A strike on Iraq - Page 9 - 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 09-24-2002, 06:41 PM   #121
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Welcome Back Klaus:

you have mis-quoted me I'm afraid, because I never discussed comparison's between Hitler and Hussain with you. BAMA was the one that had their pics in one post and I think that is who your thinking of. I'd rather not get in to that debate at this point because I think I have a different view than both you and Bama on that point.

Now in response to Klaus:

The Mujahadeen acting against Soviet aggression in their country was not terrorism! They were fighting unlawful Soviet military occupation of their country like any other country would. The Taliban and Al-quada were not formed until the 1990s after US involvement in Afghanistan had ended.

Sometimes one does have to make peace with an enemy to fight a greater enemy. If you don't believe this, I guess you feel it was wrong for the USA to support the Soviet Union in World War II against the Axis. This commendable idealism needs a healthy dose of realism to go with it.

Any weapon can kill someone that you don't want to. Mass destruction weapons are those weapons where its not possible to control to a great degree, the level of damage that is done to unintended targets. While a Daisy cutter is powerful, we can control where it is used so civilians are not hurt by it. The same cannot be said for Chem/Bio/Nuclear weapons because whether can carry its effects in unpredictable directions.

The difference between the terrorist and the USA, is we only have mass destruction weapons to deter their use against us, terrorist seek to have these weapons because of their effectiveness in killing as many innocent civilians as possible.

There is a UN resolution that justifies military action against Iraq to bring it in compliance with UN resolutions including the ceacefire. While it does not explicitly say that regime change should be used to bring Iraq into compliance with the ceacefire agreement, it does not state that regime change cannot be used to accomplish the goals of the ceacefire agreement. But disregarding that, military action is approved by the UN to bring Iraq into compliance with UN resolutions as stated in the ceacefire agreement.

Again, my whole criteria for nations that are candidates of regime change involves BOTH BEHAVIOR and WMD CAPABILITY. Countries that are seeking mass destruction weapons but not acting behavior wise like Iraq are NOT candidates for regime change. Nor are countries that behave like Iraq but DO NOT have WMD capability. It is the two combined that makes Iraq a candidate for regime change. Right now they are the only one on the list, because currently they are the only country that meets that criteria. Oh, and when I say behavior, I don't mean simply similar behavior, the level and degree of that behavior has to be equal to that of Iraq.

The US would like to get a new resolution that would involve an inspection regime that would be backed up with force unlike the previous inspections regime. That is what the new resolutions are about.

Iraq has been in open violation of the ceacefire agreement since 1998 which means that Iraq is at war with the USA and the UN from a legal standpoint. The USA and other UN countries are obligated to use military force to bring Iraq back into compliance with the 1991 ceacefire agreement. This is what the UN ceacefire agreement states. So it is other UN countries that are going against international law, not the USA. Instead, the USA and the UK are the only countries willing to do what the UN ceacefire agreement calls for!

Part of the reason the USA wants a regime change is because after many years Saddam has failed to live up to the ceacefire agreement he signed and is doing things that threaten the whole international community. The oil is of interest to everyone on the planet. The price of oil is determined by how much is available. If supply is threatened or cut off, energy prices for everyone on the planet go up. Everyone spends money on energy everyday, whether its heating your home, turning a light on, or going somewhere in a car. Increase the price of doing that over a long period and you will ruin the global economy because people will be forced to spend less money in the economy and more money for their daily energy needs.

The price of oil would temporarily go up with a war, but over the longterm, it would drop further because the region would be more stable. This what happened in the 1990s with the Gulf War and its aftermath. Initially prices went up, but then the price of oil dropped heavily. 1999 saw some of the lowest prices for oil in history.

Dresden was not bombed to weaken the morale of the people. It was bombed because it was a key industrial, transportation, and communication hub. It was taken out at the request of the Soviet army to worsen the logistical situation for the german military on the eastern front. I hope you understand the importance of logistics for a military and the importance of industry, transportation, and communication area's in your rear to aid your forces at the front. That is why Dresden was taken out.

We are not violating international law by invading Iraq, we are complying with it by doing so. Violation of the UN ceacefire agreement calls for the resumption of offensive operations against Baghdad! That is a fact. From a legal standpoint, we are already at war with Iraq because of their open violation of the ceacefire agreement since 1998! We have tried everything to force Iraq to comply with the ceacefire agreement over 11 years. That is way to long to have let this go. Iraq has not complied, nothing short of military force will make Saddam fully comply. Its time that the international community follow international law and the USA and enforce the UN ceacefire agreement of 1991! Not only is it legal for the USA to attack Iraq to bring it back into compliance with the UN ceacefire agreement, it is in fact mandated! Thats a legal fact!
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 07:53 PM   #122
Acrobat
 
Not George Lucas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Bend, IN USA
Posts: 399
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Shouldn't the decision to attack be up to the people whose treaty was violated? It was a UN treaty, and the UN doesn't want an attack. An attack on Iraq would only be mandated if :

a) there were actual physical proof of weapons of mass destruction.
b) the UN called for an attack.

I believe George W is making a mistake. He should look to the past for guidence. While past situations may not have been identical, they were similar and they do deserve some consideration.

1. The Cold War - For 40 years, the we had nuclear weapons pointed at us. Presidential advisors urged for a strike. They wanted it sooo bad, but it was not in the nation's best interest. Why? They could strike back, of course. If Iraq has weapons, they, too, could strike back. If they don't, the attack would have been for naught, and the US would be the bad guy in the public eye.

2. Bay of Pigs - The US wanted to remove Castro from power because he was a corrupt dictator. Eisenhower and his advisors drew up a plan. Congress approved it, and Eisenhower approved it. When Kennedy was sworn in, he learned of the plan and, figuring that Eisenhower (former 5-star general) and his people were all for it, and Congress was all for it, put it into motion. The plan failed miserably. Lots of innocent people died. Kennedy was viewed as a weakling, and no one took him seriously. My point here is that we have no idea what's going on in Iraq, and it's possible that an invasion could be foiled by leaked information or poor planning. We've already had potential battle plans go to the press, for God's sake.

