do what? Starve its people, allow its military to shrivel?) It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. (A blatant lie, UNSCOM just praised Iraq's "proactive coperation".) Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again (Another whopper. The US and the UK had been bombing Iraq continuously for over a decade!)-- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. (Contradicting what had been known by UNSCOM said back in 1998 and what Blix of UNMOVIC said only 10 days earlier) This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. (Still waiting for proof to back up this statement)
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030317-7.html
So no I did not support this war from the beginning. Anyone capable of critical thought and aware of UNSCOM's last report before the invasion knew Bush had no credible justification for war with Iraq. For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2003 President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. (NOTE: Ignoring that the US used UNSCOM to spy on Iraq's legal weapon systems and as a result discredited UN weapons inspections. Ignoring that the US knew Iraq was no longer a credible WMD threat and that any WMDs if they existed would be far past their best before date. Ignoring that UNSCOM was only a fe months away from resolving all remaining key disarmament tasks...) That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. (But refused to talk directly to Iraq) We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. (yeah right, did anyone by this whopper?)
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. (To do what? Starve its people, allow its military to shrivel?) It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. (A blatant lie, UNSCOM just praised Iraq's "proactive coperation".) Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again (Another whopper. The US and the UK had been bombing Iraq continuously for over a decade!)-- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. (Contradicting what had been known by UNSCOM said back in 1998 and what Blix of UNMOVIC said only 10 days earlier) This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. (Still waiting for proof to back up this statement)
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030317-7.html
So "What exactly do I consider justified responses?"
... to a country proactively cooperating with UN weapon inspectors which had been disarmed of WMDs, with no credible military capability, suffering under crippling economic sanctions long after they had served their original purpose??
I was in favor letting UNMOVIC do their job. If they determined Iraq was no longer possessed WMDs, then out of compassion for the Iraqi people, the economic sanctions should have been lifted. But I would be in favor of continued arms embargo and periodic unannounced UNMOVIC inspections... indefinitely if necessary.
House Member
Posts: 4,563
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
April 9th, 2008, 10:50 PM
Suharto invaded East Timor and killed three times more people in his own country than did Saddam. It was perfectly OK with the Republicans who wined and dined him in the White House.
Quoting Zzarchov
So, launching a war with Kuwait, Iran and Genocide are all fine,
As long as he doesn't have WMD's murdering people and invading sovereign lands deserves no long term consequences?
As long as he doesn't have WMD's murdering people and invading sovereign lands deserves no long term consequences?
Suharto invaded East Timor and killed three times more people in his own country than did Saddam. It was perfectly OK with the Republicans who wined and dined him in the White House.
House Member
Posts: 4,563
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
April 9th, 2008, 10:59 PM
Bush has killed one million Iraqis and nobody has applied the rule of law to him. It is time to apply the law on a uniform basis.
Quoting Zzarchov
Saying how one person wasn't punished doesn't excuse the behaviour of others.
Since OJ got away with murder, does that mean you think murder shouldn't be punishable?
Since OJ got away with murder, does that mean you think murder shouldn't be punishable?
Bush has killed one million Iraqis and nobody has applied the rule of law to him. It is time to apply the law on a uniform basis.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
April 10th, 2008, 08:04 AM
You're prepared to ignore whatever the United States of America does whether illegal or not and put your stamp of approval on the actions of an obviously corrupt government. You're prepared to "forgive" the actions of the United States under any and all circumstances and I'd like to understand why?
What would lead a reasonably astute individual to embrace a situational morality that finds no hypocrisy in behaving in a vicious and lawless manner that is the supplied rationale given by the United States for its actions?
Setting aside the moral implications for a moment, it would appear that you're comfortable with the re-direction of resources away from the citizens of the United States (who paid taxes to this government with an expectation that levees would be secure, that bridges would be built that wouldn't collapse, that Americans would recieve adequate health care and education etc. etc.
