Attack or Self-Defense? - Page 4 - 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 02-19-2003, 08:31 PM   #46
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:20 AM
LOL - I'm wondering if you are both Taurus's.
Not that I'm not taking both of you seriously. I'd like to hear an answer from Sting whether he would sanction agression without the UN. I think most of the world admits Saddam needs to be curtailed, but under the UN umbrella only. I give up.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 09:18 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:20 AM
I'd like to know what you think Scarlet o' LOL at us!

HEHEHEHE!!!
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 09:26 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

I have a question for HIP HOP.....

If the UN Security Council finds Iraq in Material Breech of the UN Resolutions and gives the go ahead for war, would you support it?
I donīt know exactly what you mean by saying Material Breach (my english skills are limited, sorry), but I figure you mean if they found a nuclear bomb there.

Support? Difficult to say. I would never support a war. I would support the disarming of Iraq, though, if UN inspections found a nuclear bomb in Iraq thats ready to be fired off, like a nuke. I would think the disarming of at least that part of Iraqi military power is very important.

This is my opinion because

1) I think that Saddam is more dangerous with a nuke in his hands than many other states who possess nuclear weapons.

2) Because it would be a violation of international law. We can still discuss whether its right for, say, Russia, to own hundreds of nukes, and for Iraq its not right to own one, but international law and the past UN resolutions canīt be ignored. After all, what standards do we base international military actions on, if not the UN standards?

I probably wouldnīt support a large scale war, because I think disarming can be done with some interventions. There is a difference in securing that Iraq canīt use its potential nuclear weapons, and in bombing all the country down, going in with ground troops, and killing not only the Republican Guards and Saddam, but tens of thousands of civilians as well.

I would support disarming, though. And I would support military action which helps the Iraqi people to make their own kind of revolution (?) and to install a (hopefully) more democratic leader. I just think they, the Iraqis, have to decide what to do with Saddam (except of the Int Court of Justice, who also has a say in those things).

Anyhow, I canīt really imagine that the development of nuclear weapons is that far in Iraq, because there would have been tests. I donīt know about uranium enrichment, ok, but bombs or nukes, I donīt think so.

I had the chance to speak to officials of the CTBTO. What they say is that no state in history was sure of its nuclear potential before they hadnīt tested it.

I will not tell you details about the surveillance system of the CTBTO, but I can tell you its pretty good. If there is any nuclear explosion for test reasons worldwide by any state, the CTBTO will find out.

This organization doesnīt have the political right to decide whether sth. was a nuclear exlosion, they just have the right to give the scientifically interpreted data to politicians, who must decide what to do with the CTBTOīs data and interpretation of data.

Anyway, if all 5 permanent members of the Sec Council agree its time for a war against Iraq - which is a political decision - I would reconsider my opinion on war, which doesnīt mean I would support war.

Hope this clarifies my point of view.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 09:29 PM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:20 AM
Thanks for responding with such a detailed response. Thanks again for starting this thread. I enjoyed reading what you posted, and it inspired me to do some research on my own.

Matt
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 11:09 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Dreadsox,

I agree 1441 is in charge of things, and 1441 reaffirms 678!

It is unbelievable that the United Nations would not consider anything that Iraq has done over the past 12 years to be a violation or a material breech of Iraq's obligation. The UN should have found Iraq in material breech long ago in which case 678, affirmed in 687, goes into effect. If anything, this totally shows the ineffectivness of the United Nations in regards to security issues.

Scarletwine,

Despite not being able to completely justify it through the framework of the UN without a UN confirmed, material breech by Iraq, I still feel that Bush has an overwhelming case to disarm Iraq with a coalition of the willing. By the way, that CNN/TIME/GALLOP poll that I saw showed that 57% of Americans felt that Bush should lead a coalition of the willing to disarm Iraq.

Polling is tricky and most polls had used UN but not polled a question with "a coalition of the willing". Public support may only be a slight majority for Bushes policy but it is there. Nearly 70% found Powels speech convincing.

If Bush decides to go, I will definitely support him. It may be without the UN, but its still within a coalition. Everyone that is screaming the "not without the UN", where were they when the USA went into Kosovo in 1999 without the UN. Why does no one consider that to be a unilateral, UN destroying move? One reason is because the USA went in with a coalition of countries, which was NATO. The current coalition of countries may not have a formal name or history like NATO, but it is a coalition.

In the Korean War in 1950, if the Soviets had been present at the resolution that decided to use force to remove North Korea from the South, they would have vetoed it. The military operation to save South Korea would have been outside the UN. Anyone argue that would have been unjustified?