3. Cuban Missile Crisis - We had actual physical proof that the USSR was installing bigass missiles in Cuba, merely 90 miles from the US. Kennedy's advisors urged him to strike or invade. Kennedy, having learned from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, decided to do neither. Instead he placed a blockade around Cuba so that anyone entering would have to be searched, destroyed, or turned away. My point here is that invasion of Iraq is not necessary. If inspectors find weapons, they can have them dismantled. If the inspectors are turned away, it may be possible to implement another plan that doesn't involve lots of killing. Frankly, the whole idea of jumping into a war scares me, especially in an unjust war such as this.
__________________

__________________
Not George Lucas is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 07:57 PM   #123
Acrobat
 
Not George Lucas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Bend, IN USA
Posts: 399
Local Time: 06:12 AM
This thread needs a kitten.
__________________
Not George Lucas is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 09:28 PM   #124
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 12:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Adolf Hittler was much more than that and comparing him over and over again with different other assholes just to show how bad that other "new Hittler" is (I think i hear about comparisions like that once a month) just reduces his unique cruelty or his sick vision of the "Herrenrasse" to name just a few. Besides that he told the world what he wanted to do in advance ("Mein Kampf").
I am well aware that Hitler was much more than that when it was all said and done; I simply don't want Hussein to become a fraction of what Hitler became, yet Hussein has exhibited plenty of tendencies which, to me, are VERY similar to the attitudes of Hitler. Perhaps there is a REASON why you hear the comparison once a month.

Thank you for mentioning MEIN KAMPF. Are you aware that Arabic translations of MEIN KAMPF and THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION are widely available in Iraq, and the Arabic translation of the former recently hit the bestseller list in Palestine?

I think these patterns and similarities are worth exploring further rather than dismissing as disrespectful; that's all.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 03:16 AM   #125
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Not George Lucas:

It is not a UN treaty, it is a ceacefire agreement with explicit conditions which call for the use of military force if the conditions are violated. It is not something that has to be voted on. The UN, in the ceacefire agreement, already approves military action against Iraq if Iraq violates the terms of the 1991 ceacefire.

a. the UN inspectors including Scott Ritter, in 1998 when they were thrown out, confirmed that not only that Iraq still had chem/Bio weapons but that they could reconstitute much of what the inspectors had siezed or destroyed in 6 months. It is not incumbent on the UN to prove that Iraq does not have mass destruction weapons, it is incumbent on Iraq to prove that they do not have mass destruction weapons.

b. Again the UN has already called for the attack. The UN ceacefire agreement calls for military action if Iraq breaks the terms of the ceacefire. Because Iraq has been in open violation of the ceacefire terms since 1998, from a legal standpoint, Iraq has been at war with the UN since 1998.

Here is why these historical situations are not similar:

1. The USA was never going to launch a conventional attack on the Soviet Union to change the regime. Why, we never had a military force large enough to do that, we were barely able to deter the Soviets from invading western Europe once they achieved nuclear parity with the USA. Presidential advisors only urged for a nuclear strike in the 1950s if we detected a Soviet build up for either a conventional or nuclear strike on Europe. The US policy then was "Massive Retaliation" if a Soviet Attack on Europe was about to happen, pre-emtion indeed. In the 1950s the Soviets ability to hit the continental USA was minimal or non-existent. It was felt that a quick nuclear strike against the Soviet Union could destroy what nuclear weapons the Soviets could use in Europe and of course disrupt any invasion plans they had with Europe.

But In the 1960s the Soviets developed a large force of long range ICBMs that the US could not hope to destroy in a first strike. It is at this time that the Soviets had finally achieved a "second strike capability". The Soviets had achieved Nuclear Parity with the USA, and nuclear war was thought of as assured destruction. The problem was the USA could no longer threaten nuclear war against the Soviets if they invaded western Europe. US policy went from massive retaliation to flexible response in order to defeat a Soviet invasion without the use of nuclear weapnos, but if need be respond to a Soviet strike with nuclear weapons.

To sum up, 1. we did not change the regime in the Soviet Union with military force because we never had the capability to do so, even during the part of the coldwar where the continental USA was not even threatened by nuclear attack. 2. The Soviet Union was far more rational in its actions than Saddam Hussain or even other rogue nations that exist today. The Soviets were detered by are policy of containment and avoided doing things that would risk premature war with the USA and its allies. 3. Saddam's actions over the past 20 years have been risky, irrational, and unintelligent when compared to Soviet actions. The Soviets may have wanted to control the planet, but they were not stupid like Saddam. 4. The stand off with nuclear weapons between the USA is not the same as the stand off with Iraq and what Bio/Chem/Nuclear weapons they might have. In the Cold War there was the possibility of total destruction of the USA. With Iraq, were trying to prevent him from getting the ability to destroy a single US city. 5. Saddam may deliver Mass destruction weapons to terrorist and attack the USA that way. In this senerio we may never find out that the mass destruction weapon was supplied by Iraq. So even if Saddam was slightly rational, he may feel this is something he could get away with and he actually might be right. The fact that he is a risk taker and irrational only proves that this is a likely possibility.

2. The Bay of Pigs invasion failed because it relied on cuban defectors to defeat the Cuban military rather than the much larger and powerful United States military. If the US military had invaded Cuba in 1961, Castro would have been captured or killed and Cuba today would be a democracy. One of the greatest crises's in the countries history, the 1962 cuban missile crises would never of happened! Iraq was soundly defeated on the battlefield in 1991 with the lowest military losses for a war involving that many troops in history. Iraq is far weaker in 2002 than they were before the 1991 Gulf War. Their military is only 1/3 the size with outdated often broken down equipment. They will be facing a US military that is stronger than it was in 1991. Victory is assured, the only question will be how many casualties it will take.

3. Some of Kenedy's advisors urged him to strike and invade, but Kennedy and OTHER military and political advisors knew that any Soviet first strike no matter how devestating, would still leave the USA with nuclear weapons in other places around the world. This meant we had a survivable second strike capability to hit the Soviet Union with. The Soviets knew this and had no real intention of striking the USA with nuclear weapons. If the Soviets had a first strike capability(meaning the ability to completely neutralize US nuclear forces worldwide with a first strike), Kennedy would have ordered the strike on Cuba.

The only thing short of invasion and regime change are coercive inspections. This requires the deployment of large military forces to the region including into Iraq. Instead of being escorted by Iraqi's, the UN inspectors would be escorted by US military forces. Any obstruction of inspections like Iraq did in the 1990s would be met with massive military force to clear the obstruction. Iraq would have to unconditionaly agree to allow these types of inspections which would include the deployment of large numbers of US forces into Iraq to insure that Iraq is completely disarmed! Once that is done, which could take years, provisions must be set up to prevent Saddam from ever being able to resume a WMD program. This may include the permanent stationing of UN inspectors and with military forces to monitor Iraq on the spot to prevent resumption of their weapons programs. This is the only way short of regime change that Iraq can possibly be disarmed and UN resolutions complied with. If Saddam were willing to agree to coercive inspections which includes the deployment of US troops on Iraqi soil, then I say we should go this way. If he really believes the USA is going to attack and take him out, he may agree, but then again given his irrational past, he may not.