You're disdain for the people of the United States is remarkable. While I accuse (and frequently vociferously rant) the people of the United States of abbrogation of the principles of law and common sense that these people clutch to their breasts as self-defining credo, for failing to hold this administration accountable, you're content to see their government spend the future of the children of the United States on an illegal war that has and can only benefit the war-profiteers that have infected the government of the United States.
Understand now, IF credible evidence had been found that weapons of mass destruction were in the hands of a lunatic dictator with plans to moblilize against the United States, I doubt that the people of the United States or even I as example would have the grave misgivings regarding these events that the truth has exposed as perfectly warranted if not demanded!
IF the United States of America was not as the public record indicates participating in the proliferation of chemical weapons and engaged in fomenting war with Iran, the regional dynamics might have lent greater sustance to an argument offered that intervention in two other nations political and economic systems was warranted on the basis of preventing genocide and war. This however was a situation exacerbated by the United States in support of their one time "ally", Saddam Hussein!
If the military of the United States had demonstrated support for the Geneva Conventions rather than re-define this conflict and the terrorism of Al Qeada to subvert and frustrate the intent of the Geneva Conventions it's unlikely that Abu Ghraib and water-boarding would be issues today.
The list of lies and corruption is far too lengthy to itemize and yet you're convinced that the world will be brought to "peace" and stability despite the lies of the administration of the United States that while on one hand admitting that Al Qeada WAS NOT a dynamic in Iraq previous to the invaision, cited the "ugent necessity" of military intervention in Iraq to "fight global terrorism".....
I feel sorry for you my friend.
For reasons or ideas that fail to stand the test of simple common sense, you're prepared to give a "pass" to the United States of America for actions any reasonable person would rail against if committed by Russia or China or Huga Chavez or any number of other entities.
It must be troublesome to live in a world where reality is so warped and principles so weak.
Quoting Zzarchov
The United States of America calls itself a nation of peace committed to the "rule of law", and you'd suggest that a military invaision based on lies and with the acknowledgement of U.S. supply of chemical weapons to Iraq as well as substantial affirmations that Saddam Hussein DID NOT pose a "credible threat" to the world that criminality commited by the United States is acceptable!?
Saying how one person wasn't punished doesn't excuse the behaviour of others.
Since OJ got away with murder, does that mean you think murder shouldn't be punishable?
Since OJ got away with murder, does that mean you think murder shouldn't be punishable?
You're prepared to ignore whatever the United States of America does whether illegal or not and put your stamp of approval on the actions of an obviously corrupt government. You're prepared to "forgive" the actions of the United States under any and all circumstances and I'd like to understand why?
What would lead a reasonably astute individual to embrace a situational morality that finds no hypocrisy in behaving in a vicious and lawless manner that is the supplied rationale given by the United States for its actions?
Setting aside the moral implications for a moment, it would appear that you're comfortable with the re-direction of resources away from the citizens of the United States (who paid taxes to this government with an expectation that levees would be secure, that bridges would be built that wouldn't collapse, that Americans would recieve adequate health care and education etc. etc.
You're disdain for the people of the United States is remarkable. While I accuse (and frequently vociferously rant) the people of the United States of abbrogation of the principles of law and common sense that these people clutch to their breasts as self-defining credo, for failing to hold this administration accountable, you're content to see their government spend the future of the children of the United States on an illegal war that has and can only benefit the war-profiteers that have infected the government of the United States.
Understand now, IF credible evidence had been found that weapons of mass destruction were in the hands of a lunatic dictator with plans to moblilize against the United States, I doubt that the people of the United States or even I as example would have the grave misgivings regarding these events that the truth has exposed as perfectly warranted if not demanded!
IF the United States of America was not as the public record indicates participating in the proliferation of chemical weapons and engaged in fomenting war with Iran, the regional dynamics might have lent greater sustance to an argument offered that intervention in two other nations political and economic systems was warranted on the basis of preventing genocide and war. This however was a situation exacerbated by the United States in support of their one time "ally", Saddam Hussein!
