IRAN may be next! - Page 2 - 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 05-26-2003, 09:51 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Iran has been a potential threat to US security for over two decades now...

something has to be done.

...there are some very legitimite security concerns here.

Iīve heard that somewhere before.

Well, a new world order according to the Washington Consensus takes more than one war.

How you, being a military tactics expert in my eyes, can still compare conflict situations in the new Millenium to the Second World War, is beyond my understanding. But nevermind.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 09:53 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
Bush and his allies had this foreign policy planned long before September 11th
Exactly.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 10:38 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:25 AM
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars,


"How you, being a military tactics expert in my eyes, can still compare conflict situations in the new Millenium to the Second World War, is beyond my understanding. But nevermind."

It depends what one is comparing. There are situations from thousands of years ago that are still relevant today in certain contexts while somethings from 20 years ago may not be.

But I'm not sure what you were specifically refering to.


"Bush and his allies had this foreign policy planned long before September 11th"

Thats great and part of the reason the policy has been so effective. But its not just the Bush Administration, there have been plans throughout the US government preparing for the possibility of large scale military force against Iraq since the 1991 ceacefire. In light of Iraq's prior violations and obligations that it was failing to meet, to do anything less than be prepared for such operations would be irresponsible and negligent of the US government and intelligence and foreign policy community.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 11:00 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Thats great and part of the reason the policy has been so effective.
So you agree that the breaching of international law has been planned before of Sept. 11th. Thatīs interesting to those of us, who (contrary to you, as we all know), believe that the Iraq war was illegal in terms of international law.

Do you think the tactics of pre-emptively attacking - as a concrete military activity, not a potential plan in some departments of the Pentagon - were developed before of Sept. 11th?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 01:13 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:25 AM
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars,

"So you agree that the breaching of international law has been planned before of Sept. 11th. Thatīs interesting to those of us, who (contrary to you, as we all know), believe that the Iraq war was illegal in terms of international law."

If international law is what you care about, then you would know that in order for the 1991 Gulf War to come to a ceacefire, Iraq was required to agree to a number of conditions. The UN passed resolutions against Iraq under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow the use of force if Iraq fails to comply with the resolutions. Already the UN new ahead of time that there was the strong potential that Saddam would never actually comply with the obligations in the ceacefire and resolutions and that military force would be needed to bring about compliance with the resolutions. That is why the resolutions were passed under Chapter VII rules and not Chapter VI rules which would have ruled out the possibility of using force.

The USA and other member states began planning for the need to enforce international law against Iraq with military force as soon as the first Gulf War ended. It would be
irresponsible and negligent to not do so. It would not be smart to require Iraq to agree to so many different obligations as the UN did but have no means to properly enforce it.

"Do you think the tactics of pre-emptively attacking - as a concrete military activity, not a potential plan in some departments of the Pentagon - were developed before of Sept. 11th?"

The USA has had a pre-emptive military strategy since 1945. Its unfortunate such a strategy did not exist before then.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 11:05 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
"Do you think the tactics of pre-emptively attacking - as a concrete military activity, not a potential plan in some departments of the Pentagon - were developed before of Sept. 11th?"

The USA has had a pre-emptive military strategy since 1945. Its unfortunate such a strategy did not exist before then.
Give me an example for when the strategy of pre-emptively attacking was concretely used in the past century. Not against the U.S.S.R., as far as I know.

Wasnīt it close to an pre-emptive attack in the Cuba conflict? Kennedy, remember?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 12:15 PM   #22
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 09:25 AM
Don't you think they shoudl find some WMD's in raq first to justify their invasion rather than just jumping to the next country?


I'm a firm believer that they dynamics in the mid east have to change...and if you need a pretext to do so..I'm fine with that...but until you can prove you weren't just fabricating evidence to go to war I'm going to hold off on rubber stamping any more invasions in the middle east.


(I'll spare people my usual pakistan should be done next rant)
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 01:52 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:25 AM
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars,

I was not talking about when a Pre-emptive strategy was used but simply that one has been in place since 1945. I do not consider the war in Iraq to be a war of pre-emption but simply the long overdue resolution of problems that had persisted for 12 years following the first Gulf War.

Israel pre-empted its Arab enemies in the 1967 war. Cuba was certainly a close one.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 02:03 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Arun,

"Don't you think they shoudl find some WMD's in raq first to justify their invasion rather than just jumping to the next country?"

The USA and other member states involved in the current occupation do not have find any WMD to justify the invasion. The invasion itself was authorized because of Iraq's failure to prove that they did not have such weapons. The 1991 Ceacefire agreement and UN resolutions are clear that it is incumbent upon Iraq to prove that they no longer have WMD. Member States are only obligated to insure Iraq does not have WMD. They are not required to find anything.

It is widely known that Iraq had 30,000 Chem/Bio capable shells, thousands of tons of Anthrax and other WMD as of 1998. The inspectors were kicked out that year and when they came back in 2002, Iraq claimed to have destroyed the above WMD but did not provide any evidence to prove they had in fact done that. The failure to do that, is all the justification that was needed to act with military force. Iraq had to either give up the WMD or prove that it destroyed it. If 30,000 Chem/Bio capable shells were destroyed, there would be a lot of metal left around. This stuff does not vanish into thin air.

