Go Home Human Shields, You U.S. Wankers... Iraqi Citizens topple main Saddam Statue

[FizzingWhizzbees]

You seem to care much about international law. It's dying now. I mean, of course, CERTAIN things like for instance SOME bilateral treaties or international maritime rules will remain but on the whole... U will agree that to a great extent international law is fiction. It's based exclusively on voluntariness. It just registers on paper the current state of affairs. My deep conviction is that unless there is balance of forces, international law loses much of its ... hmmm....utility. What we have now? A great and ONLY superpower with no counterweight. A superpower that gets irritated (to put it mildly) when countries like let's say Guinea do not support the superpower in the UNSC.

Very interesting discussion. Regardless of a person's opinion on whether this war was justified or not, it has to be agreed that it did violate international law in that it was not authorised by the United Nations and was not in response to an attack by Iraq. It does make me wonder about whether this sets a precedent for the future, particularly after Bush made his "axis of evil" speech and outlined other countries the US might wish to attack. Will this war on Iraq serve as a precedent for a 'pre-emptive' attack on any one of those countries?

And I think the balance of power in the world has shifted greatly since 1991. The destruction of the Soviet Union meant that the US was the only superpower in the world and so to an extent that means the US is able to act in any way it pleases as there isn't a country able to militarily resist it. Some people argue that means the US has been able to be more interventionist (Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc) since 1991, although I'm not entirely convinced of that because of the record of the US during the 1980s (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala, etc).

Anyhow, interesting discussion. It'll be good to hear other people's opinions.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I could make a stronger argument that Russia and France were opposed to the war because of the oil, than can be made for the US starting a war for oil. Shall we do this debate again?

I don't disagree that France and Russia were looking after their own interests when they opposed war on Iraq. If you consider the fact that they had very lucrative oil contracts with Iraq, it's clearly not in their interests for there to be a war. However, the US had no oil contacts with Iraq, so you could also argue that it's in the US' interests for there to be a war. I think it works both ways: France and Russia opposed war for their own interests, the US supported war for its own interests.

I don't think it's appropriate for any country to have made a decisioin about Iraq based on their own economic interests, but sadly I do think that's the way most countries make decisions.

 

[ALEXRUS]

I could make a stronger argument that Russia and France were opposed to the war because of the oil, than can be made for the US starting a war for oil

France and Russia ABUSED opposed us at the Security Council for their access to the oil. Do I need to list the numbers of times they blocked efforts to improve sanctions. DO I need to list who started violating the flights into Baghdad that the Security COuncil had passed resolutions on?

Come on, do it.
Russia that has been fighting in the UNSC throughout the years to get the sanctions on Iraq LIFTED, but we always bumped against harsh "NO!"...guess from whom?

 

[Dreadsox]

I don't disagree that France and Russia were looking after their own interests when they opposed war on Iraq. If you consider the fact that they had very lucrative oil contracts with Iraq, it's clearly not in their interests for there to be a war. However, the US had no oil contacts with Iraq, so you could also argue that it's in the US' interests for there to be a war. I think it works both ways: France and Russia opposed war for their own interests, the US supported war for its own interests.

I don't think it's appropriate for any country to have made a decisioin about Iraq based on their own economic interests, but sadly I do think that's the way most countries make decisions.

And this statement above, is EXACTLY why the Security Council is NOT effective at dealing with situations like Kosovo, Ruwanda, Iraq, Palestine...ect.

These are clear failures of the UN Security Council. Until they become more interested in the world, take away the veto power of the five "superpowers" there will be continued resolutions that mean nothing.

As it stands, they are only good at dealing with situations like the 1st Gulf War, where there are clear violations of the peace.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

And this statement above, is EXACTLY why the Security Council is NOT effective at dealing with situations like Kosovo, Ruwanda, Iraq, Palestine...ect.

These are clear failures of the UN Security Council. Until they become more interested in the world, take away the veto power of the five "superpowers" there will be continued resolutions that mean nothing.