If the military of the United States had demonstrated support for the Geneva Conventions rather than re-define this conflict and the terrorism of Al Qeada to subvert and frustrate the intent of the Geneva Conventions it's unlikely that Abu Ghraib and water-boarding would be issues today.
The list of lies and corruption is far too lengthy to itemize and yet you're convinced that the world will be brought to "peace" and stability despite the lies of the administration of the United States that while on one hand admitting that Al Qeada WAS NOT a dynamic in Iraq previous to the invaision, cited the "ugent necessity" of military intervention in Iraq to "fight global terrorism".....
I feel sorry for you my friend.
For reasons or ideas that fail to stand the test of simple common sense, you're prepared to give a "pass" to the United States of America for actions any reasonable person would rail against if committed by Russia or China or Huga Chavez or any number of other entities.
It must be troublesome to live in a world where reality is so warped and principles so weak.
House Member
Posts: 3,381
April 10th, 2008, 08:29 AM
Invading a genocdical dictatorship?
No, I think I'd give any democratic government a pass on that one, hell any government.
When we state things like "never again" about a genocide, I'd like to pretend we mean it.
Quite frankly I don't give a crap about WMD and never have, invading because of WMD is basically invading out of self-preservation so I couldn't give to ships of a rats behind about WMD's and that everyone else thinks that the presence of WMD is important saddens me.
I should hope that others think there is a reason to invade somewhere besides them having powerful weapons. I tend to focus more on what they do then what they could do.
Call me a traditionalist for thinking about crimes instead of potential to create worse ones.
He went on a very blatant genocide streak and regardless of what corrupt underpinnings or oil deals or any other scheming was the true goal, America went to war and brought down a Genocidal dictator and put him to trial (show trial or not)
Sure that makes them terrible world police, but it also makes them the only world police as nobody it seems ACTUALLY cares about stopping and punishing genocide.
Self preservation and WMD's is all anyone seems to care about, even on this forums.
"Oh they went to war and it WASN'T about self preservation! ITS A WARCRIME!"
Fine, lets give them the same punishment everyone else gets for a war crime. We'll sit around and do nothing until America decides to invade itself.
You all happy?
Invading a genocdical dictatorship?
No, I think I'd give any democratic government a pass on that one, hell any government.
When we state things like "never again" about a genocide, I'd like to pretend we mean it.
Quite frankly I don't give a crap about WMD and never have, invading because of WMD is basically invading out of self-preservation so I couldn't give to ships of a rats behind about WMD's and that everyone else thinks that the presence of WMD is important saddens me.
I should hope that others think there is a reason to invade somewhere besides them having powerful weapons. I tend to focus more on what they do then what they could do.
Call me a traditionalist for thinking about crimes instead of potential to create worse ones.
He went on a very blatant genocide streak and regardless of what corrupt underpinnings or oil deals or any other scheming was the true goal, America went to war and brought down a Genocidal dictator and put him to trial (show trial or not)
Sure that makes them terrible world police, but it also makes them the only world police as nobody it seems ACTUALLY cares about stopping and punishing genocide.
Self preservation and WMD's is all anyone seems to care about, even on this forums.
"Oh they went to war and it WASN'T about self preservation! ITS A WARCRIME!"
Fine, lets give them the same punishment everyone else gets for a war crime. We'll sit around and do nothing until America decides to invade itself.
You all happy?
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
April 10th, 2008, 09:14 AM
Zzarchov
So you're notion is then that when a "democracy" decides to forego it's claim to being a nation of laws that it's acceptable to break the law?
You're a terrorist sir and when any body decides that the law doesn't apply because of this reason or that reason...they're a terrorist as well.
When African Americans are kidnapped and sold into slavery....well if this "democracy" thinks that's OK...well then it's OK!
When Americans hire illegal immigrants to work at rates of pay that no American would accept.... declaring a war on those enticed into the country with the promise of raising their standard of living...while American businesses and corporations invest energy in usurping the laws of America to maintain their privilege of indentured illegals...that's OK!
