Children Shooting at Marines

[Screaming Flower]

 

[hiphop]

I like this smilie but it doesn?t smile a lot.

 

[Screaming Flower]

you're right. it doesn't.

 

[hiphop]

How come?

 

[Screaming Flower]

i don't know. it's me. what the hell am i talking about and why am i rambling in fym?

 

[hiphop]

Relax and smile take it easy, I know fym isn?t easy though.

 

[ALEXRUS]

what I'm saying is..I wouldnt' be so quick to judge.


1. Are you telling me that war can be conducted with no civilian csualties? if so...enlighten us....


2. We dropped an A bomb on japan...after rebuilding their economy we've have good relations with them. We fought a war with germany and until recently we've had VERY cordial relations with the germans. So if you telling me that civilian casutlites inflicted today will impact the way iraqis view the united states historically..you may in fact be wrong. That being said lets move on


3. Let's jsut stop being foreign agressors and let sanctions kill far more iraqis...that of course is a better course of action according to you?....the long term well being of the iraqi ppl is then in very serious jeopardy.

1. Any big war implies civilian deaths. This is one of the main reasons why Im against this war.

2. Well, historically... Who cares what they think of you in 1000 years? No I meant (quite explicitly by the way) their attitude during THIS war.

3. Im sick of hearing there are only two alternatives: either immediate illegal war or sanctions that will kill more Iraqis. Some people do have serious problems with imagination...

 

[Dreadsox]

1. Any big war implies civilian deaths. This is one of the main reasons why Im against this war.

2. Well, historically... Who cares what they think of you in 1000 years? No I meant (quite explicitly by the way) their attitude during THIS war.

3. Im sick of hearing there are only two alternatives: either immediate illegal war or sanctions that will kill more Iraqis. Some people do have serious problems with imagination...

I and others on the pro-war side have started threads many times in here asking for other alternatives. There has been very little responses. I do take issue with your "little imagination" comment. People on both sides of this issue are very intelligent and have read many books and articles on this topic, and have come to very different conclusions.


I urge you to start your own thread on the topic of what other options there are. I think you will be surprised that many of us, on both sides, have many other ideas of what could have been done. Just start it off with what you would have done if sanctions and war are not the options. I am sincerely curious.

Peace

 

[hiphop]

I and others on the pro-war side have started threads many times in here asking for other alternatives. There has been very little responses. Peace

There have been responses from me at the very least, and as far as I remember some by other members too - but you have ignored them, kind of. Never heard any serious argument why it couldn?t be done by the CIA + Mossad. Two weeks of big scale war, and Saddam is still alive and well. No democracy, but more and more civilian deaths and some American soldiers as well. Congratulations, Mr. President. I still think you did the right thing. After all, soldiers have discovered what Blix couldn?t possibly discover: 34 nukes targeting Washington DC (unconfirmed rumours).

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox: i responded in that thread too

well genius..in a war civillian casualties occur..it's a sad thing that occurs in war...the word implies it


can you name me one major conflict in which no civilian casualties occured???

Most conflict which were solved by Diplomats and not by military resulted in less / no dead civilians.

Maybe the video-game-like way wars were presented at at foxnews and cnn made lots of people forget what war is. I'm also a little frightened about Melons way of "more bombing before invading" this would just result in less dead US troops but would raise the number of dead civilians. Are we willing to "sacrifice" innocent women and kids to save some alied troops? The alied troops have had at least a choice, they know what they were doing when they applied for their job in the army.
It's a difficult question

Klaus

 

[Dreadsox]

I said, "very little response", I did not say "no response". Yes, you and hiphop, and I put forward ideas as well. Just with the large numbers so critical of US policy, there is definitely what I would call a lack of response.

I would go with the bombing. If you are going to fight a war, you have to make tough decisions, right or wrong. This bombing has been the most precise in history, and the low death totals on both sides are a credit to this tactic.

Peace

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox:

When i asked the pro war fraction what to do when the war is won the response was even less

But you're right, most of the anti war protestors are just "against it" without thinking too much about alternatives

And yes - i'm impressed that they still use the "precicion bombs" (which give a 3/4 chance of hitting what you want to hit) because these bombs are approx 100x more expensive than the dumb ones. Let's hope the US continues it like that

Iraq is using a ugly tactic trying to force the allied troops to cause more colateral damage
But it seems to me the logic response (also the most inhumane) if you want to defend your country against such a superpower

War is such a ugly thing

Klaus

 

[ALEXRUS]

I urge you to start your own thread on the topic of what other options there are. I think you will be surprised that many of us, on both sides, have many other ideas of what could have been done. Just start it off with what you would have done if sanctions and war are not the options. I am sincerely curious.
Peace

I dont feel like starting another thread.
U need alternatives?