Equally though, the fact that countries usually act in their own economic interests also means they're not likely to be good at dealing with situations such as Iraq or Palestine unilaterally.

It's interesting that you criticise the veto given to the permanent members of the security council, what would you suggest instead? Do you support having a stronge UN that might be more qualified to deal with international crises or do you believe action should be the responsibility of just one or two powerful countries acting uniliaterally?

 

[YellowKite]

It is not FACT, it is SPECULATION. There are plenty of easier ways to be financially rewarded as President. I would believe the whole idea that Bush invaded Iraq for his personal gain when he shaves his head, moves into a secrete lair and has a miniature clone made.

Since you seem unable or unwilling to support anything you argue with a fact or anything but some flippant remark, I am going to assume that you don't have an opinion of your own, but that you have been indoctrinated into your viewpoint by family, friends or environment. That's okay as long as you know that is where you stand. I however can choose to ignore any of your remarks as valid debate in the support of your cause because you obviously have yet to truly realize your own morality.

Go back to your simple world where the sides are clearly marked ?good? and ?bad.?

Maybe it is only my speculation that Bush will profit from the war - but it isn't based on wind from my ass. It is based on a lifetime of his behavior and the background of history that accompanies it. Bush has proven to me that he is one of those people that the world 'owes' and his papa hasn't taught him any different.

 

[ALEXRUS]

1. ...these are clear failures of the UN Security Council. Until they become more interested in the world, take away the veto power of the five "superpowers" there will be continued resolutions that mean nothing.

2. As it stands, they are only good at dealing with situations like the 1st Gulf War, where there are CLEAR violations of the peace.

1. I agree. Until US power weakens to be on a par with the others, UNSC is senseless.

2. Exactly. When there were CLEAR violations, UNSC acted immediately and appropriately.
But Im still wondering WHY US ATTACKED IRAQ?

 

[hiphop]

You seem to care much about international law. It's dying now. I mean, of course, CERTAIN things like for instance SOME bilateral treaties or international maritime rules will remain but on the whole... U will agree that to a great extent international law is fiction. It's based exclusively on voluntariness. It just registers on paper the current state of affairs. My deep conviction is that unless there is balance of forces, international law loses much of its ... hmmm....utility. What we have now? A great and ONLY superpower with no counterweight. A superpower that gets irritated (to put it mildly) when countries like let's say Guinea do not support the superpower in the UNSC. There are two options as I see it:
1. History shows that all empires crumbled, they were not able to carry their own weight. There is a possibility that the only existing empire will destroy itself. Thus, the balance will be restored.
2. Until it happens, we will witness the law dictated by the only superpower. Will it be Lynch law?

Good points, yes I do indeed care a lot about international law.

I think the "balance" of US vs. USSR didn?t make the world a much better place, though. Indeed we are lucky that there wasn?t a nuclear war. But that?s another discussion.

I agree that one superpower directing the world affairs doesn?t make the world a safer place either. That?s why I think international law should be enforced, not breached. The U.N. may have many mistakes, but it is the only body where all countries of this planet are together in peace.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

anyone who believes that increased inspections would have resulted in the scenes we saw today is just diluting themselves. any action that did not result in the removal of saddam and his bath party would not have resulted in this. if you want to suggest some other way in which saddam would have been removed, i'm all ears. i believe many of his arab neighbors suggested he exile, yet he refused. sometimes the use of force IS neccesary.

the thought that the thousands of people jumping for joy in the streets of baghdad were paid off by americans is just plain silly and isn't worth my time. i'm sure that there are a lot of iraqi citizens who are still weary after last time when they thought we'd stay, we left, and they were slaughtered. but to suggest that the feelings of these people, that these scenes that are being broadcasted not only on cnn and foxnews, but on al jazeera and abu dahbi as well, are anything but sincere is frankly laughable.

as for africa... you want to debate what we should do there, that's fine. but that's a whole different topic that deserves it's own thread.

