Disarmament Was Working... - Page 8 - 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 03-22-2003, 10:49 AM   #106
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 11:15 PM
At the end of the day, everyone must follow their own interests. I do not blame the US for having their own motives (though I do not believe, contrary to most supporters of the anti-war movement, that the US is going ahead with this war because of the oil), and I do not blame France and Russia for having theirs.

But to answer the question about why the US (and the UK, for that matter) should have to pay for the reconstruction of Baghdad, I only see it as just. Why shouldn't they, when it has always been, from the very beginning, a war they have both wanted. I am not an ardent defender of the French, but I do agree with their philosophy of 'you broke it, now pay for it'.

The better question is, why should France have to pay for a war it never wanted, regardless of its motivations?

Ant.
__________________

__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 11:00 AM   #107
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony
At the end of the day, everyone must follow their own interests. I do not blame the US for having their own motives (though I do not believe, contrary to most supporters of the anti-war movement, that the US is going ahead with this war because of the oil), and I do not blame France and Russia for having theirs.

But to answer the question about why the US (and the UK, for that matter) should have to pay for the reconstruction of Baghdad, I only see it as just. Why shouldn't they, when it has always been, from the very beginning, a war they have both wanted. I am not an ardent defendent of the French, but I do agree with their philosophy of 'you broke it, now pay for it'.

The better question is, why should France have to pay for a war it never wanted, regardless of its motivations?

Ant.
That is fine with me.....

There is a flip side to that though.....

Why should the US have had to pay to put the military pressure on to make the sanctions work or disarmament work?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 11:05 AM   #108
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 12:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


9/11 happened directly because of the US's intervention in the region because of this. Maybe, had the members of the security council jointly sent a force, then it would be equitable. Instead, as is the case in many places, we are paying the price monitarily and in lives. Why should we have to do that?
Well, I know that the Arab world is traditionally not a fan of US - maybe that's also got to do with who they support in the Palestine question. US troops in Saudi Arabia are apparently on sacred ground (according to Bin Laden's religion) - no foreigner is ever to set foot there.

Price in lives? Hmmm...soldiers go to war, they have to realise not all of them might come back.

Monitarily? Several countries will help re-building Iraq, if I'm not mistaken. Some people could argue that whoever went it should do the repairments, though.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 11:10 AM   #109
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Well, Dreadsox, I don't think that's an exact flipside, now is it? I can see your point, though.

I'm sure they must have had their reasons for doing so, not merely because of altruistic reasons. They're not the world's superpower for nothing, at the end of the day. Its not as if the American military was putting pressure on Hussein, thereby protecting Kuwait, for free.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 11:33 AM   #110
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony

The better question is, why should France have to pay for a war it never wanted, regardless of its motivations?
They shouldn't. They shouldn't have anything to do with a postwar Iraq.

It just seems that they want to have an influence on the reconstruction of Iraq without having to pay any of the costs.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 11:34 AM   #111
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Agreed.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 12:15 PM   #112
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 02:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Ummm...I think if you look on this board....you will clearly see that there are more posts saying the US is acting for oil than the other way around. I think it is sad however, that more than 12 gulf war's of people have died in twelve years, and would continue to, because of the threat of VETO by members of the security council. Peace at the price of lives, more lives than lost in a war. That is logical.
Do you have statistics on how many people die in car accidents in US every year? Let's attack the US regime that allows monsters like General Motors and others to produce such WMD - cars. Peace at the price of lives, more lives than lost in a war. That is logical.
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 12:21 PM   #113
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 02:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

Why should the US have had to pay to put the military pressure on to make the sanctions work or disarmament work?
Absolutely legitimate question. Especially taking into account "the fact" that every other nation was imploring the US: "Please, please put your military pressure on Iraq". US was very reluctant to do so but finaly agreed...
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 12:51 PM   #114
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 12:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
Nope, Arun, 1441 is not enough to justify the use of force. Have you read 1441?


HAve you read 1441????


this combined with 687 does authorize use of force...not disarming ...is a violation of the cease fire.

1441 invkes serious consequences...which reffering back to 687 can be a restarting of the war.


Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 01:42 PM   #115
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 12:15 AM
Also I'd like to point out that resolution 1441 did not have a clause indicating that the council had to meet again to vote on the us of force..which is what is usually done.
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 03:10 PM   #116
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


Absolutely legitimate question. Especially taking into account "the fact" that every other nation was imploring the US: "Please, please put your military pressure on Iraq". US was very reluctant to do so but finaly agreed...
Ahhh yes, another intelligent response!!!!!

It is a legitimate question. You start a thread saying inspections work. The Security Council itslelf recognized that the ONLY reason Iraq was somewhat complying is the threat of military force on the part of the US.

ALEXRUS, I am eagerly awaiting some sort of evidence that Iraq was complying at any other point in the twelve years prior. Please enlighten me?

Iraq half-assed compliance over the past four months was ONLY because of the military presence.

I am so honored that you continue to treat my posts with such .... respect?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 03:14 PM   #117
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


Do you have statistics on how many people die in car accidents in US every year? Let's attack the US regime that allows monsters like General Motors and others to produce such WMD - cars. Peace at the price of lives, more lives than lost in a war. That is logical.
THe facts do not lie. More people die each year in Iraq because of the UN sanctions that dies in the entire Gulf War. That is more than 12 Gulf Wars of victims.

France and Russia have really benefitted the most under this program of food for oil.

Oh one more thing, I have enjoyed many a debate in this forum but it is kind of hard to debate with someone when they continuously post well, things like you did above.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 04:16 PM   #118
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 02:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

The Security Council itslelf recognized that the ONLY reason Iraq was somewhat complying is the threat of military force on the part of the US.

ALEXRUS, I am eagerly awaiting some sort of evidence that Iraq was complying at any other point in the twelve years prior. Please enlighten me?
My dear, I myself recognize that it is primarily thanks to the threat of military force (i.e US) that Iraq started doing something. That's why I wrote once that it would have been much better if US had continued threatening with war, balancing on the verge of war, imitating war...but never starting it. All credit goes to the US for its unprecedented pressure on Iraq. Until war started. War is different. And what I specially dislike is that your administration wanted the war from the very beginning. They went to the UN only to legitimize the war.
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 04:27 PM   #119
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


My dear

Oh boy...do you have a crush on me?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 04:34 PM   #120
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 02:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Oh boy...do you have a crush on me?
I do have a crush on the ...... you write sometimes.
__________________

__________________
ALEXRUS 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 06:15 PM.


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