[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Some1]

hmmmz, to much to quote, i'll give the just awnsers (IMO)

Originally posted by TerranC: 8 Posts below

- Yep, its against Dubya, but the problem is that he is untouchable for them, so they have to cool their frustrations on someone else. (Like in israel, if they could kill sharon, he would be long dead)... But you are right that the real quarrel is with GWB & his administration.

- WMD = nuke. When North Korea has a nukes, US would never attack them. So that means when you have these weapons, you are ok. the quarrel is now with iraq, who pays attention to you now? (in dictatorships and things like that) US won't have money right now to attack you.

- Nope, its about safety... and in their opinion thats the way to garantee it.
Russia vs. tsjetjenie (i can't find how to spell it) when its not in the news anymore, it doesn't mean there is no war there. Also vs. terrorists according to the russians and for the tsjetj they are fighting a war for freedom.
For the chinese its a part, but the tibetanians still think they should be seperate.

- Nope, thats not going to stop them, we see. But should we all follow Dubya (or someone else) if we just can't stop them??? i call it herd instinct
And IMO the Balkan situation was very different.

- Its not conquest... (altough US want to occupy iraq for some time) still the interests of US are the same: Oil, power (in the region) and another regime.
And if you can't see it, i can't change your opinion anyway... so i stop wasting my time on this one.

- This one is a fault a lot of regimes make. They all fight the outcome and never the things that led to them.
Ofcourse someone who's family is killed don't want those Palestinians, but emotions are a bad guide.
When people are cornered and can't have a way out, they do things unimaginable (suicide).
ummm, for example. In jail institutions in my country they always give people(inmates) the illusion that there is a escape. Without that "hope" people just go crazy...
Other example, When you or i are in a situation like that: no food, water, live, money, hope...only dead. We can give our family $25000. The cause is good, cause its for freedom (you have to remeber its an act of patriotism for them!!!!).... so what the heck???
Lucky that not everyone thinks like that, but its not uncommen in that area we know.
The fact is that israel is in the power position, and they have the solution, its just not popular and easy...

- Yes, this one is utopia.
But you have to agree that its a bit crude that you wage a war that costs (i lost count, but around) 150 bollion dollars against 1 person and his regime, when not far away countless more people starve to dead, AIDS, war for food etc... and there was no help for them (in compare)

Posted by Master Belisarius:
I like the history and have learned that the history repeat itself once, and once again.

I know it, just don't like it.

R.

[ March 26, 2003, 08:49: Message edited by: Some1 ]

[primitive]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

Conclusion: because there is not UN support for this, it means its illegal... and give the sign for more chaos & war.

Actually, that does not make it illegal. The UN is not the source of legality.

---

It is no way this war can be considered legal. Many believe the war to be fair, righteous and/or necessary, but it is by no means legal.

The “official” reason for the war is failing to comply with the UN charter. Only UN can sanction such a war. The time when a war was legal because one party called it is over.

This war is a case of US doing the classic high school bully (sure you have met some of those) thing.

High school bully – GWB/USA
Give me your lunch money or I’ll kick your *** – Let the inspectors in or we bomb you.
OK – OK
Thanks for the money but I’m going to kick your *** anyway – I really want to bomb you, I’ll just have to use the 9-11 and free the oppressed Iraqi people excuse instead.

This is how most people in my part of the world feel. It’s going to take a long time for the US to rebuild their old friendly “big brother” image.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Actually, that does not make it illegal. The UN is not the source of legality.

It is not the only but the main source of legality. Face it, the legality of this war is on very shaky legs. No UN resolution to date demanded or threaten a change of regime and the Iraq, without even a border to the US or any means to reach the US soil with its weapons, can hardly be accused of an aggressive stance that legalised an pre-emptive strike. Such a pre-emptive strike is possible but only under very narrow circumstance all of them requiring undeniable proves for the planned aggression. The pure possibility that someday the country will attack you is not enough in the international law.

Originally posted by TerranC:
If this war succeeds, it will give a sign to the rest of the world that developing WMDs will only get your regime toppled, no matter what the world opinion is.

Playing devils advocate: It will give a sign to the world that you have to be fast like North Korea. If you are fast enough they will attack weaker nations and leave you alone. You can even try to blackmail the rest of the world!

Originally posted by TerranC:
This war does not give those countries to invade those regions/countries. This war isn't about conquest, for god's sakes. And welcome to the 21st century. Tibet is already a part of China. It has been for a long time. Also, Russia is seriously starved for cash; it sure isn't going to wage war with all of it's neighbours with a under funded under maintained army.