If it is about disarmament
1. Continuation of inspections and continuation of military pressure.
Thanks to US pressure Iraq started cooperating more and more actively. Blix said inspectors would need months not years to complete their job...
Sorry, I forgot it's not about disarmament. Besides, there were "wrong inspectors". The goal is regime change. The goal is to remove the monster who tortured and killed his own people for decades. The goal is ELEVATION for the Iraqi people. Ok.

If it is to remove Saddam
2. Whenhiphop... gave u one alternative of CIA and Mossad. I don't believe that much in effectiveness of CIA (look at Fidel Castro). I will give u another, legal one.
Namely, UNSC resolution authorising use of force against Iraq and consequently a BROAD coalition of countries conducting legal operation on Iraq. Coalition like in 1991. I guess in such case Saddam would not have stood the pressure of the UNITED international community. He would have resigned/escaped before the operation. If not, the war could start but I guess Iraqis would have been far less eager to fight against UNITED international coalition acting on legal grounds than against "US-UK infidels and agressors". The operation would have been shorter despite your assuredness that you dont need others, u r the best, u know it all and can do it all.
Of course, it would not be easy to get consent of many countries to attack Iraq, especially when one lacks convincing reasoning explaining why the war is the ONLY method and why it is so indispensable to start it NOW. But isn't it the job of your diplomats?

The problem does not lie in alternatives. The problem is that from the very beginning the US was not interested in peaceful alternatives but wanted this war and wanted to do it alone. Do it alone. We will not support you.

 

[Dreadsox]

If it is about disarmament
1. Continuation of inspections and continuation of military pressure.
Thanks to US pressure Iraq started cooperating more and more actively. Blix said inspectors would need months not years to complete their job...

I think we agree on something. It was the pressure that got thinks "working". You and I probably disagree on the definition of "working" in this case, but I will submit theat they were becoming productive. I still feel, as I have said in other posts, it was wrong for the security council to not assist in the buildup. They needed to take more of a role in building up the pressure with a coalition. Then I might believe, that they intended to do something if the inspections were not working.

2. Whenhiphop... gave u one alternative of CIA and Mossad. I don't believe that much in effectiveness of CIA (look at Fidel Castro). I will give u another, legal one.

I have done enough reading on Saddam to believe that this one is highly impossible. Although I did read recently that the CIA was looking into poisoning his Viagra. They knew where he was getting his little blue pill (Diamond told me they were blue).

They make-up of the security system he put in place around himself, the fact that he would kill a hundred people if he thought it would eliminate one person that threatened him, and the fact that there are tribal loyalties within his security forces,

Namely, UNSC resolution authorising use of force against Iraq and consequently a BROAD coalition of countries conducting legal operation on Iraq. Coalition like in 1991. I guess in such case Saddam would not have stood the pressure of the UNITED international community. He would have resigned/escaped before the operation. If not, the war could start but I guess Iraqis would have been far less eager to fight against UNITED international coalition acting on legal grounds than against "US-UK infidels and agressors". The operation would have been shorter despite your assuredness that you dont need others, u r the best, u know it all and can do it all.
Of course, it would not be easy to get consent of many countries to attack Iraq, especially when one lacks convincing reasoning explaining why the war is the ONLY method and why it is so indispensable to start it NOW. But isn't it the job of your diplomats?

I think the biggest reason this is going to cause terrorism is the failure of Collin Powell and this President to form a broad coalition. While I support the war based on my own research and reading, I am 100% disappointed, and angry at the failure of this administration in this area. It does not change my belief that this was the right course of action.

The problem does not lie in alternatives. The problem is that from the very beginning the US was not interested in peaceful alternatives but wanted this war and wanted to do it alone. Do it alone. We will not support you.

The US has been trying to work through the UN to stregnthen sanctions. The US has approached the Middle Eastern governments and tried to plug the illegal trade that Iraq was participating in. At this point we are not in agreement. In my opinion, this president lost patience with the process.