 

[hiphop]

And this statement above, is EXACTLY why the Security Council is NOT effective at dealing with situations like Kosovo, Ruwanda, Iraq, Palestine...ect.

These are clear failures of the UN Security Council. Until they become more interested in the world, take away the veto power of the five "superpowers" there will be continued resolutions that mean nothing.

I am interested in hearing alternatives. Do you think the Sec Council should have more permanent members?

 

[hiphop]

Since you seem unable or unwilling to support anything you argue with a fact or anything but some flippant remark, I am going to assume that you don't have an opinion of your own, but that you have been indoctrinated into your viewpoint by family, friends or environment. That's okay as long as you know that is where you stand. I however can choose to ignore any of your remarks as valid debate in the support of your cause because you obviously have yet to truly realize your own morality.

Go back to your simple world where the sides are clearly marked ?good? and ?bad.?

Huh that?s harsh.

Sue him! Sue him!

 

[nbcrusader]

Since you seem unable or unwilling to support anything you argue with a fact or anything but some flippant remark, I am going to assume that you don't have an opinion of your own, but that you have been indoctrinated into your viewpoint by family, friends or environment. That's okay as long as you know that is where you stand. I however can choose to ignore any of your remarks as valid debate in the support of your cause because you obviously have yet to truly realize your own morality.

Go back to your simple world where the sides are clearly marked ?good? and ?bad.?

Maybe it is only my speculation that Bush will profit from the war - but it isn't based on wind from my ass. It is based on a lifetime of his behavior and the background of history that accompanies it. Bush has proven to me that he is one of those people that the world 'owes' and his papa hasn't taught him any different.

You made statements; I challenged the basis and credibility of said statements. You have now gone from using the term "FACT" to saying "maybe it is only my speculation.

If you want to get personal over this, that is your prerogative.

 

[pax]

Yes, YellowKite, let's not get personal. I don't know if you read or post here frequently, but nbcrusader has always been glad to back up what he says with evidence and has always conducted himself respectfully. He has done nothing to earn your contempt.

 

[BVS]

I'm glad that the Iraqi people now have a chance at freedom. But this whole war sets a very dangerous precedent. Now with what seems like a relatively quick victory on the horizon, Bush will have support to do almost anything he makes up evidence for. I just hope that someone has the courage to show the U.S. the true damage Bush has done before the next election.

 

[Dreadsox]

1. I agree. Until US power weakens to be on a par with the others, UNSC is senseless.

2. Exactly. When there were CLEAR violations, UNSC acted immediately and appropriately.

Alex, we have to stop agreeing man...I do not know what to do when we agree

 

[Dreadsox]

I am interested in hearing alternatives. Do you think the Sec Council should have more permanent members?

I think the problem is the Veto. I do think it would be good to start a thread on this. If we all go back to where the main problem was, it was in the Security Councils inability to act in many of the cases I listed before. I do not want to derail this. I will start a thread.

Peace

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

i respect those who stick to their ideals, but i don't know how anyone can watch these pictures of iraqi citizens dancing on the fallen statue of saddam hussein and not agree that this was the right thing to do. that's just me

I will agree that at THIS point it LOOKS like it was the right thing to do, but the real test will be in the months to come. I do think that most of the Iraqi people are probably glad to see him gone, and I am as well. What I'm worried about is what kind of new govt the Iraqi people will get just like Saddam has. I am worried that we will put another dictator in power that will do what we say, but who will brutilize his people. We do not have a good track record when it comes to occupying third world countries (south america, etc). This is why at this point, I am still anti-war. I PRAY that I am wrong about this, and that Iraq gets the liberation that we've been promising. Nothing would make me happier than being proved wrong, and if Iraq does get his freedom I will be more than willing to admitt that I was wrong and agree that this war was the right thing to do. I can't help it I've always distrusted the govt (and not just our own) regardless or what party was in control, I always think that they have some alterior motive and don't do things simply out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

oops, accidently hit quote instead of edit, sorry.

