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.
Iraq war botched and illegal
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
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.
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.
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!?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
"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 thought I'd sum up your post for the purpose of brevity and conciseness.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think you need to look at the big picture Z. This war affected more Iraqis than just Saddam Hussein.
Washington Post
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?
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?:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
PS you made a spelling error
and bush is bankrupting his own people, as the trillions he has wasted away on war games is coming out of the pockets of the american people,and he is responsible for the deaths of 4000 of his own people who gave their
lives in an 'illegal' war brought on by lies and inside planning for his own gains.
I don't believe in a conspiracy for 911, but it was definitely advantageous for bush,
as he used it as an excuse to hop from afghanistan over to iraq, where he really
wanted to go in the first place, (he was bored in afghanistan)
So what do you suggest be done about it? Noting that war and sanctions have already been removed from the equation as wrong no matter what.
Side note: He is well within his right to bankrupt his own people, and don't blame him..he was elected (once anyways
)
Side note: He is well within his right to bankrupt his own people, and don't blame him..he was elected (once anyways
)
(he was bored in afghanistan) -----talloola
After going through all the machinations and going the long way around the barn, I have come to believe that statement.
After going through all the machinations and going the long way around the barn, I have come to believe that statement.
By 1998, Iraq was in compliance with international law. Nothing has been found in Iraq since 1995 which would could justify continuing economic sanctions against Iraq let alone starting a war.
But if you believe that Iraq was in violation of international law or UNSC resolutions in March 2003, I'd like to see you make that point.
But you are right. International laws have no value when countries like the US are above those laws. But its up to the Americans to hold their leaders accountable, since no one else can.
You selectively apply the word genocide Zzarchov, I could give you some credit if you freely applied the word to Isreali actions of the last sixty years. The occupation of Iraq was unavoidable by any means available to Iraq, that action was predetermined in London and Washington and had nothing to do with alleged Iraqi war crimes and everything to do with oil and regional power.
You are correct about genocide having no statute of limitations and someday all those who took part in the Iraqi Genocide will face justice or there is none.