Any war is clearly justified given Iraq's violation of the 1991 ceacefire agreement and the threat that poses to the world. Open violation of the 1991 ceacefire agreement since 1998 by Iraq, legally means the UN and Iraq have been at war for 4 years now. The best way to prevent the mass loss of life from Saddam's weapons programs is to disarm him. It is unlikely that Saddam will agree to COERCIVE inspections, which would leave regime change as the only option to disarm the country.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 03:18 AM   #126
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Not George Lucas

3. Cuban Missile Crisis - We had actual physical proof that the USSR was installing bigass missiles in Cuba, merely 90 miles from the US. Kennedy's advisors urged him to strike or invade. Kennedy, having learned from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, decided to do neither. Instead he placed a blockade around Cuba so that anyone entering would have to be searched, destroyed, or turned away. My point here is that invasion of Iraq is not necessary. If inspectors find weapons, they can have them dismantled. If the inspectors are turned away, it may be possible to implement another plan that doesn't involve lots of killing. Frankly, the whole idea of jumping into a war scares me, especially in an unjust war such as this.
Imagine if GW/Rumsfeld/Cheney were in charge then.
"Quick! Fire a few off before they do!"
Pre-emptive! Good idea!

If you can have huge Russian nuke missiles parked on your doorstep, aimed at your capital cities, and you can sort it out without a shot being fired, under the pressure they were under, then surely some 3rd rate dick in the Middle East mucking around with fairly basic weapons, with no threat of using them, and all the time in the world to find a solution, should not need a mass US invasion to fix.
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 03:46 AM   #127
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Uh no I don't think so.

Saddam is not the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union never had the intention of using nuclear weapons in Cuba and Kennedy and most of his advisors new that. It was a crises because it was the first time the Soviets had a non-interceptable way of hitting the continental United States. But the Soviets new that the USA had a survivalable second strike capability which would hit the Soviet Union if they did anything. With Saddam, we do not have this level of deterence because of his history of irrational behavior unlike the Soviet Union. In addition, there is no way to deter a terrorist attack with WMD weapons launched by suicidal terrorist supplied by Saddam. The threat is that Saddam may believe and risk supplying these weapons to terrorist, believing that it could not be clearly traced back to him. This is actually a distinct possibility that we would be unable to trace the source of WMD weapons used in a terror attack on the USA. His risk taking and irrational behavior in the past is evidence that he may take a chance and do this. If you can't deter an attack from happening, you have to pre-emt it. There is no margin for error when trying to prevent an event 10 times worse than Saddam Hussian.

We have waited for and tried many things to bring Saddam into compliance with the UN resolutions for 11 years without regime change. If thats not being patient than I don't know what is!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 04:09 AM   #128
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Uh no I don't think so.

Saddam is not the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union never had the intention of using nuclear weapons in Cuba and Kennedy and most of his advisors new that. It was a crises because it was the first time the Soviets had a non-interceptable way of hitting the continental United States. But the Soviets new that the USA had a survivalable second strike capability which would hit the Soviet Union if they did anything. With Saddam, we do not have this level of deterence because of his history of irrational behavior unlike the Soviet Union. In addition, there is no way to deter a terrorist attack with WMD weapons launched by suicidal terrorist supplied by Saddam. The threat is that Saddam may believe and risk supplying these weapons to terrorist, believing that it could not be clearly traced back to him. This is actually a distinct possibility that we would be unable to trace the source of WMD weapons used in a terror attack on the USA. His risk taking and irrational behavior in the past is evidence that he may take a chance and do this. If you can't deter an attack from happening, you have to pre-emt it. There is no margin for error when trying to prevent an event 10 times worse than Saddam Hussian.

We have waited for and tried many things to bring Saddam into compliance with the UN resolutions for 11 years without regime change. If thats not being patient than I don't know what is!
I'm about to walk out the door, so sorry this is fast...
I agree that there is a threat of him supplying something to terrorists. That to me is the hard one to debate. I don't know why 'they' don't try and draw more attention to that possibilty.
It's all good and well pointing out that he may be able to launch a missile to a certain radius in a certain amount of time, but there's no way he would. He has been irrational before, but no-one was telling him not to. Since Kuwait he has been limited to fighting stupid political wars. Toying with the Inspectors is a game, one he's very good at. You say the US wasn't worried about the Soviets in Cuba, because they knew they couldn't win, so weren't going to launch first. Iraq has Israel right there, nuclear armed, and I think it's fairly obvious that the US wants his head on a plate. Surely Saddam is not suicidal.
My point is, an attack from Saddam, by Iraq is no threat.
The supply to terrorists could be, and I think he should be dealt with in a very heavy handed way. All out war may achieve the immediate goal, but it could turn real ugly real fast.
Like I said I'm moving quickly and this ain't a good post. I'll get back to this....
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 04:54 AM   #129
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
It is not a UN treaty, it is a ceacefire agreement with explicit conditions which call for the use of military force if the conditions are violated. It is not something that has to be voted on. The UN, in the ceacefire agreement, already approves military action against Iraq if Iraq violates the terms of the 1991 ceacefire.
[...]
b. Again the UN has already called for the attack. The UN ceacefire agreement calls for military action if Iraq breaks the terms of the ceacefire. Because Iraq has been in open violation of the ceacefire terms since 1998, from a legal standpoint, Iraq has been at war with the UN since 1998.
Then why doesn't the US go on and invade Iraq? Why all this messing around? As what you say is true and that military action is allowable at this moment, then why is the USA still waiting? They already have many fighter planes in the Gulf, so they can start bombing right away. They don't need a new UN resolution and they can tell this (that the violation of Iraq has as a consequence that military action is approved) to the UN. The member states passed the resolution in the past, so you can remind them of it. Then why all the fuss? Or is there something wrong with the logic of being allowed to take military action?