 

[Dreadsox]

Equally though, the fact that countries usually act in their own economic interests also means they're not likely to be good at dealing with situations such as Iraq or Palestine unilaterally.

It's interesting that you criticise the veto given to the permanent members of the security council, what would you suggest instead? Do you support having a stronge UN that might be more qualified to deal with international crises or do you believe action should be the responsibility of just one or two powerful countries acting uniliaterally?

My position is this. The UN Security Council has been innefective in dealing with certain types of crisis. I think that they have gotten so wrapped up in trying to not get their resolutions vetoed, that they write resolutions with little or no real teeth. Take a look at 1441. It is vague enough that we have been arguing for months about what it really means here. I have argued both sides in here if you go back and check the threads.

These vague resolutions, with no teeth, are the reasons that we have had this crisis. 12 Years of dealing with this for what. Everyone using the UN for their own political gain. 1441 passed because it was VAGUE. The specific language that was in the resolution was changed because the US wanted a unanimous vote.

What should the council have done after? I believe that the UN should have sent a multinational force to the Middle East. Why? Because it would have shown that the UN was ready to take action if Saddam did not comply. It would have pre-empted the US taking the lead. It would have shown that this was really the LAST chance. Instead, due to the circumstance, Saddam played games. Was it partially working, sure, I will concede that...but partial compliance was not what the resolution called for.

I am rambling. Take a look at Israel. Who has been blocking any path towards peace? Who has the Veto Power to stop any resolution with teeth that forces Israel to the table? The US. It is my contention that the US is/has prevented any meaningful resolution of the situation there, much in the same way France posed a problem for the US over Iraq.

It all stems back to the Veto. It gives those five countries bargaining power in the world. It makes nations deal with the five and as long as you buy their VETO, you are free from a resolution with TEETH.

Everyone is playing the game, looking out for their interests. IN the case of Iraq, the US decided that 1441 was vague enough to move on their own. A stronger Security Council, would cut down on what is perceived as unilateral action.

Peace

 

[Scarletwine]

I have to agree. I think it should come down to a majority. If it is too close then a GA vote overrides the SC. I think too much power is in the hands of $$$$ and not necessarily the good of the world.
However, I do believe that if this comes to pass, sovereignty cannot override the UN. Hell. our President has backed out of several treaties and won't sign on many, that the international community took for granted. I want us to sign the international war crimes treaty and the Land Mine Exclusion Treaty (includes Cluster bomb (MOFO's0). Along with getting back to previous Treaties. If the world cannot count on our word, what do we have but might?
The UN charter still allows for self-defense.

 

[hiphop]

Hell. our President has backed out of several treaties and won't sign on many, that the international community took for granted. I want us to sign the international war crimes treaty and the Land Mine Exclusion Treaty (includes Cluster bomb (MOFO's0).

Cool, include the Comprehensive Test Banner Treaty on your list.

 

[mad1]

u know what scares me after reading tons and tons of these posts? How much I feel so stupid, in that I have absolutely no knowledge about politics and I just feel so unitelligent - that I cannot join in - NOT that I was to have pple agree and disagree with me.....but because as a person who is never interested in politics - I feel I should know more.....
*sigh* (no no Im NOT lookin for sympathy, just sharing how I suddenly feel)




Anyhoo, it did my heart good seeing the Saddam statue be brought down, and seeing those angry men spit and hit on it with shoes............mum and I spotted an Iraqi kissing a soldier quickly on both cheeks and he just smiled...........it was a great, historical moment......it really was, and though the war is still far from over.............it was the most uplifting scene to see from the whole 3 weeks yet........................

 

[Basstrap]

I would also like to know why the US refused to be part of the new international court for trying war criminals and the like.