When American corporations leave a trail of destruction and death through Haiti, Nicaragua, East Timor, Viet Nam...and "regime change" including the effort to assassinate leaders and governments that fail to acquiesce to American corporate greed...that's perfectly OK!
You're a terrorist sir and my conversation with you is over.
Zzarchov
So you're notion is then that when a "democracy" decides to forego it's claim to being a nation of laws that it's acceptable to break the law?
You're a terrorist sir and when any body decides that the law doesn't apply because of this reason or that reason...they're a terrorist as well.
When African Americans are kidnapped and sold into slavery....well if this "democracy" thinks that's OK...well then it's OK!
When Americans hire illegal immigrants to work at rates of pay that no American would accept.... declaring a war on those enticed into the country with the promise of raising their standard of living...while American businesses and corporations invest energy in usurping the laws of America to maintain their privilege of indentured illegals...that's OK!
When American corporations leave a trail of destruction and death through Haiti, Nicaragua, East Timor, Viet Nam...and "regime change" including the effort to assassinate leaders and governments that fail to acquiesce to American corporate greed...that's perfectly OK!
You're a terrorist sir and my conversation with you is over.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,273
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
April 10th, 2008, 09:47 AM
"How to make a better world.
Step 1.) Disolve UN
Step 2.) Create new UN, restricted to democracies, mandate that one cannot recognize nor trade with non-member countries.
Step 3.) Systematically force the worst dictatorship (by vote) in the world into a democracy or die trying with mandatory commitments from all members. Doesn't need to be warfare, outright bribery of the old regime to stand down works too.
High in the Sky idealism I know. But seeing as real politik means that won't happen, I'll settle for what we have."
Dissolve the UN and create a new UN???????? Restricted to democracys????????
You're very generous with the self-characterization as (high in the sky idealism) when in fact it's imbecillic nonsense. A democracy of capital does not count as a democracy, Mr Chavez is the formost democrat in the western world today. Your idea of and work toward a better world would be well served by some study of where you exist, reality has completely escaped you. Seriously Zzarchov go to school somewhere.
The concept of the UN is one at core of universalism, by restricting membership to certain standards determined by something as troubled as democracy is now in this age of capital supremacy, would mean imperialism, something that we now disenjoy but you seem unable to entertain any thoughts of that nature and stubbornly insist on belief in the rock of western democracy, an institution that has less reality than swamp gas.
"How to make a better world.
Step 1.) Disolve UN
Step 2.) Create new UN, restricted to democracies, mandate that one cannot recognize nor trade with non-member countries.
Step 3.) Systematically force the worst dictatorship (by vote) in the world into a democracy or die trying with mandatory commitments from all members. Doesn't need to be warfare, outright bribery of the old regime to stand down works too.
High in the Sky idealism I know. But seeing as real politik means that won't happen, I'll settle for what we have."
Dissolve the UN and create a new UN???????? Restricted to democracys????????
You're very generous with the self-characterization as (high in the sky idealism) when in fact it's imbecillic nonsense. A democracy of capital does not count as a democracy, Mr Chavez is the formost democrat in the western world today. Your idea of and work toward a better world would be well served by some study of where you exist, reality has completely escaped you. Seriously Zzarchov go to school somewhere.
The concept of the UN is one at core of universalism, by restricting membership to certain standards determined by something as troubled as democracy is now in this age of capital supremacy, would mean imperialism, something that we now disenjoy but you seem unable to entertain any thoughts of that nature and stubbornly insist on belief in the rock of western democracy, an institution that has less reality than swamp gas.
House Member
Posts: 3,381
April 10th, 2008, 10:29 AM
You apparently think (when it suits you) that everyone in a nation is responsible for everything that happens within that nation. If one person commits a murder, hang em all for being part of it. Not even if they colluded, or even just sat silent, but even if they actively work to prevent such acts, punish them all.
Hell, your selective memories decides that if America (and only America) has ever done something wrong, that it and all its people should be slaughtered and their children sold into slavery.
Other nations can simply ignore consequences of actions. But democracies, with their evil policy of removing from power leaders who do terrible things (domestic and foreign) deserve not but scorn.
