Go Home Human Shields, You U.S. Wankers... Iraqi Citizens topple main Saddam Statue - Page 5 - 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 04-09-2003, 04:14 PM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS
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 is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 04:18 PM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


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.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 04:20 PM   #63
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


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?
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 04:22 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 04:26 PM   #65
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


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?
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 04:27 PM   #66
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: adrift on a breeze in Tennessee
Posts: 692
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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.
__________________
YellowKite is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 04:29 PM   #67
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox



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?
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 04:50 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


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.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 04:53 PM   #69
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,357
Local Time: 12:44 AM
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.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 05:01 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


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 is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 05:03 PM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by YellowKite


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!
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 05:17 PM   #72
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by YellowKite


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.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 05:34 PM   #73
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 01:44 AM
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.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 05:45 PM   #74
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 11:44 PM
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.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 07:17 PM   #75
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


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 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 12:44 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