Quote:
To sum up, [...] 2. The Soviet Union was far more rational in its actions than Saddam Hussain or even other rogue nations that exist today. The Soviets were detered by are policy of containment and avoided doing things that would risk premature war with the USA and its allies. 3. Saddam's actions over the past 20 years have been risky, irrational, and unintelligent when compared to Soviet actions. The Soviets may have wanted to control the planet, but they were not stupid like Saddam. 4. The stand off with nuclear weapons between the USA is not the same as the stand off with Iraq and what Bio/Chem/Nuclear weapons they might have. In the Cold War there was the possibility of total destruction of the USA. With Iraq, were trying to prevent him from getting the ability to destroy a single US city. 5. Saddam may deliver Mass destruction weapons to terrorist and attack the USA that way. In this senerio we may never find out that the mass destruction weapon was supplied by Iraq. So even if Saddam was slightly rational, he may feel this is something he could get away with and he actually might be right. The fact that he is a risk taker and irrational only proves that this is a likely possibility.
I have to disagree with Saddam's perceived irrationality. I think he's very rational. First, he's a dictator that tries to do everything to stay in power. On a second level he tries to have as much power as possible in the region by pushing the boundaries. Third, when he's forced out of something he rather destroys it than that his opponent gets it. This is it, basically, that describes Saddam Hussein. It explains how he stays in power (eliminating the domestic opposition, complying with the international world when they are against him) and how he tries to expand his power (Iran/Iraq war, the invasion of Kuweit, trying to get WMD). He explores the boundaries of what he can (chemical weapons against Iran) and cannot (invasion of Kuweit) do. As I say, he's extremely rational.
That's why he's suddenly allowing weapons inspectors back in, saying they have unlimited access. He doesn't want a war, because by averting it he'll stay in power (probably). Does this make him dangerous? I think not.

BTW, regarding my third point of Hussein's rationality (what he does when he loses something to an opponent), rumour has it that when the US does invade Iraq, the first thing he'll do is set fire to all his oil fields. If he isn't in power anymore and has no more control over his oil, then neither will the USA. If you thought the fires in Kuweit were bad, then wait until the second largest oil producing country is set on fire. Chemical weapons have a lower priority.

Quote:
Iraq was soundly defeated on the battlefield in 1991 with the lowest military losses for a war involving that many troops in history. Iraq is far weaker in 2002 than they were before the 1991 Gulf War. Their military is only 1/3 the size with outdated often broken down equipment. They will be facing a US military that is stronger than it was in 1991. Victory is assured, the only question will be how many casualties it will take.
So you're saying that Iraq is a weak country at the moment (at least far weaker than in 1991). Then why all this talk of them being dangerous? This isn't in line with what you said earlier.

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 11:02 AM   #130
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: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Welcome Back Klaus:

you have mis-quoted me I'm afraid, because I never discussed comparison's between Hitler and Hussain with you. BAMA was the one that had their pics in one post and I think that is who your thinking of. I'd rather not get in to that debate at this point because I think I have a different view than both you and Bama on that point.
Sorry that one was quoted from U2Bama i forgot to point that out and was too lazy to create 2 postings

Anyway it would be interesting to get your point of view because it's different - discussions with someone who has the same view is boring

Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama
Hussein has exhibited plenty of tendencies which, to me, are VERY similar to the attitudes of Hitler. Perhaps there is a REASON why you hear the comparison once a month.
I wanted to say i hear Comparisions from Hittler to any other *** in the world once a month - not only Sadam.


Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama
Are you aware that Arabic translations of MEIN KAMPF and THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION are widely available in Iraq, and the Arabic translation of the former recently hit the bestseller list in Palestine?
No i wasn't aware of that. but afik the country where most "MEIN KAMPF" books are sold is the US. (but of course it's no bestseller there)
Another interesting point:
Did you know that the profit of the Hittler Books goes to Bavaria - the german county where the Conservative chancelor candidate governs for years.


So.. back to STING2

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The Mujahadeen acting against Soviet aggression in their country was not terrorism! They were fighting unlawful Soviet military occupation of their country like any other country would.
Folowing this argument the Irish IRA would be not a terrorist organisation either.

Quote:
Sometimes one does have to make peace with an enemy to fight a greater enemy. If you don't believe this, I guess you feel it was wrong for the USA to support the Soviet Union in World War II against the Axis. This commendable idealism needs a healthy dose of realism to go with it.


Yes - it is necessary sometimes - but you are also resposible for the results (Arming Iran, Iraq and giving Bin Laden tons of money to buy Weapons for example)
All i wanted to say is that sometimes it's dangerous to support enemies of enemies because some of them could be your enemies either

Quote:
Any weapon can kill someone that you don't want to. Mass destruction weapons are those weapons where its not possible to control to a great degree, the level of damage that is done to unintended targets. While a


Right - that's what i wanted to say.

Quote:
Daisy cutter is powerful, we can control where it is used so civilians are not hurt by it. The same cannot be said for Chem/Bio/Nuclear weapons because whether can carry its effects in unpredictable directions.


Most governments don't think tha it's just a powerful weapon and that's the reason why it's international unlawful to use it (Genf Conventions)

Quote:
The difference between the terrorist and the USA, is we only have mass destruction weapons to deter their use against us, terrorist seek to have these weapons because of their effectiveness in killing as many innocent civilians as possible.


Both are targeting their enemies - the difference is that their enemies are our friends and vice versa
Both sides are thinking that they kill for a good reason and
(Of course we don't target civilians because of our morale)

Quote:
There is a UN resolution that justifies military action against Iraq to bring it in compliance with UN resolutions including the ceacefire. While it does not explicitly say that regime change should be used to bring Iraq into compliance


As far as i read the UN resolutions it would violate international laws when the USA tries a regime change there.


Quote:
The USA and other UN countries are obligated to use military force to bring Iraq back into compliance with the 1991 ceacefire agreement. This


It's always the job of the UN to decide this not of single members.
If the US government thinks it should be done - fine talk about this at the UN.
Starting War without mandate from the UN violates international laws.
And that would put your country one step into the wrong direction.

Quote:
the USA. Instead, the USA and the UK are the only countries willing to do what the UN ceacefire agreement calls for!


The UN is the sum of their members.
If only the US (and UK are not pro war they are only willing to folow the US and pay the blood price) wants war it can't be pro UN.

Quote:
The oil is of interest to everyone on the planet. The price of oil is determined by how much is available. If supply is threatened or cut off, energy prices for everyone on the planet go up. Everyone spends money on energy everyday, whether its heating your home, turning a light on, or going somewhere in a car. Increase the price of doing that over a long period and you will ruin the global economy because people will be forced to spend less money in the economy and more money for their daily energy needs.