For daring to wage war or launch sanctions against an aggressive war-mongering nation.. America deserves what? war? sanctions? seems kind of circular don't you think?
I'd say Hypocrisy doesn't suit you, but it seems to suit you so well.
Quoting MikeyDB
I thought I'd sum up your post for the purpose of brevity and conciseness.
You disagree with my omnipotence and glorious intellect, having nothing to really stand on, I shall call you a terrorist and avoid discussion, because thats what debate forums are for.
You apparently think (when it suits you) that everyone in a nation is responsible for everything that happens within that nation. If one person commits a murder, hang em all for being part of it. Not even if they colluded, or even just sat silent, but even if they actively work to prevent such acts, punish them all.
Hell, your selective memories decides that if America (and only America) has ever done something wrong, that it and all its people should be slaughtered and their children sold into slavery.
Other nations can simply ignore consequences of actions. But democracies, with their evil policy of removing from power leaders who do terrible things (domestic and foreign) deserve not but scorn.
For daring to wage war or launch sanctions against an aggressive war-mongering nation.. America deserves what? war? sanctions? seems kind of circular don't you think?
I'd say Hypocrisy doesn't suit you, but it seems to suit you so well.
House Member
Posts: 3,381
April 10th, 2008, 10:33 AM
I suggest you go to school somewhere. You need to really learn reading comprehension.
What the UN Is about currently is irrelevant, since the first thing I stated, was disolve the current UN. Therefore it doesn't matter what its about. Which is great, because no one really gives a damn about the UN anyways.
Seriously, go...to...school.
Quoting darkbeaver
Venezuala is indeed a democracy (for now), Chavez is not a democratic supporter mind you (having attempted a coup), but Venezuala is still a democracy. Allowing multi-party elections. And thats the great thing about democracies, as long as Chavez doesn't manage to make himself president for life, the people can elect a new leader in a few years time, from anyone they would like.
"How to make a better world.
Step 1.) Disolve UN
Step 2.) Create new UN, restricted to democracies, mandate that one cannot recognize nor trade with non-member countries.
Step 3.) Systematically force the worst dictatorship (by vote) in the world into a democracy or die trying with mandatory commitments from all members. Doesn't need to be warfare, outright bribery of the old regime to stand down works too.
High in the Sky idealism I know. But seeing as real politik means that won't happen, I'll settle for what we have."
Dissolve the UN and create a new UN???????? Restricted to democracys????????
You're very generous with the self-characterization as (high in the sky idealism) when in fact it's imbecillic nonsense. A democracy of capital does not count as a democracy, Mr Chavez is the formost democrat in the western world today. Your idea of and work toward a better world would be well served by some study of where you exist, reality has completely escaped you. Seriously Zzarchov go to school somewhere.
The concept of the UN is one at core of universalism, by restricting membership to certain standards determined by something as troubled as democracy is now in this age of capital supremacy, would mean imperialism, something that we now disenjoy but you seem unable to entertain any thoughts of that nature and stubbornly insist on belief in the rock of western democracy, an institution that has less reality than swamp gas.
Step 1.) Disolve UN
Step 2.) Create new UN, restricted to democracies, mandate that one cannot recognize nor trade with non-member countries.
Step 3.) Systematically force the worst dictatorship (by vote) in the world into a democracy or die trying with mandatory commitments from all members. Doesn't need to be warfare, outright bribery of the old regime to stand down works too.
High in the Sky idealism I know. But seeing as real politik means that won't happen, I'll settle for what we have."
Dissolve the UN and create a new UN???????? Restricted to democracys????????
You're very generous with the self-characterization as (high in the sky idealism) when in fact it's imbecillic nonsense. A democracy of capital does not count as a democracy, Mr Chavez is the formost democrat in the western world today. Your idea of and work toward a better world would be well served by some study of where you exist, reality has completely escaped you. Seriously Zzarchov go to school somewhere.
