A strike on Iraq - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-10-2002, 09:12 AM   #166
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:39 AM
Okay i'll respond more detailed later - i'm not at home and i don't have the "UN Resolutions" on my Thinkpad.
Can anyone help me with a link?

I enjoy it verry much that Sting quotes the laws and resolutions to strengthen his arguments and i want to keep up this great quality of discussion.

So i reply to the Juristical part in a later message.

Quote:
For the USA and others to have indirectly supplied the Iraqi Chem/Bio program with duel use technology meant for medical purposes was a mistake. But even if the USA had prohibited the export of such technology, Iraq was still recieving these things from the Soviet Union and others.
Maybe you're right at that point it would not have prevent it but the morale legitimation would be another today for war. It's hard to believe that a country who sold (or give away for free) this technology now wants to destroy this with a war.

Also "if not me - another one would have sold it" Is also a popular argument of drugdealers too.
It might be true - but that dosn't reduce the guilt. (but here also the US is not alone and not the worst one with this.. there were many "drug dealers", including europeans)

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 09:31 AM   #167
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Not George Lucas
laws. As such, Iraq, which, as far as I know, is not part of the UN (please correct me if I'm wrong) and, therefore, is not required to obey their laws. That does not mean they can ignore their treaties, of course. It just means Iraq can't be accused of breaking the law, if they weren't required to obey it in the first place.
I thought Iraq also Kuwait was member of the UN. But i'm not 100% sure.

But the point with international laws is:
as soon as enough states ratified a law it's a law for everyone - not just for the Nations who signed the paper or have a (permanent) seat in the UN.

I'm also sure i can't convince Sting that the US invasion would be illegal - but the debate helps me to understand his views. And in the real world there is not just "right and wrong" .. most of the time the truth is somewhere inbetween ,-)

What impressed me most is that some arguments (from both sides) were mentioned in this thread before i could read them in any newspapers - but now some officials use "our" arguments *grin*

Also i'm not the opposite of sting (i'd love to see a pacifist or a "war against iraq? - never" minded join this discussion.

As i said at the begining - war can be a legitime thing (also against iraq).
It's just the reasons, the time and the legitimation which give me a bad feeling.
Stings and my possition are not that different as it looks like.
The main difference is the way, not the goal ,-)

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 09:38 AM   #168
ONE
love, blood, life
 
mad1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angie Jolie lover from Belfast Norn Ireland. I LOVE YOU ANGIE! Im a Bono fan!
Posts: 13,153
Local Time: 06:39 AM

men!












__________________
mad1 is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 09:41 AM   #169
ONE
love, blood, life
 
mad1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angie Jolie lover from Belfast Norn Ireland. I LOVE YOU ANGIE! Im a Bono fan!
Posts: 13,153
Local Time: 06:39 AM

oh here, if my memory serves me correct, 2 days ago on the news they had info that Hospital/NHS staff, would be the first to get vaccinations against any severe threat of germ warfare.......if it really is to happen in Uk
__________________
mad1 is offline  
Old 10-14-2002, 12:46 AM   #170
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 05:39 AM
I've been off Interference for a few days but on return I've noticed that this thread continues to be as hot as ever! Even if more than a week has passed I'd still like to reply to Sting2's response to me. Here it goes.

There's not much I can reply to your post regarding the aid to fundamentalist guerrillas in Afghanistan during the 80s since your response simply refuted my points without providing any argument which I could eventually contend or agree with. However, there are a couple of items I'd like to comment upon.