That's the point - War for cheap Oil!

It is in our interest to have cheap oil but we can't give up our ideals and our understanding of right and wrong because of money.

Quote:
Dresden was not bombed to weaken the morale of the people. It was bombed because it was a key industrial, transportation, and communication hub.


I dissagree but it's the wrong place to continue this discussion.

Quote:
We are not violating international law by invading Iraq, we are complying with it by doing so. Violation of the UN ceacefire agreement calls for the resumption of offensive operations


please tell me which UN resolution you are thinking of that you have the opinion that a invasion could be legal.

Quote:
against Baghdad! That is a fact. From a legal standpoint, we are already at war with Iraq because of their open violation


From a legal standpoint the US and Germany were at war until the reunification of Germany!

Quote:
of the ceacefire agreement since 1998! We have tried everything to force Iraq to comply with the ceacefire agreement over 11 years.


For a verry long time noone did anything in these 11 years.

France started to trade with Iraq again and noone put presure on them.
And Turkey is the main hole for smuggling but noone cares.

We agree that it's neccessary to put presure on Iraq. The only difference is that you think war is the only possibility for that.

And everything you said to Not George Lucas will show every anti-american regime that they have to have ABC Weapons to make sure that they are not conquered by the US Army.

And i don't agree to your vision points 1.2.3.

1. A war versus the Soviet union would have Killed nearly all life on the plantet.

2.+3. Castro would have been killed and the next regime might have been like his corrupt predecessor. (But of course pro american)
Imho the US Regime forced the revolutionaries of Cuba to become friends of the Soviet union (like you mentioned before without ABC Weapons the US government whould have liked to change the regime pro american).

When the USA tries to change the world (With military force) the way they prefer it it reminds me on a german proverb:

"Am Deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen"
(try to translate it yourself )

Only if we can stop suicide terrorists we can stop terrorism - and you can't stop them with bombing or conquering a country.

Maybee my oppinion is not pro war bacause of our (European) history.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 01:10 PM   #131
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Howdy. Does this mean I am missing the best thread?

Respect.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 06:05 PM   #132
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Popmartian,

The UN ceacefire agreement approves military action against Iraq if it violates the ceacefire agreement. Obviously the reasons for being cautious in this country is the cost money wise of taking down the Iraqi regime and having to have soldiers stationed in Iraq for the next 10 years. Nationbuilding is a difficult process which is why we are going slow about this and in addition why we want the support of other nations. In forcing compliance with ceacefire resolutions, regime change may have to happen. But then we are faced with the task of nation building. We do not want the 200 Billion dollar plus cost to fall just on our shoulders, we want as many countries as possible to help out with the peacekeeping and other duties afterwards. Were slow to move down this direction because of the aftermath. Coalitions are always better than going alone, but that does not prevent us for acting alone if we feel we have to.

As far as the actual military invasion, it would have been launched years ago, if nation building in Iraq was not a factor. But thats not reality and the USA and international community cannot afford to have Iraq crumble after an invasion. The threat to security and stability would be even greater if that happen. So the answer to your basic question of what is stopping us or slowing us down since we already have approval for military action is, we want as much financial and economic support that we can get from other countries as possible for rebuilding the country after the war or conflict is over. Getting little or none does not mean we will not act though.

I do not find rational the invasion of a country 3 times as large as your own, Iran, to be a rational political/military move on the part of Saddam. Aside from the fact that the war accomplished nothing for him and put the country in a worse economic situation, it also almost led to his death and Baghdad being overrun. Not to smart or rational in my opinion.

Once the war was over in 1988, within two years he decides to invade a target that will not be able to resist like Iran, Kuwait. The consequences of doing this were obvious to most people except Saddam. There is no place outside Europe and a few places in Asia, that is of greater national interest to the USA than persian gulf oil. If there is any place that the USA is willing to fight a war its hear, the interest are to high. Despite that fact Saddam annexed Kuwait and continue to prepare for war believing the Americans after Vietnam did not have the stomach for it. It was obvious to most intelligent experts that the US would crush the Iraqi military machine, which Saddam had conveniently placed 2/3s of in Kuwait. On the last day of the war, there were US troops who had no Iraqi troops in between them and Baghdad. Defectors have said at this point Saddam feared for his life and had actually planned to leave the country if US forces advanced toward Baghdad, which they could do virutually unapposed. It was not rational to risk war with the USA and the possiblity that he would be killed. Again another irrational miscaculaton by Saddam.

The reason Saddam has been able to do little on the international front as far as invading countries is that his conventinal military machine used in Iran, Kuwait and Saudia Arabia has been smashed. He has few if any of the Scud Missiles he fired at Israel in 1991. His ability to threaten his neighbors has been greatly reduce, except in one new horrifying way. Saddam still has the ability to produce WMD weapons. While his military has been smashed, it does not take a large amount of WMD to cause severe loss of CIVILIAN life in a terrorist attack in a foreign country. This is Saddam's last true capability to threaten the world. Based on his past irrational moves, he could assume that he could get away with a WMD attack by using international terrorist as the means of delivery. It is very possible that it will be dificult to trace the use of such weapons back to Saddam. Saddam being a risk taker is potentially likely to act in this regard. That is why Baghdad has to be Truely disarmed through Coercive Military inspections or Regime change!

We can handle the fires in Iraq just as we handled the fires in Kuwait. Kuwaiti oil is all over the market today, just as Iraqi oil will be when Saddam is out of power.

I said Iraq is CONVENTIONALLY WEAKER than they were in 1991. They also have a smaller number of weapon systems that could deliver weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's threat is from its pursuit of WMD that could be handed to terrorist at any time! That is the threat that Iraq poses. Saddam's behavior and risk taking suggest that he is likely to do this. In additon, his obession with having weapons that have little military use, but a huge use if trying to inflict mass loss of life among a civilian population is damning evidence that this is his goal.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 07:02 PM   #133
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:12 AM
The difference between the IRA and the Mujahadeen is that the Mujahdeen were resisting an INTERNATIONAL invasion of their country. No one in Afghanistan claims to be apart of the Soviet Union. The majority of people in living in Northern Ireland claim to be apart of the United Kingdom. Next the Mujahadeen targeted Soviet troops in Afghanistan. They never attacked Soviet Civilians in the Soviet Union. They never bombed Moscow. On the other hand the IRA targets civilians. Most people killed by the IRA are civilians. Most people killed by the Mujahadeen during the 1979-1989 war were soldiers. The Mujahadeen have a legitmate right to resist Soviet Occupation of their country. I do not see the IRA response to civil rights abuses in Northern Ireland to be appropriat at all. The are other options available to the IRA to work out their grievances. The UK is a democracy, the Soviet Union is not. The Mujahadeen only had one option vs the Soviets, submit or fight.