The concept of the UN is one at core of universalism, by restricting membership to certain standards determined by something as troubled as democracy is now in this age of capital supremacy, would mean imperialism, something that we now disenjoy but you seem unable to entertain any thoughts of that nature and stubbornly insist on belief in the rock of western democracy, an institution that has less reality than swamp gas.
I suggest you go to school somewhere. You need to really learn reading comprehension.
What the UN Is about currently is irrelevant, since the first thing I stated, was disolve the current UN. Therefore it doesn't matter what its about. Which is great, because no one really gives a damn about the UN anyways.
Seriously, go...to...school.
Senate Member
Posts: 5,588
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
April 10th, 2008, 10:34 AM
The Iraq War?
Botched? Yep. Any person remotely dealing with reality could see that.
Illegal? WHO CARES! Completely irrelevant. International Law is a joke.
Now, how to resolvethe problem? The USA screwed it up, they have to stabilize the nation.....it is there responsibility. They made the mess, they have to stay in place until it is cleaned up.
Simple as that.
McCain the Man.
The Iraq War?
Botched? Yep. Any person remotely dealing with reality could see that.
Illegal? WHO CARES! Completely irrelevant. International Law is a joke.
Now, how to resolvethe problem? The USA screwed it up, they have to stabilize the nation.....it is there responsibility. They made the mess, they have to stay in place until it is cleaned up.
Simple as that.
McCain the Man.
Council Member
Posts: 1,679
April 10th, 2008, 10:48 AM
At the time the US invaded Iraq in 2003, Iraqis had already suffered over a decade of crippling economic sanctions. By 2003, Iraqis had been more than adequately punished for the folly of their leadership.
Your point about a war with Kuwait ( August 1990 – February 1991 ), a war with Iran (September 1980 to August 1988 ) and Genocide (Anfal campaign - 1988 ) to justify a US invasion of Iraq in 2003 doesn't make sense. Are you saying that the 2003 US led invasion which resulted in the above death and destruction was a reaction to events that happened 12-30 years previously?
Personally I thought these event were worthy of a reaction at the time they occurred.
But if atrocities do warrant invasions, then why wasn't the Democratic Republic of Congo invaded in 2003 rather than Iraq?:
Invading Iraq created a humanitarian crisis. Invading the DRC could have stopped one.
I'm not belittling Hussein's grave human right's record. I'm simply pointing out that they were used manipulate people into believing that a war with Iraq was justified.
But if Iraq's use of CWs against civilians can justify a war (which has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions) 15 years after the fact, they why aren't we going after the people who continued to supply Iraq with CW technology and intel even after they knew Iraq was using CW against civilians? Aren't these people also as guilty as Saddam Hussein?
I'm surprised that so many people still haven't figured out that we were deceived into war by now. Maybe hindsite isn't 20/20 for everyone.
Quoting Zzarchov
I think you need to look at the big picture Z. This war affected more Iraqis than just Saddam Hussein.
So, launching a war with Kuwait, Iran and Genocide are all fine,
As long as he doesn't have WMD's murdering people and invading sovereign lands deserves no long term consequences?
As long as he doesn't have WMD's murdering people and invading sovereign lands deserves no long term consequences?
Quote:
Washington Post
...According to the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration in 2007, almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.4 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million were living in Syria, and over 1 million refugees were inhabiting Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Gulf States. Most Iraqis are determined to be resettled to Europe or North America, and few consider return to Iraq an option. Iraqis have no legal work options in most host countries and are increasingly desperate and in need of humanitarian assistance. They face challenges in finding housing, obtaining food, and have trouble accessing host countries’ health and education systems...
http://www.refugeesinternational.org...le/detail/9679
http://www.refugeesinternational.org...le/detail/9679
Quote:
I agree that invading sovereign lands without legitimate reasons should have longterm consequences. But I'm confused. Are we talking the US invading Iraq in 2003 or Iraq invading Iran in 1980?
October 11, 2006; (buried on) Page A12
...A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001442.html
...A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001442.html
At the time the US invaded Iraq in 2003, Iraqis had already suffered over a decade of crippling economic sanctions. By 2003, Iraqis had been more than adequately punished for the folly of their leadership.