Quote:
Originally posted by Sting2
The US did not empower Al Quada because a decade before we provided 1/3 and I underline 1/3 of the material support for a different group called the Mujahadeen. This support was cut off in 1989, and the money and small amount of weapons were already used up by the time the Taliban took power. Bin Ladin already had his own money and supporters without any aid from any country. After 1991 Afghanistan fell into a period of ethnic conflict which was a natural part of its history for thousands of years until the Taliban siezed power and pushed the Northern Alliance into the mountains. Democracy is NOT in jeopardy in the USA because of support for the Mujahadeen in the 1980s nor is any democracy in jeapardy because of that support. Nor was Fundamentalism really used in a significant way as a bulwark against Soviet Communism. Yes there was some material support (1/3 of which came from the USA) for the Mujahadeen in the 1980s, but much of that was already used by the time Al-Quada became active on the international scene in a major way. Most Al-Quada members today never fought in the 80s against the Soviets and Bin Ladin's true role in that war was mainly support for the Mujahadeen with money. Its true that US withdrawel from the region allowed Al-qauda to later set up an impressive base there, but that could have been done in several other countries so it can be seen as empowering them.
The actual quantity of material the US provided guerrillas in Afghanistan (in their majority of fundamentalist extraction) is of no relevance here since what we are discussing is the consequences of the decision of aiding such a group to counter Soviet penetration. BTW it would be interesting to know where that "1/3" figure comes from. The fact that much of the material support was already used by the time Al-Qaeda became operative on a major scale or that many of its members never actually fought in the 80s against the Soviets does not mean that the Al-Qaeda phenomenom can be detached from the Afghan anti-Soviet guerrilla of the 80s. While it's true that other areas could have been likely bases for such an organisation it is obvious that they chose Afghanistan and surroundings since bin Laden was well known over there due to his activities during the 80s. While he might have contributed in funding the mujahedeen, it is widespread knowledge that he participated actively in the resistance. To that end he was trained in the US by the CIA. It makes no sense to deny this fact since it was all over the media in the aftermath of 9/11 and never once did the CIA issue a formal denial.

I find the statement of my argument regarding the empowering of fundamentalist elements as a result of US aid to fend off Soviets as "empowering of Al-Qaeda" rather maliciously quoted. It's more than obvious that the US would not contribute in funding such an organisation but it can be hardly denied that its creation is rooted in the actual empowering of fundamentalist elements, naturally the more radical among them. If a proper scenario (backing of oppressive and unpopular governments, open disrespect for Muslim holy places and relentlessly insisting in cultural penetration) is additionally provided to give them a perfect motivation to get widespread support in order to be able to forward their own covert agenda the result is not too difficult to imagine. I'm aware that part of the fundamentalists aided back in the 80s have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda - how each faction handled the power gained from their participation in the conflict is entirely something else. That some might have been moderate as opposed to others who supported a more extremist ideology is something that back in the 80s, when aid was actually provided, nobody including the US, bothered to make a distinction of. BTW I thought we had agreed a few posts ago that revolving around "the US using fundamentalism as a bulwark against communism" issue was beating a dead horse. What's the need for bringing it up again?

To state that "democracy is not in jeopardy in the USA because of support for the Mujahadeen in the 1980s nor is any democracy in jeopardy because of that support" is again questionably quoting my point, since in the terms you use without taking into account, either to support or to contend, the argumentation I provided to back it, it obviously makes no sense.

Quote:
The Northern Alliance were not supported because the USA did not feel the region of a great enough importance to warrent major support, especially with the newly independent countries of Eastern Europe needing aid quickly. Money is limited and nation building was seen as being more important elsewhere than in Afghanistan.
Maybe priorities were set elsewhere, nevertheless it's somewhat hard to believe that the US should have gone to so much trouble during the 80s to fend off the Soviets from Afghanistan to let the place find a way for itself once the conflict was over especially when the victors were Islamic fundamentalists, "moderate" if you like but fundamentalist in the end and more so when there was a steep rise in extreme fundamentalist adhesion in the nearby Pakistan in the guise of the increasing support of the Pakistani madrassas-trained Taleban.

Quote:
There are all kinds of places around the world in which democracy has developed without there being a long history of democracy prior to it. Anyways back to the original point, I see US aid to the Mujahadeen as being clearly justified from the point of 1. Self defense against an invader 2. Helping to contain an enemy that threatens the vary existence of democracy worldwide.
I did not say the contrary. My point is that the conditions with a Northern Alliance rule back in the early 90s were not particularly given to guarantee a capitalist/democratic outcome because of the nationalistic political inclination of many of the members and because of the lack of democratic tradition in their organisation. They might have developed a democracy but, as I said, it was probably not the natural outcome such a situation was likely to bring about.

Quote:
Many people in the Mujahadeen back then did not even know who Bin Ladin was. Bin Laden and Al-Quada operated largely outside of Afghanistan before the Taliban came to power there. The only thing comparable to a hero was the leader of the Northern Alliance who was murdered by Bin Ladin on Sept 10, 2001.
Many others did know who he was and widely supported him. I'm aware that Al-Qaeda operated outside Afghanistan before the Taleban time - this is obvious since they claim to be an Islamic organisation, not in particular an Afghan one. In addition by that time there were already evident differences with part of the mujahedeen. Undoubtedly in your or my view "the only thing comparable to a hero" was Ahmad Shah Masood, however this does not necessarily mean that locals felt the same way. While in their great majority they did consider him a hero, this didn't prevent them from acknowledging others, including bin Laden in his resistance years, as such.