 

[sharky]

As for the UN, we've had this discussion before. It wouldn't matter if there were more or less members on the Security Council. The UN has no real power in the world and that is made worse by the fact that most member countries -- the US included -- vote for resolutions for this or that but turn around and don't help the UN out. They think it would be great if the UN was involved in humanitarian efforts in Iraq. But when it comes to actually DOING, they expect other countries to help out, and in the end nothing gets done. The New Yorker had an interesting profile on Kofi Annan a month or so ago that was really interesting and brought up these issues.

On a side note, a quote from Hans Blix shortly after the war started that I think speaks for itself:
Chief weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix says the coalition forces are at an advantage compared to weapons inspectors in Iraq:
"The Americans have one advantage over UNMOVIC, in discovering things and that is as they go around the country and more areas are under their control it seems likely that people scientists engineers military will be more ready to speak to the Americans, than they were to us because when we were there they still had the formidable police apparatus that would scare them from saying the truth, if the truth was any different from what the government said."

 

[ALEXRUS]

Alex, we have to stop agreeing man...I do not know what to do when we agree

U don't know?
Let's go after North Korea!

 

[ALEXRUS]

Cool, include the Comprehensive Test Banner Treaty on your list.

U mean Test BAN Treaty, I guess
U might have also stayed inside the ABM Treaty. US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty does not make this world a safer place...even for the US

 

[Man Inside The Child]

I'm quite sure I heard more than one report that the paraders were only a few thousand people.... Nevertheless, thankfully Saddam Hussein is out, and American "liberation" project will soon start. I don't think the honeymoon will last once the Iraqi's figure out American intentions....

Anyways, here's an excerp from a great article I just read by Robert Fisk summing up yesterdays events.


""It is the beginning of our new freedom," an Iraqi shopkeeper shouted at me. Then he paused, and asked: "What do the Americans want from us now?' The great Lebanese poet Kalil Gibran once wrote that he pitied the nation that welcomed its tyrants with trumpetings and dismissed them with hootings of derision. And the people of Baghdad performed this same deadly ritual yesterday, forgetting that they ? or their parents ? had behaved in identical fashion when the Arab Socialist Baath Party destroyed the previous dictatorship of Iraq's generals and princes. Forgetting, too, that the "liberators" were a new and alien and all-powerful occupying force with neither culture nor language nor race nor religion to unite them with Iraq."


"And so last night, as the explosion of tank shells still crashed over the city, Baghdad lay at the feet of a new master. They have come and gone in the city's history, Abbasids and Ummayads and Mongols and Turks and British and now the Americans. The United States embassy reopened yesterday and soon, no doubt, when the Iraqis have learned to whom they must now be obedient friends, President Bush will come here and there will be new "friends" of America to open a new relationship with the world, new economic fortunes for those who "liberated" them, and ? equally no doubt ? relations with Israel and a real Israeli embassy in Baghdad. Israel certainly got what they want.

But winning a war is one thing. Succeeding in the ideological and economic project that lies behind this whole war is quite another. The "real" story for America's mastery over the Arab world starts now. "

 

[sharky]

ok, in response to all this "only a few thousand people" are out on the streets -- 1) lots of people left Baghdad before the bombing started and 2) if you lived under a tyrant for over 30 years and the Americans who abandoned you 12 years ago were back, would you trust them?

These people are afraid and because they left the city in fear or stayed inside because of fear, there won't be as many on the street.

 

[YellowKite]

I reread the thread and I don't see where nbcrusader used facts - he made his own statements and challenged my statements without relevant supporting information to back his ?speculation? up.

I included information from reliable sources to back my 'statements' up. I still believe that OIL is why Bush went and you may call it ?speculation? but as I stated before it is based on history - Bush's personal as well as political and world history. It?ll be a fact soon enough.

I don't take it personally and neither should you.

 

[melon]

I would also like to know why the US refused to be part of the new international court for trying war criminals and the like.

Because they figured that the U.S. would become a target for biased prosecutions. There are many countries that would love to stick it to the U.S., both in the Western world and beyond.

Melon