Again, the USA supplied the Mujahadeen with some weapons during the Afghan/Soviet War. 70% of the weapons were supplied by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The leader of the Mujahdeen later became the leader of the Northern Alliance that opposed the Taliban, Al-quada and Bin Laden. Bin Laden's chief role in the Afghan conflict was giving money and getting other arabs to come to Afghanistan to support the Mujahadeen. There is little if any direct connection between the USA support for Mujahadeen and then support for Bin Laden. Most of this is simple generalization. Tons of money to Bin Laden, nope. Bin Laden was a business man that had his own money.

Its true that the USA supported Iran when the Shah was in power to counter Soviet supported Iraq. The US never sold weapons to Iraq. Iraq did capture US weapons from Iran during the Iran/Iraq war though, but this was a tiny amount.

Terrorist target innocent civilians, not military personal! We do not target civilians we target the military. Huge difference.

I understand the UN resolutions do not explicitly call for regime change, but they do call for military action if the ceacefire is broken to disarm Baghdad.

The UN has already approved US military action through the ceacefire agreement. It true it does not explicitly say we take military action as far as changing the regime, but it does say we are mandated to resume military action to bring Iraq in compliance with the UN ceacefire agreement. There is no need for a vote because the vote took place 11 years ago.

The USA is not pro war, we are pro international Security!

Were not giving up are idea's of right and wrong for cheap oil, we are enforcing are idea's of right and wrong by preventing Saddam and others from threatening the economic health of the world!

Again, the UN CEACEFIRE AGREEMENT mandates that military action be taken to enforce the agreement if it is broken!

The USA tried though those 11 years to keep santions on Iraq and prevent other countries from doing trade that would violate the sanctions. We flew to no-fly zones in the North and the South of Iraq to insure the security of other countries that bordered that area and deny Iraq the use of airpower against Shia an Kurdish civilians. The USA was involved in a intensive inpsections regime to try and disarm Iraq peacefully. The USA has done a lot of things, diplomatically and peacefully, over the past 11 years to get Iraq to fully comply with UN resolutions. It has failed. That is why force is necessary! It is the only language Saddam understands!

I don't see how your assertion that what I said to Not George Lucas imply's that every country would go for weapons of mass destruction to safeguard against US invasion. I'm afraid you did not understand what I said. The US did not invade the Soviet Union because they had nuclear weapons, the US did not invade the Soviet Union because we never had the CONVENTIONAL military strength to do so, if that had been are intention. After the 1960s the likely hood of nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union during a conflict was made less likely when the Soviets achieved nuclear parity with the USA. BUT it made a conventional military conflict in europe MORE likely because the use of nuclear weapons was unlikely because of the uncontrollable risk their use in the war would create. Before the Soviet achieved nuclear parity with the USA, the USA had the option of using nuclear weapons with little fear of Soviet ability to strike the continental USA. That option went away when both sides had the weapons in large numbers and their use would mean defeat for both sides. At that point , nuclear weapons became military unuseful. The Soviets could now attack western Europe with the confidence that their nuclear weapons would deter the USA's use of nuclear weapons to defend Europe. Weapons of Mass destruction only deter an attacker if the possible attacker does not have Weapons of Mass destruction itself. Rogue nations attempting to obtain weapons of mass destruction will in fact only increase the likely hood that they are attacked by the USA. The USA is not detered by their WMD because it has its own arsonal of WMD. Part of the reason that Chem/Bio weapons were not used in WW II when most countries had them or could build them.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 07:10 PM   #134
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:12 AM
In response to Klaus again:

The USA could have installed a democracy in Cuba just like we did in Italy, Germany, and Japan after World War II. The proper investment of funds would achieve this.

As Afghanistan is the case you sometimes do have to bomb or defeat a country in order to stop terrorism. It is unfortunate that the USA did not intervene in the world the way it has since World War II, before World War II. From Europe to Asia, to the middle east, the US military intervention has secured democracy, prosperity, security, and stability, for millions of people in many countries around the world. My father served in the US military for 30 years during the Cold War and I am very proud of his service to help secure democracy, prosperity, and stability throughout the world!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 11:40 PM   #135
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 06:12 AM
In response to STING2's reply to me (late as usual!)
Quote:
Ok you live in Argentina and this has been your personal experience from you have seen. But, I'd like to see national statistics which would contradict UN DATA which shows Argentina at #34 standard of living in the world. I live in the USA, and of course were the wealthiest country in the world, but there are people in my country who could describe somewhat similar personal experience in regards to their situation from 1970 to 2002. But obviously this persons personal experience is not the situation for most people as shown by national statistics on poverty and wealth in the USA. The point here is while personal experience is informative, it alone cannot be extrapolated to be the condition for the nation as a whole. If the United Nations has made a mistake in its ranking then please list the national statistics that show this. I have the Human Development Report from 1991 as well and I can look to see where Argentina ranked then, but I doubt it was higher than it is today. I'm not saying your wrong on the conditions today vs. 1970, I'd just like to see more "national data" that would contradict the United Nations information.
There certainly must be national statistics somewhere, in fact all the time the media are reporting official and private figures regarding this. However, statistics are just that, they may be informative to some extent but they don't always reflect accurately what the real situation is since their reliability and degree of objectiveness depend on who perform them, to what end, what interest they are supposed to serve, what factors are taken into account, what's the studied cases' profile, how many cases are actually involved, etc. It notorious also that statistics may be easily manipulated to fit a particular government's need. In fact the administration we had during the 90s was very fond of reporting GDP and economic growth figures since they were indeed higher than in previous years and of concluding that we were already on our way to becoming a "first world nation". However even if they might have managed to fool the international community they certainly could not do the same with local population since the "first world" slogan was repeatedly brought up as the greatest joke of all time. To cite the inaccuracy statistics may report a recent example comes to mind. Some time ago a national census was run and among the questions posed there was one regarding employment: to say that you worked for as little as an hour a week or only occasionally (probably because it was all you could get) automatically checked the "employed" box, which is obviously ridiculous since such a situation can be hardly considered "employment". The results naturally did not reflect the real degree of unemployment there currently is in this country and which can be easily verified on a daily basis on site.