Quote:
There is a common view among many people that in 1947, Israel was created when a large number of Jews from Europe moved in and kicked Palestinians off their land. That is not what happened. First, there had been a Jewish community(however small) living in the area on a constant basis for thousands of years. Jewish emigration to Israel started to grow in the late 1800s with the approval of the Ottoman Empire which owned the area. There was no Palestinian State and the area only had 400,000 a tiny number of which were Jews that had lived there for thousands of years. Most area's were basically unoccupied. The Jews from Europe settled in unoccupied area's. As Jewish emmigration increased some people became concerned by the Ottoman Empire continued to allow it.

At the end of World War I the Ottoman Empire was defeated and dismantled and the British and the French began to build independent states in area's where no states had existed for hundreds if not thousands of years. Of course the Jews wanted a state as well as the Palestinians wanted a state. The Palestinians would not except any Jewish State. The UN plan in 1947 allowed for a Jewish State that was divided into 3 parts while the much larger Palestinian state was fully connnected. The UN plan did not require the removal of anyone.
What you've reported is the official Zionist version of events which is clearly an unobjective view. There's tons of documentation based on historical fact, easily accessible from many sources including technically "unbiased" ones such as UN papers, which is absolutely contrary to this argument. Such documentation includes official statements made by His Majesty's Government of Great Britain, the League of Nations' Covenant, British and American appointed commissions at the onset of the conflict and throughout the Mandate period, UN reports and resolutions, Zionist leaders' public statements, newspaper reports of the time, etc as well as the writings of authoritative historians such as Arnold J. Toynbee and others from all parts of the world including Israeli authors. It would be too long to explain on this board why most of the above information is fallacious. That's why I'm providing a link to a page within the UN site which briefly describes the evolution of the "Question of Palestine". Within that page there are links to more comprehensive documents always within the UN site called "The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem" Parts I, II, II and IV which are very informative and well documented as well as full of lots of references to consult on for further detail.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

Quote:
In light of the fact that the Palestinians could of had everything they wanted and more in 1947, I do not know how you could say the violence has helped the Palestinians cause. It certainly did not improve their situation in 1948 or in any of the Arab/Israely wars that followed. Palestinian violence has only produced negative effects for them. The USA would be far more likely to put pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza if the Palestinians were engaged in passive resistance. Israel is a democracy and a nation of a laws. In such a situation, passive resistance like that of MARTIN LUTHER KING can produce a positive result. Israel never annexed the West Bank and Gaza and was always willing to talk about resolving its disputes. Israel is not a dictatorship and there for a passive form of resistance can effect it just as the US civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s brought about better equality for African Americans in the USA. Violence has only made things worse for the Palestinians and brought Israely soldiers in large numbers back to the West Bank. It has only increased support among American voters for strong military response to terrorist actions. The US does have strings it can pull with Israel, but its never going to pull them as long as Palestinians try to use terror to achieve their goals. Violance has been an utter and complete failure for Palestinians over the last 55 years. Its time they adopt a new strategy that does not involved terrorism and actually has a chance of achieving their goals of statehood.
It is more than clear in the light of historical facts that the Palestinians could NEVER have contented themselves with what the 1947 resolution gave them, in part because the partition plan did them out of land legitimately theirs and in part because the Jewish, despite accepting the partition had other plans i. e. of further expansion, as both their aggressive policy and statements from their leaders like Ben-Gurion and Begin demonstrate.

The Palestinian situation obviously did not improve after the 1948 and 1967 conflicts as Israeli expansionist policy progressively pushed them out of their own soil and forced them to live in exile for many years. However it is important to put those conflicts within their right context: the 1948 episode was the result of a 30-year policy in the area which systematically made a point of ignoring Palestinian claims to a land legitimately theirs and which instead of being amended in an international forum like the UN ended up by being endorsed even if it was clear that it created an unfair situation for the Palestinian Arabs. In addition, it must be noted that the Zionist forces did call for the conflict when during the period which spanned from the passing of the partition plan in November 1947 until the termination of the British Mandate in May 1948, attacked and occupied areas the UN had allotted to the Arabs. The intervention in Palestine of five Arab nations (much less equipped and trained than Jewish forces) later on to defend Palestinian Arab rights ended up in Israeli unlawful occupation of territories never assigned to them. In all fairness it has to be said that if the Arab coalition had been the winner in this conflict it would have more than probably retaliated on the Jews by expelling them from Palestine, confiscating their property, etc as the antagonism between both people (which stemmed exclusively from this conflict and was not ancestral at all, as both British and American official reports of the 20s and 30s state) was already well installed. In fact after their defeat they proceeded to expel a total of 200,000 Jews from the five individual states combined. Something similar regarding Israeli expansionism and a hypothetical Egyptian victory can be said of the 1967 episode.