Your point about a war with Kuwait ( August 1990 – February 1991 ), a war with Iran (September 1980 to August 1988 ) and Genocide (Anfal campaign - 1988 ) to justify a US invasion of Iraq in 2003 doesn't make sense. Are you saying that the 2003 US led invasion which resulted in the above death and destruction was a reaction to events that happened 12-30 years previously?
Personally I thought these event were worthy of a reaction at the time they occurred.
But if atrocities do warrant invasions, then why wasn't the Democratic Republic of Congo invaded in 2003 rather than Iraq?:
Quote:
You would be hard pressed to find anything in the news in March 2003 about this ongoing atrocity in the Congo because our news was too busy reporting on Hussein's historical atrocities.
Amnesty International
20 March 2003
Democratic Republic of Congo: A neglected human rights tragedy in Ituri province
Amnesty International’s report - Democratic Republic of Congo: On the precipice: the deepening human rights and humanitarian crisis in Ituri - documents some of the recent grave human rights abuses in Ituri, where an estimated 50,000 people have died and more than 500,000 displaced since 1999 as a result of fighting in the region. Much of the violence stems from armed conflict between the Hema and Lendu ethnic groups. This conflict has been manipulated and exacerbated by leaders of armed political groups fighting for political and economic control in the region.
Armed political groups and ethnic-based militias have committed unlawful killings, acts of torture, including rape, and other serious human rights abuses in Ituri, frequently on a mass scale. The majority of victims are civilians targeted solely because of their ethnic identity. Such abuses have accelerated in recent months. "
http://archive.amnesty.org/library/I...pen&of=ENG-2F2
20 March 2003
Democratic Republic of Congo: A neglected human rights tragedy in Ituri province
Amnesty International’s report - Democratic Republic of Congo: On the precipice: the deepening human rights and humanitarian crisis in Ituri - documents some of the recent grave human rights abuses in Ituri, where an estimated 50,000 people have died and more than 500,000 displaced since 1999 as a result of fighting in the region. Much of the violence stems from armed conflict between the Hema and Lendu ethnic groups. This conflict has been manipulated and exacerbated by leaders of armed political groups fighting for political and economic control in the region.
Armed political groups and ethnic-based militias have committed unlawful killings, acts of torture, including rape, and other serious human rights abuses in Ituri, frequently on a mass scale. The majority of victims are civilians targeted solely because of their ethnic identity. Such abuses have accelerated in recent months. "
http://archive.amnesty.org/library/I...pen&of=ENG-2F2
Invading Iraq created a humanitarian crisis. Invading the DRC could have stopped one.
I'm not belittling Hussein's grave human right's record. I'm simply pointing out that they were used manipulate people into believing that a war with Iraq was justified.
But if Iraq's use of CWs against civilians can justify a war (which has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions) 15 years after the fact, they why aren't we going after the people who continued to supply Iraq with CW technology and intel even after they knew Iraq was using CW against civilians? Aren't these people also as guilty as Saddam Hussein?
I'm surprised that so many people still haven't figured out that we were deceived into war by now. Maybe hindsite isn't 20/20 for everyone.
Council Member
Posts: 1,679
April 10th, 2008, 11:08 AM
Quoting Colpy
I disagree with your view that its unimportant that the Iraq war violated international law. The Iraq War is a good example of why nations should respect international law. If America's leaders had to obey international law, the Iraq war would have never happened:
The Iraq War?
Botched? Yep. Any person remotely dealing with reality could see that.
Illegal? WHO CARES! Completely irrelevant. International Law is a joke.
Now, how to resolvethe problem? The USA screwed it up, they have to stabilize the nation.....it is there responsibility. They made the mess, they have to stay in place until it is cleaned up.
Simple as that.
McCain the Man.
Botched? Yep. Any person remotely dealing with reality could see that.
Illegal? WHO CARES! Completely irrelevant. International Law is a joke.