Excellent post Alex, I enjoyed reading and thinking about it.

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox:

If the US wanted to strengthen the UN sanctions it's a bad idea to give the UN a ultimatum at the beginning and to ignore the UN if it dosn't agree to the US (miss)interpretation of UN laws

Another hint that the US wants to get rid of the UN:

Colin Powel starts diplomatic contacts with the Nato to get the Nato the job done what is UN business, the reconstruction of Iraq.

Why? I can only speculate at this point but i guess the Nato is easier controlable for the US than the UN is.

Klaus

 

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox:

If the US wanted to strengthen the UN sanctions it's a bad idea to give the UN a ultimatum at the beginning and to ignore the UN if it dosn't agree to the US (miss)interpretation of UN laws

I do believe, that you will find that from the time Bush came into office attempts were made to stregnthen sanctions. I also bet you will find that the countries that blocked these attempts are the same countries that are opposed to the war.

Again, we can both site sources of "INTERPRETATION" of the UN Laws. However, I think the 12 years of the Security Council ignoring the violations, as well as the fact that three of the permanent members are directly responsible for their erosion and "reinterpretation" of the prior resolutions. Research it, which of the nations on the security council was the first nation in the world to fly directly into Bagdahd after the Gulf War? This was a clear violation/reinterpretation of a prior resolution.

The Security Council has allowed violations of it's "LAWS" for 12 years.

Another hint that the US wants to get rid of the UN:

Colin Powel starts diplomatic contacts with the Nato to get the Nato the job done what is UN business, the reconstruction of Iraq.

Why? I can only speculate at this point but i guess the Nato is easier controlable for the US than the UN is.

Klaus

I am sorry, but I do seem to recall that France said they would again VETO any efforts for reconstruction because it would legitimize the war. How can we work through the UN if FRANCE, one nation, once again stands in the way of the security council?

Peace

Matt

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox:

hiphop's posting convinced me that it's a wrong interpretation of the US side:

Argumentation was something like:

"as long as the un security council members say no to the war (and they said that while they created that resulution and after that) it would be a tragic missinterpretation that "serious consequences" could have ment "war".

At least from my knowledge about laws you have to search for the intention of the law (or resolution in this case) if you are unsure about the words.

I am sorry, but I do seem to recall that France said they would again VETO any efforts for reconstruction because it would legitimize the war. How can we work through the UN if FRANCE, one nation, once again stands in the way of the security council?

I haven't heared of that one, i heared in an interview that the French would help to rebuild Iraq if it's done under complete UN- (and not under US-) control.

If that Veto thing is true that would let me see things different.

And to the US "help" of enforcing laws.
What would you think if a private group inside the US would start to enforce US laws and decide how to enforce them?
Would you think that's legal?

Klaus

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox:

here a press relase to the topic above:

US ambassador says no need for UN General Assembly session on Iraq
from AFP www.afp.com

UNITED NATIONS, April 2 (AFP) - US ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said Wednesday he saw no need for a UN General Assembly session on Iraq.

"We do not think that it is either necessary or desirable," he told journalists.

"We noticed some talks among delegations, perhaps Arab delegations, and from the non-aligned organization. We see no reason, no reason whatsoever, to transport this issue to the General Assembly," Negroponte said.

The five permanent members of the Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- cannot exercise their veto right on the General Assembly, which comprises all 191 UN members.

Negroponte said there would be ample opportunity for the Council to discuss Iraq in April. Speaking after a closed-door agenda-setting meeting of the Council, he said humanitarian aid would be the main issue.

He declined to discuss questions on post-war reconstruction.

"The questions that really are before us have to do more with the ongoing conflict and the humanitarian situation," he said.

be/pfm/gs AFP 022100 GMT 04 03

Copyright (c) 2003 Agence France-Presse

I'm not sure about that one, but it seems to me that there is a way without the security council (if they are afraid of vetos) by doing a General Assembly session? But the US don't see a need to do this?

 

[Dreadsox]

I would love to see it. The rules in the security council need to be revamped. I would love to see the veto taken away from the five countries that hold the power. I think it stops them from creating clear resolutions that are not ambiguous. I also think it would help resolve the Palestinian problem.

I would love to see the general assembly get involved. I am sure Bush does not want it.

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox:

i agree with you at this point.