To judge these episodes simply as unprovoked "Palestinian violence" is to refuse to acknowledge what triggered them in the first place and to ignore that there also was Israeli violence which was most of the time more akin to offensive than to defensive tactics. In this scenario it is more than obvious that a "passive resistance" in the Luther King pattern would have never worked even if Israel is a democracy. Why? Because in the US neither the Republicans or the Democrats were inherently by ideology contrary to granting equal rights to the Afro-Americans. In Israel conversely one of the two main parties, the Likud, has always been, in the spirit of early Zionism, clearly unsupportive of the existence of a Palestinian Arab State, and it is notorious that its leaders have always entertained the goal of holding the whole of Palestine as Israel's national soil.

The Palestinian resort to violence I refer to is constituted namely by their resistance fight i.e. the attacks on Jews and the rebellions against the British authority during the Mandate years, the terrorist operations the PLO indulged in the 70s and the first and second intifadas. These manifestations though resorting to questionable methods, have undeniably succeeded in drawing international attention to their cause.

BTW If putting the West Bank and Gaza under the jurisdiction of Israeli law is not annexing those territories I don't know what is.

In conclusion, while the methods used by Palestinian terrorists cannot be condoned under any circumstance, it is only fair that the whole of the situation including its origins is analysed, to be able to make an objective judgement. From this analisys it will be clear that even if Palestinians showed hostility towards Jewish immigration from day one, it is understandable that they did so, as they immediately saw that the manoeuver to force upon them a stronger Jewish settlement would hinder their aspiration for an independent Palestinian state. Nobody with a minimum analytical capacity can fail to understand that people being done out of what's legitimately theirs are going to react violently sooner or later if the situation is not reversed. It musn't be ignored either that Zionist policy regarding and in the area itself has always been of aggressive nature towards the goal of securing the whole of Palestine for themselves and to that end they have always had the support of powerful nations such as Great Britain at the onset of the situation and the US later on. It is not too difficult to reach the conclusion that this huge imbalance of forces in the framework of an abusive situation is the perfect scenario for terrorism. While it is obvious that now the situation cannot be reversed to that of over 80 years ago when there was no Jewish state, it would be useful that international organisations such as the UN accepted responsibility for past mistakes and immediately devised the way of securing a Palestinian independent state which met the needs of the Palestinians presently living in Palestine as well as of the refugees living in exile, while allowing Israel to exist within borders reasonable both from a historical and practical point of view. The UN should also show firmness in purpose to the end that the terms of whatever agreement is reached are respected in time and form to avoid further violence. It is obvious that the rancour breeded over 80 years will not subside in one day, but if fair provisions for Palestinians are to be secured there's a greater possibility that peace in the area becomes a reality than not.
__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 10-14-2002, 03:39 AM   #171
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Ultraviolet7:

I don't have time to respond right now and in addition I want to take the time to read the website you gave the link to. I have read about the history of the area and what I said did not come from a zionist source's nor is it unobjective. In fact, just a brief reading in virtually any Encyclopedia would confirm what I said above. Support for Israel is not zionism. There are many well educated people, who are not Jewish, are unbiased, and have study the situation in detail, and would agree with what I had stated above.

I remind you that it is a fact that there were thousands of Jews living in Israel/Palestine at the time of World War I. It is also a fact that much of Israel/Palestine was unoccupied by people at the time. These Jews had just as much right to an independent Jewish State as Palestinian Muslims had a right to an independent Islamic State. No Arab or Jewish State existed at the time of the end of World War I, so people in the area only had a right to the land they were living on. The unoccupied area's would simply have to be settled on to be claimed, or negotiated upon once nation building began. Of course what actually happened in the years following World War I certainly was not a peaceful nation building process. But it is incorrect to state that Jews who were living in the area for decades before World War I or even further back in history had no right to an independent state. I can't see how you could claim that.