You know what he meant. How can you deny Russia for example the right to intervene in any of the southern Caucasus republics. Devils advocate again: Some Caucasus terrorists even stormed a theatre and hundreds died in the incident. “We, the Russian people, have every right to protect us from those terrorists and will invade their country where they rule as clans over all the civilian people down there. We will free them and bring them democracy!” Never mind that this brought the terrorists to the theatre in the first place…
Arguing with money shortage and other outside facts isn’t valid. The point is not if the can do what the US did but if they have the same right to do it. Tell me they don’t.

Originally posted by TerranC:
Because the world is against it? Wow. That's certainly going to stop superpowers in their tracks. World opinion certainly stopped Serbians from raping and pillaging Bosnians.

You certainly don’t want to compare war criminals in Bosnia to the US. Criminals might not be stopped by reasoning but honest and rightful man.

Originally posted by TerranC:
Harmful Israeli policies? I'm sure you'd march up to Tel Aviv and tell Ariel Sharon to stop killing Palestinians, after they've killed members of your family and close friends.

Actually, I hope I would have the strength to do exactly this. All the killing in the world will bring none of my beloved ones back to me. Killing will only result in more killing. Only if I bear the pain and extend my hands in peace will bring peace back to me. Of course the murderer should be put to jail. How many of the Palestinians and how many of the Israelis really want to kill each other? For centuries there was a bitter hate between France and Germany and both sides were more then willing to kill each other any time on the battlefield. This hate gave birth to two World Wars. Now, finally, both sides have swallowed their pride and hate for each other, forgave (but not forgot) what each side did to the other. This brought as the longest period of peace in Europe ever. I think it is just an alien thought for both sides to kill each other just for being German/French now, a thought not uncommon just 50 years ago.
Point is, force will only provoke force and only the ability to forgive and try to live in peace with your neighbour despite what has happened in the past will bring a bright future.

[dogscoff]

Actually, that does not make it illegal. The UN is not the source of legality.

Correct. As of Last week, the source of global legality is whoever happens to have the biggest army. That really does not make me feel confident about the future.

- Because this war give a sign to the rest of the world that WMD is the only way to carve out your place, so that no one can touch you.

If this war succeeds, it will give a sign to the rest of the world that developing WMDs will only get your regime toppled, no matter what the world opinion is.

But this war is not about WMD. It was about 9/11, until no-one believed it. Then it was about WMD for a while, but no-one believed that either, so then they changed it again to "liberating the ppl of Iraq." Now that no-one really believes that either, they just mumble some crap about UN resolutions and the Last war and storm in, guns blazing.

This war does not give those countries to invade those regions/countries.

Really? Tell that to the Turkish tanks massing on Iraq's northern border.

This war isn't about conquest, for god's sakes.

It is, although indirectly. It's about installing a US-friendly government on top of those oil fields and flexing America's military muscles.

And welcome to the 21st century. Tibet is already a part of China. It has been for a long time. Also, Russia is seriously starved for cash; it sure isn't going to wage war with all of it's neighbors with a underfunded undermaintained army.

Some of the examples might not hold but the point does.

- Because the world is against it, when they would have let the inspectors do their work more, it could have led to more cooperation in the UN. (but this is an opinion, noone knows now)

Because the world is against it? Wow. That's cirtainly going to stop superpowers in their tracks. World opinion certainly stopped Serbians from raping and pillaging Bosnians.

Whatever weight world opinion used to have has now been stripped completely away by Bush's steamrolling of the UN. This is a step backwards, not forwards.

- Because fighting a war for the wrong reason is always wrong (USA should be honest about their goals: Oil, power, supportive regime) not a democracy and the better for the people, cause these are not the real goals.

You really have to stop seeing this as a war of conquest.

You really have to stop believing pro-war spin. This is a war about conquest.

Harmful israeli policies? I'm sure you'd march up to Tel Aviv and tell Ariel Sharon to stop killing Palestinians, after they've killed members of your family and close friends.

Someone needs to. Retaliation only results in counter-retaliation. Hate begets hate and the violence only escalates. Bulldozing palestinian townships does nothing to dissuade suicide bombers, it only breeds more.

tesco: There's no way saddam is going to escape punishment,

He will. He'll kill himself and/or dissappear, just like Bin Laden. I'd put money on it.

esp. with any mistreatment at all of american soldiers, or reports of soldiers with holes shot in their heads. I seriously doubt he will survive this war.