Another powerful reason to support disarmament of Iraq or regime change, is human rights one. How much longer do Iraqi's deserve to suffer the hell that Saddam continues to put them through? Saddam's actions have murdered 3 times as many Iraqi's as Milosovic did in the former Yugoslavia. How many more families have to watch their daughters be rapped in front of them or their sons tortured and executed? Yep I know, there are bad people everywhere and the USA can't protect everyone. But that is not a relevant arguement not to do something. Just because we can't put out every fire on the planet does not mean we don't put out any. So how when and where do we decide to go after these human rights abuses, obviously, area's where international security is threatened take precedence. Iraq heads that list.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-20-2003, 05:00 PM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I'd like to know what you think Scarlet o' LOL at us!

HEHEHEHE!!!
Scarletwine
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-20-2003, 07:04 PM   #52
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:20 AM


I really enjoyed this thread. Very informative. I was lol at you and Sting. Neither conceding an inch about 678.

I'm reading an interesting book called "Censored 2000". It has an interesting articlke about Turkish genocide of Kurdish people and villages using US weapons. That they destroyed more than 3000 villages and over 40,000 lives. It has been reported several times by Amnesty Int'l. More people than Sadaam has supposedly killed. But of course we want that toehold so all that's different.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 12:17 AM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:20 PM
For the record, the Iraqi military/government under Saddam has killed 1.7 million people.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 12:24 AM   #54
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,838
Local Time: 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
For the record, the Iraqi military/government under Saddam has killed 1.7 million people.
That is NOT a widely accepted statistical figure and you know it STING. Not even the Bush administration has alleged this, 'for the record'.

I appreciate your desire to state your opinion, but your calculation is erroneous and not based in fact.

No one is saying Saddam is blameless, without blood on his hands, or a saint.

But let's stick to the facts please.
__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 06:22 AM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:20 PM
I think the poll shows 57% are for it with UN approval, only 37% without UN.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:48 AM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:20 AM
Actually, the polls show support is decreasing. I beg to differ with you STING.

Here is the link.....YOu do the interpretations. CFR is a pretty reliable group.


http://www.news24.com/News24/World/I...323499,00.html

or here

http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stori...194616,00.html
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 09:25 AM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 09:20 AM


Not that it wasn't informative...but my head is starting to hurt!
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 09:29 AM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:20 AM
LOL...Mine two. I have been waking up at 300 AM to check the news. Talk about head hurting.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 02:44 PM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:20 AM
In one of the articles HIPHOP posted it discussed this section of the Charter.

Article 51 of the United Nation Charter:
Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Armed intervention is justified under the following conditions:
1. The existence of armed aggression (the definition adopted by the UN General Assembly, Resolution 3314 of 1974): Aggression is defined as the use of armed force by one state, against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state.
2. The absence of necessary measures by the UN Security Council to maintain peace. Once the Security Council has taken these measures, the right to armed self-defense ceases. A state that takes measures of legitimate self-defense is obligated to inform the Security Council.
3. Legitimate defense only justifies "those measures proportional to the armed aggression that has occurred, and that are necessary for ending that aggression." (International Court of Justice, June 27, 1986 in re Nicaragua).

I think it is clear that the US cannot invoke Article 51 because of #2. Very clearly the UNited Nations Security Council is taking steps.

However, I am concerned about the language in the resolution adopted last fall by the UN in Article 1441 in the folowing parts of the resolution:

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

and

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

OK...Now this is where I am a little bit concerned. Even though this states Iraq has indeed materially breeched article 687 (CEASE-FIRE) it very clearly gives Iraq another chance in section #2.

Section #13 does not specifically say that there will be a use of force if Iraq does not comply. It says there will be "serious consequences" without defining them.

In reading through this again and again, I believe in my heart that the United States must get another vote from the security council, otherwise, we will be violating international law and the charter of the UN.

PEACE
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 05:06 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Gabrielvox,

If you believe that the Iran/Iraq war, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq's persecution of Kurds and Shia's after the Gulf War, Iraq's execution of citizens and certain military personal, Iraq's denial of humanitarian supplies to various parts of the country, is the fault of Saddam Husseins dictatorship, then the figure of 1.7 million dead is actually a conservative estimate. Now if you do not find fault with Saddam for any or all these particular actions then the figure drops, potentially to 0.

Just out of curiousity, what is your estimate based on what you have studied? How many deaths in World War II would you attribute to Hitler? How many people do you think would die if Saddam Hussein aquired Nuclear Weapons and used them on Tel Aviv, Ankara, Kuwait City, sometime in the future?
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 09:20 AM.


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