I'm certainly not an expert on this area but have little reason to doubt the research I have already done on Israel/Palestine question. But again, I am ready to be proven wrong if the information is there and is unbiased and accurate and placed in a proper context. In just briefly reading the website info you gave, I can tell that it really skips the history of the area before 1915 and really starts with the end of World War I and the British mandate. Nothing I read in the introductions contradicted what I had stated in my post and is basic known general info. As I read the entire text, I'll be carefully looking for information to prove my points wrong. I've always tried to see the Palestinian point of view on many issues in regards to the history of the area and the current situation. I have not found them convincing so far.(I've always believed though that they have a right to an independent state along with Israel). It will be interesting though to see if there is anything here that will contradict what I have read from several other unbiased sources on the whole issue.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-14-2002, 05:26 AM   #172
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:39 AM
Hello Sting, i finally managed to download and read all Resolutions of 1990/1991 which are adressing Iraq Kuwait:

Quote:

Resolution 678
of 29 November 1990
paragraph 2

Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
Okay we should mention that at the beginning of Res. 678 the Res. 660, 661, 662664, 665, 666, 667, 669,670,674 and 677 are recalled and reaffirmed. (i mention them later, it's important to see 678 in context).

Intention of Res. 678 is to implement res. 660 (ff) to restore international peace and security in the area.

Resolution 660
of 2 August 1990
1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
2. Demands that Iraq withdraws ..
3. Calls uppon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations..

So for me it's obvious that the Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669,670,674 and 677 point out that Military force is only allowed to Kuwait and it's allies until Iraq withdraws from Kuwait.

They call both governments to cooperate with the UN and mention more than once that both parties should try to talk and that some of the Resolutions try to reduce the chance that civilians will be killed.

So at this point there is imho no chance to interpret 678 for anything the US tries to do now!

Quote:
Resolution 686
of 2 March 1991

Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and Kuwait, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with achieving the objectives of that resolution,
So after the war they decided to go back to the UN and talk to find sollutions for the rest of the problems between Iraq and and Kuwait.
The main reson for war has become obsolet that dosn't mean that all problems with Iraq are gone from now on. it's step 1 of deescalation.

Quote:

Notice Res. (686) says consistent with achieving
I would like to know who wrote this notice, it's not one of the Official Notices to this Resolution and it's imho the opposite to the "spirit" of the Resolutions.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-14-2002, 07:39 PM   #173
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Klaus:

Resolution 678 explicitly says "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) AND ALL SUBSEQUENT relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"

The key here is SUBSEQUENT resolutions. That means resolutions passed after 678 can be implemented by all necessary means in addition to the ones prior to 678 which refer to more than just the simple withdrawal of Iraqi military forces from Kuwait. Iraq is in violation of 16 UN resolutions and resolution 678 clearly authorizes the use of force to uphold and implement all resolutions in regards to Iraq whether they were passed before 678 or after. The word "subsequent" refers to any resolutions passed after 678.

"Notice Res. (686) says consistent with achieving" This is directly from Res. 686. I got it from the UN Documents Website. I'll have to go find the address again.



Independent of all these resolutions is the 1991 Ceacefire agreement. Breaking that agreement is legally restarting the war.
So whether it be the UN resolutions or the 1991 Ceacefire agreement, both give the USA and other UN nations authority to use military force to force Iraq to comply with its all its violations of the 16 UN resolutions and the 1991 ceacefire agreement.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-14-2002, 07:51 PM   #174
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Klaus:

For that phrase from Res. 686, go to the website http://www.un.org/documents/ . The Paragraph that starts with the word AFFIRMING is where it is found.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-18-2002, 01:34 PM   #175
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:39 AM
Hello Sting,

I think the focus is clearly on 660 in that resolution, but anyway they mentioned ALL SUBSEQUENT res. - which of them do you think would be worth continuing the war?

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Klaus:

For that phrase from Res. 686, go to the website http://www.un.org/documents/ . The Paragraph that starts with the word AFFIRMING is where it is found.
I found the resolutions there - thanks but not the notices.
Because of that i think the Notices are not officially from the UN.
Maybe they are from you, maybe from s.o. else - i just wanted to know who wrote the notices.
Making them look like official can be verry missleading

Klaus

p.s. are you for a pro- or contra a Korea war?
what about a war vs. Pakistan? They sell / give away ABC technology to countries which are part of the Axis of Evil (TM)
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com