While your doubt regarding what I reported as being an isolated case extrapolated from reality may be logical, be absolutely sure that I wouldn't have brought it up if didn't accurately reflect what we are seeing in this country day to day since I have no particular interest in putting myself on the public stand. In fact what I reported reflects the situation of well over 90% of Argentinians since those who have seen their situation improve in the last 30 years are less than 10% of the population. Such figure is by no means an invention of mine but is brought up by the media all the time as the actual percentage of people who enjoy a privileged life status in this country. If the statistics you mention have been performed on that particular segment of the population I can perfectly well understand the #34 ranking for standard of living since those people are certainly better off than years ago and are actually enjoying lifestyles perfectly comparable to those in first world societies. But then again their case clearly does not reflect the majority of the people. In fact the dramatic shrinking of the formerly wide middle-class base is hard fact which not only can be sensed and suffered in everyday life but is also widely discussed in the media at every level.

To further demonstrate the relativity of statistics, it's enough to compare how GDP and economic growth figures related to people's actual standard of living during the 90s. In fact while it was celebrated at governmental level that such figures were progressively increasing the actual well-being of most of the population was inversely proportional. The increase in GDP and economic growth figures in this country during the last decade responded to various factors such an increase in trade which was however strongly tilted to import due to the overvalue of local currency, privatisation of most state-owned companies, short-term investments in most cases speculative and an initial euphoria in consumption due to the increase in actual cash flow result of such sales, of such speculative investments and of the expansion of virtual money in the guise of CCs and relatively easy access to credit. Such euphoria however was extremely short-lived (no more than one and a half/two years at most) since in the import-favourable scenario it wasn't very long before industrial facilities started to close down as it was more cost-effective to import than to produce locally, this started to create widespread unemployment, cash flow rapidly decreased, buying power started to dramatically shrink, access to credit became readily more difficult, foreign investments became progressively more sparse not to say that many already established ones actually left the country and the worst recession in the history of this country was just round the corner.

In fact what you stated in your previous post re "importing more than you export does not mean a country is not economically healthy" is true up to a certain extent. I mean that to retain economic "good health" in such a situation there must be a substantial national treasure reserve to allow to resist heavy outward capital flow, there musn't be loan payment deadlines in the short term and there must be the sufficient political space and freedom to determine overall policy changes such as subsidisation, increase in import taxes, etc at short notice, should the situation be getting out of hand. Nevertheless a trade policy heavily slanted to importation produces recession in the long run. The degree of gravity of such recession depends basically on the above said factors. The examples you brought up about trade deficit reaching in fact its peak during the height of US economic expansion in the 1990s and South Korean increase in exports during the SE Asian crisis are easily explained since the effects of such policies are not felt at the same time the events are taking place but some time later. In fact the US experienced an economic expansion in the 90s with trade deficit but now it's suffering from recession result of such policy. South Korea started tipping its trade balance towards exports during the crisis, now it's experiencing a period of economic progress.

Quote:
do you find it revolting that the USA helped the Soviet Union(Stalin was as evil as any Nazi if not worse) during World War II? Do you think the USA should not have helped the Soviet Union during World War II? Do you know what that would of meant for the world if the Soviet Union had been knocked out of the war by the Germans?
Both situations can't be possibly compared. On the one hand you surely must be aware that the US had little to do with the Soviet Union not being knocked out of the war by the nazis. In fact Operation Barbarossa (Hitler's campaign to take over the Soviet Union launched in June 1941) was repulsed at a terrible life-cost mainly by the Red Army with the invaluable aid of Russian civilian population and the harsh Russian winter. In fact at the time the US were barely at war and in any case much more committed on fronts other than the Russian one. The US' primary objective regarding their collaboration in the European front was to aid Great Britain and France mainly against Hitler and not in particular the Soviet Union who had even refused to constitute an alliance with the British at the time. Undoubtedly the Soviet Union's containment of Germany on its western front and on a lesser scale of Japan on its eastern one was useful to defeat a common enemy and to such end Stalin was eligible to receive US support in case it was needed. What I mean is that the US did not go into war in Europe to prevent the Soviet Union from being beaten by the nazis since its regime was as hostile to the US as the nazi was, but rather to prevent a nazi takeover of western Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East. US war operations on European soil can easily prove this point, as a matter of fact US participation was sensitively lower in eastern Europe than in the west.

The subtle difference between American incidental collaboration with Stalin during WWII and support of fundamentalist guerrilla groups in Afghanistan in the 80s was that in the first case the Soviets' action against the nazis was extremely useful to defeat US true allies' enemies but not the goal of such aid which instead was aimed in general at preventing economic interest areas from being controlled by a hostile competitor and at the preservation of traditional trading partners BUT ALSO included in the package help to countries who had been attacked by an alien power with a dictatorial and racist regime to regain or retain freedom and self-determination. In the case of Afghanistan there was absolutely no interest in the freedom of the nation or the rebuilding of such as a democratic state but rather the paramount goal was that it was not Soviet controlled since such control seemingly jeopardised western interests in the area. To this end a fundamentalist force with no intention whatsoever of helping to build a free and democratic Afghanistan was funded. This is what I find revolting. I mean my repugnance does not stem from the fact that the US should try to defend their interests in foreign countries which is perfectly licit but rather that most of the time they stop at nothing in order to attain such goal. This policy many times has brought about situations/governments, etc which have been/are highly harmful to local communities.

Quote:
In my view your comendable idealism needs to be infused with a healthy dose of realism.
Regarding this comment, I'd appreciate that you refrained from qualifying my line of thought and from telling me what I need to do. This debate has been civil because we have respected each other despite our differences, please let's keep it that way.

Quote:
I'm certainly not expecting the USA to advertise a supposed policy of using Fundamentalism as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. But I do expect a lot more than the "facts" you gave to support that conclusion. I do not deny the logic, it just that the fact that we supported resistent fighters in Afghanistan does not alone prove your point.
I did state other examples and I believe that all of them prove my point. If you "don't deny the logic" it should be fairly simple to draw conclusions from such facts as I described, however you don't seem to be willing to admit the correctness of my statetemet under ANY argument simply because you disagree with it as a matter of principle. Because of this no fact is ever going to be enough for you. Furthermore it's not my intention to try to convert you or anybody else for that matter. It makes no sense to continue revolving around this point since we've reached a dead end.