Now, how to resolvethe problem? The USA screwed it up, they have to stabilize the nation.....it is there responsibility. They made the mess, they have to stay in place until it is cleaned up.
Simple as that.
McCain the Man.
Quote:
Lessons of Iraq war underscore importance of UN Charter - Annan
16 September 2004 – Secretary-General Kofi Annan believes that the Iraq war in 2003 demonstrated the need for the international community to address the issue of preventive action in the context of Charter principles and showed the importance of joint efforts on matters of use of force, a United Nations spokesman said today.
Responding to media questions about the Secretary-General's comments in a BBC interview, spokesman Fred Eckhard told a press briefing in New York that in his remarks the Secretary-General had reiterated his well-known position that the military action against Iraq was not in conformity with the UN Charter.
In the interview, Mr. Annan was repeatedly asked whether the war was "illegal." "Yes," he finally said, "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."
The Secretary-General said the war in Iraq and its aftermath had brought home painful lessons about the importance of resolving use-of-force issues jointly through the UN. "I think that in the end everybody is concluding that it is best to work together with allies and through the UN to deal with some of those issues.
"And I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time," the Secretary-General told the interviewer, noting that such action needed UN approval and a much broader support of the international community.
Mr. Eckhard stressed that this had been the Secretary-General's longstanding view...
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...3&Cr=iraq&Cr1=
16 September 2004 – Secretary-General Kofi Annan believes that the Iraq war in 2003 demonstrated the need for the international community to address the issue of preventive action in the context of Charter principles and showed the importance of joint efforts on matters of use of force, a United Nations spokesman said today.
Responding to media questions about the Secretary-General's comments in a BBC interview, spokesman Fred Eckhard told a press briefing in New York that in his remarks the Secretary-General had reiterated his well-known position that the military action against Iraq was not in conformity with the UN Charter.
In the interview, Mr. Annan was repeatedly asked whether the war was "illegal." "Yes," he finally said, "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."
The Secretary-General said the war in Iraq and its aftermath had brought home painful lessons about the importance of resolving use-of-force issues jointly through the UN. "I think that in the end everybody is concluding that it is best to work together with allies and through the UN to deal with some of those issues.
"And I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time," the Secretary-General told the interviewer, noting that such action needed UN approval and a much broader support of the international community.
Mr. Eckhard stressed that this had been the Secretary-General's longstanding view...
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...3&Cr=iraq&Cr1=
House Member
Posts: 3,381
April 10th, 2008, 11:26 AM
I think you should be fair and also point out:
If Iraq's leader had to obey international law, the Iraq war would have never happened.
There is no such thing as International Law, because there is no one to enforce it. Laws without enforcement are just words.
I think you should be fair and also point out:
If Iraq's leader had to obey international law, the Iraq war would have never happened.
There is no such thing as International Law, because there is no one to enforce it. Laws without enforcement are just words.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,273
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
April 10th, 2008, 11:50 AM
PS you made a spelling error
Quoting Colpy
So Hitler should have stayed in till he fixed the French problem. Your solution is not a solution Colpy. Americas are not into nation fixing (as they repeatedly state) they're just into liberating oppressed oil bearing states. How are they going to reanimate the innocent dead? Will they make war reparations? McCain a pimple on the monster.
The Iraq War?
Botched? Yep. Any person remotely dealing with reality could see that.
Illegal? WHO CARES! Completely irrelevant. International Law is a joke.
Now, how to resolvethe problem? The USA screwed it up, they have to stabilize the nation.....it is there responsibility. They made the mess, they have to stay in place until it is cleaned up.
Simple as that.
McCain the Man.
Botched? Yep. Any person remotely dealing with reality could see that.
Illegal? WHO CARES! Completely irrelevant. International Law is a joke.
Now, how to resolvethe problem? The USA screwed it up, they have to stabilize the nation.....it is there responsibility. They made the mess, they have to stay in place until it is cleaned up.
Simple as that.
McCain the Man.
PS you made a spelling error