Emotive stuff, but I refer you to the "captured troops" thread, shows quite clearly that the US has absolutely no claim whatsoever on the moral high ground when it comes to human rights against prisoners.

My only hope is that the loss of lives on both sides is minimal, andthe ensuing blowback during occupation is also minimal. I want to be able to fly again sometime soon without feeling unnecessarily freaked out (but that's my problem, I guess...)

If you want to fly safely, try to come up with ways to reduce anti-american sentiment in the rest of the world.

I'm no expert but I'd say that threatening and attacking other nations on the "justification" of flimsy (sometimes falsified) evidence, undermining international law, ignoring popular global sentiment, polarising the middle east into muslims vs non-muslims, establishing puppet governments (afghanistan) and abusing human rights is probably not the best way to achieve this.

[ March 26, 2003, 11:11: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Aloofi:

quote:

---

but i think without nukes they would be "fine" to, the first 20 years were a lot more hostile and they survived.

What was that?
20/20 hinsight?

The Last 30 years have been "less hostile" because of the nukes!

You take the nukes out of the equation and we would be talking not just of the '67 and '73 wars, but of the '79, '85 and a war every six years (that's what it took to an Arab country to replenish losses during the Cold War)

So in Israel's case nukes have saved lots of lives, both Arab and Jewish.

---

The reason that the wars stopped was not the Israeli nukes. It was the sick feeling that the US and USSR came away with after going to the brink in 72. Someone realized that the Middle East was a loose loose situation and withdrew support. Egypt had already broken with the Soviets, and never recovered from its own material losses. Later, the Syrians and Israelis had at it, but by then the superior western technology carried the day. Iraq had plans to take Israel to task, but several million crazy Iranians tied them down for a decade and they missed their window of opportunity.

[primitive]

Krsqk:
AFAIK the inspectors was satisfied (not happy) with the progress made so far, and wanted to continue the search for WMDs. Finding anything in a country like Iraq where official records are sketchy at best, will always take time. Much more time than GWB was willing to give.

[Askan Nightbringer]

Originally posted by Krsqk:

quote:

---

High school bully – GWB/USA
Give me your lunch money or I’ll kick your a** – Let the inspectors in or we bomb you.
OK – OK
Thanks for the money but I’m going to kick your a** anyway – I really want to bomb you, I’ll just have to use the 9-11 and free the oppressed Iraqi people excuse instead.

Just a minor quibble here, but the demand should read "Provide the inspectors with substantive proof of your total disarmament," not "Let the inspectors in.

---

Hey! Take a load off and look over there

I always thought the onus of proof was on the prosecutor and not the defendant. Innocent until proven guilty and all the junk that disallows unlawful persecution is the cornerstone of all modern justice systems. Why should Iraq be any different?

Askan

[Wardad]

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
...I always thought the onus of proof was on the prosecutor and not the defendant. Innocent until proven guilty and all the junk that disallows unlawful persecution is the cornerstone of all modern justice systems. Why should Iraq be any different?

Askan[/QB]

Why is Iraq different?

To expand on your analogy of defendant and prosecution:
Iraqs ruling regime is a proven violent offender. An offender that has repeatedly violated the conditions of parole.
An offender has the burden of proof and must report to a parole officer.

Iraqs regime started a war of aggression over oil fields with Iran.
Many good people, on both sides, were slaughtered in the resulting conflict.

Iraqs regime started a war of aggression with Kuwait.
Many good people, on both sides, were slaughtered in the resulting conflict.

Iraqs regime kills it's own people who dissent. It also targets the whole family and rapes the women.

So before we morn the Iraqi dead from this war. Let us morn the Iranians, Kuwaitis, and the Iraqi dissidents who were killed before.

note:
In the US, the legal system is getting bolder about corrective involvement in cases of domestic (family) violence. I think this change in attitude has been carring over to foreign policy. Since Just Cause can be used to breach the family sanctuary, why should national sovereignty be an exception?

[ March 26, 2003, 17:51: Message edited by: Wardad ]

[tesco samoa]

http://www.theonion.com/

has their spin going... worth looking at...

No need to post them here...

[phaet2112]

I think the best article is the "vital info on iraqi chemical weapons provided by US company that made them" That and "you plus me and baby minus me makes two"