Quote:
Again if its a well publish fact that we sold weapons other than Tow missiles to get the release of hostages, please show me an article that proves this and just list one or two weapon systems other than the Tow missile that was sold to Iran, and in what quantity. The USA sold lots of weapons to Iran while the SHAH was in power, but not after his fall. Please list any weapons system and in what quantity. You don't have to list everything, I'd just like to see some of this evidence that you say you have.
Let's leave the Shah alone, shall we? We're not talking of pre 1979 Iran! I didn't say that I personally possess such evidence and I've already stated that I can hardly state type of equipment and quantity since this is not something that the media publish nor am I an intelligence agent or a military expert with access to such information. What I said is that the media at the time reported once and again that the US was selling equipment to Iran independently from the missile exchange for hostages. If I can I'll try to rake up some of the articles if they are anywhere accessible to be found.

Quote:
Again, I don't follow your logic that if the Soviet Union was colapsing that would mean that their client State would colapse as well.
That's NOT what I said!! Please try re-reading what I actually wrote in the various posts. Anyway let's see if I can make myself clear: the fact that Iraq was equipped militarily (i. e. bought armament) from the USSR made it a Soviet client state but NOT NECESSARILY a Soviet satellite state (i.e. under complete Soviet control). In the beginning you implied that because Iraq bought from the Soviet Union it was automatically a Soviet satellite state, which clearly is not the case. In reply to this I said that if your theory were to be true (i.e. that Iraq was really a Soviet satellite state rather than a Soviet client one) it should have collapsed readily after the fall of the former USSR as the Warsaw Pact states did. Since it did not, it is clear that Iraq might have been a Soviet client but it was NOT in the Soviet orbit in the same way the Warsaw Pact nations were. I hope this clarifies it.

Quote:
Many of the liberals and Palestinians claimed the Israelies killed 7,000 people at Jenin, it was later discovered that 48 people were killed and that most of them were terrorist. It was also discovered that the Israelies warned everyone to leave before they launched their attack on the terrorist, at least the IDF seems to care about the Palestinians unlike the terrorist who claim to be fighting for them!
The actual figure is of no relevance since the fact that they should have killed just one single civilian in the sort of operation they performed at Jenin would be just as condemnable since what is being discussed here is the legitimacy of the IDF's modus operandi in many of its operations. The fact that they "warned people to leave" is not a valid excuse since people were in their OWN homes and by not leaving they were possibly trying to defend their property. They probably must have thought that the IDF would not go as far as bulldozing their homes if they stayed inside. Another reasonable possibility is that civilians might have been actually held as hostages by the terrorists, so they hardly would have been able to leave at all at such prompt.

Quote:
Actually Police whether it be in the USA, UK, Ireland or anywhere else often use deadly force against criminals in urban area's which does put the lives of innocent civilians at risk. I fully condone the Police using these means to bring criminals to justice, because the risk is minimal compared to letting criminals simply get away. How could the allies in World War II or any other country taking legitimate military action against an enemy be able to if the possible risk of civilian casaulties prevented them from acting.
No, you're mixing up concepts here. While it's perfectly legitimate that the police use deadly force to tackle crime and that accidentally civilians might be injured or killed because of it, what we are actually discussing is not whether it is legitimate or not to use deadly force but rather in what way such force is actually used. You surely wouldn't approve of the police bombing a building where a criminal is holed up holding hostages just to do away with him, would you? Or do you believe that in order to do away with a criminal the immolation of a few innocent lives (provided they're not closely related to you) is worth the final result?

Quote:
its not policy to murder innocent Palestinians
It may not be a policy but it's done on a daily basis and not necessarily by accident.

Quote:
The IDF has the capability to kill everyone on the West Bank, but they don't, they try to avoid civilian casualties but accidents happen
Intentionally bulldozing houses when it's known that innocent civilians are inside can be hardly called an "accident".

Quote:
In trying to explain why the terrorist attack civilians instead of military targets, you have failed to explain how that would accomplish their goals of having the IDF leave the West Bank. There is simply no logic in attacking civilians. They have nothing to do with the IDF being on the West Bank. There are far better methods for resisting IDF occupations on the West Bank. If one has the ability to blow up a building with innocent civilians why wouldn't they have the ability to at least attempt to do the same against a military target. Their slaughter of Jewish civilians in Israel cannot be explained by any logic.
Is it that hard to understand? They are trying to have the IDF leave the West Bank in exchange for putting a stop to terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians! Another reason is to bring international attention to their problem since violence has an undeniable power in this sense. Come on, you're certainly aware that it's way easier to attack a civilian target than a military one! The slaughter of Jewish civilians can be perfectly well explained by logic, what it certainly can't is to be condoned in any way.

Quote:
The USA is in obeying the UN by enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq. It is other UN members that are in defiance of their own organization by not enforcing the resolutions against Iraq. Since the other countries are not obeying the UN resolutions regarding Iraq by enforcing them, then by your logic they should all leave the UN as well.
It seems to be a matter of opinion, since if it was so clear that terms of the cease-fire agreement were violated there would be absolutely no obstacle for Bush to be given immediate green light to launch this attack. Why would there be any opposition? Hussein isn't precisely a popular character anywhere. On another account there's absolutely no logic in what you state at the end since the other countries are not bypassing UN regulations but are rather asking for evidence to conclusively prove that the terms of a UN agreement are being actually violated. It doesn't seem to be so obvious to them as you claim it is.

Quote:
Because the UN cannot be convinced to act on a certain situation does not in fact mean the condition that is claimed does not exist. The UN failed to act in Kosovo! Civilians were being slaughtered by the Serbs by the UN could not act because of the Soviets veto power in the UN. NATO acted and brought peace to the region. The UN is a wonderful attempt to communicate and resolve differences, but it is not a world government. I guess you think all 19 members of NATO should leave the UN since their action in Kosovo was not approved by the UN.
No, actually I don't think so, since the need of intervention in Kosovo was agreed upon by a large part of the international community. In fact it was as you stated, supported by all NATO members to which quite a few extra NATO allies including my country must be added. Such operation was certainly endowed with much more legitimacy than an action such as the one the US proposes to undertake which has gained practically no international adhesion.

Quote:
You know your criticism of the USA and the UN could also be leveled against virtually any member of the UN at one time or the other.
Certainly, why not? Though more powerful members are much more prone to such deviations. The case that it's the US being criticised now is simply rooted in the fact that it is the US who is involved at the moment. My appraisal of a similar situation involving any other nation would be exactly the same so there's no need to hint for anti-Americanism.
__________________

__________________
ultraviolet7 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 01:12 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