Go Home Human Shields, You U.S. Wankers... Iraqi Citizens topple main Saddam Statue - Page 6 - 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, 07:20 PM   #76
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


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
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 07:29 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 03:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
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 is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 07:31 PM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 03:11 AM
oops, accidently hit quote instead of edit, sorry.
__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 07:32 PM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


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
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 07:57 PM   #80
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 06:11 AM
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.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 08:30 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
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.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 06:34 AM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
mad1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angie Jolie lover from Belfast Norn Ireland. I LOVE YOU ANGIE! Im a Bono fan!
Posts: 13,153
Local Time: 12:11 PM
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........................
__________________
mad1 is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 07:12 AM   #83
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 08:41 AM
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.
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 08:51 AM   #84
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 06:11 AM
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."
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 09:04 AM   #85
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


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 is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 09:14 AM   #86
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


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
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 09:34 AM   #87
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto
Posts: 88
Local Time: 11:11 AM
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. "
__________________
Man Inside The Child is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 10:11 AM   #88
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 06:11 AM
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.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 10:31 AM   #89
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: adrift on a breeze in Tennessee
Posts: 692
Local Time: 07:11 AM
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.
__________________
YellowKite is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 10:43 AM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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
__________________

__________________
melon 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 06:11 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