To some up, the USA and other member states don't need physical evidence or need to prove that Iraq has WMD. That is Iraq's job to show or prove one way or the other. Military action is justified because of Iraq's failure to cooperate and prove it has met its obligations in regards to WMD.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 04:45 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:25 AM
Sting,

I wonder if you are familiar with the concept, "It is impossible to prove a negative "?



Such as, "There are no UFOs" "Bigfoot does not exist."
"There are no longer any WMD in Iraq."

When the US said there were still WMD in Iraq.
Reasonable people would like to see proof.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 07:53 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I do not consider the war in Iraq to be a war of pre-emption but simply the long overdue resolution of problems that had persisted for 12 years following the first Gulf War.

Israel pre-empted its Arab enemies in the 1967 war. Cuba was certainly a close one.
Quoting myself from another thread:

"The rationale of anticipatory self-defense has been invoked by Israel to justify attacks against Palestinian camps in Lebanon in 1975. Subsequently, UN Security Council resolutions have condemned this attack while contesting the idea of self-defense where there has been no armed intervention by the "aggressor".

The thesis of anticipatory self-defense is thus not an acceptable principle of international law today, because it is prone to arbitrary interpretation. A preemptive attack on another sovereign nation is counter to established and universally accepted standards of international law. This may help to explain the vehemence of opposition to a preemptive attack, among even our staunchest European allies."
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 07:55 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The USA and other member states involved in the current occupation do not have find any WMD to justify the invasion.

To some up, the USA and other member states don't need physical evidence or need to prove that Iraq has WMD. That is Iraq's job to show or prove one way or the other. Military action is justified because of Iraq's failure to cooperate and prove it has met its obligations in regards to WMD.
Quoting STING2 from another thread:

"These resolutions were passed against Iraq because it was felt that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction was a grave threat to the rest of the region because of its past behavior. Because of its past behavior in regards to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel, an attack from Iraq could always be considered imminent.

Therefore if material breech can never be agreed or defined because some UN members are in my opinion blind or for whatever the reason, refuse to see material breech. The use of force can be justified as an act of self defense."
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 10:11 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Deep,

Sting,

"I wonder if you are familiar with the concept, "It is impossible to prove a negative "?"



"Such as, "There are no UFOs" "Bigfoot does not exist."
"There are no longer any WMD in Iraq.""

"When the US said there were still WMD in Iraq.
Reasonable people would like to see proof."



Its very simple. Even Iraq agreed that it still had 30,000 Chem/Bio cabable shells and thousands of tons of Anthrax in 1998 when the inspectors were forced to leave. Iraq was required to verifiably destroy those weapons. In 2002 when inspectors were let back into Iraq, Iraq had two options.

Option #1, hand over the WMD that they still had in 1998 if it had not been destroyed between 1998 and 2002.

Option #2 If the WMD listed above was destroyed between 1998 and 2002, then Iraq was required to show the evidence of the destruction.

Those are the only two options Iraq had and they did neither. If the Iraq did destroy its WMD, there would be plenty of evidence that inspectors could look at so as to verify that fact. 30,000 Chemical/Bio capable shells is a lot of metal.

The proving the negative analogy does not work in the Iraq case because its already known what Iraq had at one point. Since the remains of destroyed WMD do not vanish into thin air, and WMD still intact can be given to inspectors, Iraq always had the means to prove it did not have WMD if that was in fact the case. But Iraq never handed over any WMD this past year, and they never showed any evidence of the destruction of the WMD they claimed to have destroyed.

Most reasonable people understand that it was Iraq's responsibility to prove they no longer had the WMD, and they definitely had the means to do that.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 10:25 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:25 AM
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars,

You will have to explain what you are getting at in the two quotes that you mentioned by me.


"The thesis of anticipatory self-defense is thus not an acceptable principle of international law today, because it is prone to arbitrary interpretation. A preemptive attack on another sovereign nation is counter to established and universally accepted standards of international law. This may help to explain the vehemence of opposition to a preemptive attack, among even our staunchest European allies.""

This is an opinion not a fact. Any law is prone to arbitrary interpretation. A Pre-emptive attack can be a just and necessary means of self defense. The 1967 war between Israel and the Arab countries is a good example. If Israel had not acted when it did, it faced the possibility of being wiped from the face of the earth. Anyone who has studied the technical military situation between Israely and Arab forces understands that. A preemptive attack on another sovereign nation is sometimes the only means of survival. Unfortunately, to many people in Europe failed to understand that during the 1930s. The result was the most costly war in human history.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 11:12 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars,

You will have to explain what you are getting at in the two quotes that you mentioned by me.

A preemptive attack on another sovereign nation is sometimes the only means of survival. Unfortunately, to many people in Europe failed to understand that during the 1930s. The result was the most costly war in human history.
Nah, I will not have to explain. Why should I? Originally, this thread was about Iran, and we are off topic.

Since you drag out the example of Germany and WW II again, and again, I think it is appropriate to mention that Hitler would never have rised in 1933 if he wouldnīt have been supported heavily by the German steel industry, who wanted to manufacture a lot of arms in order to profit.

So, without that shameless abuse of the principles of capitalism, the European part of WW II could have been prevented as well.

Without right-wing extremists, xenophobia, racism, and media manipulation, it could have been prevented too. Often, there are other possibilities of preventing a war than pre-emptively attacking. In many cases, military interventions are not the only solution, though I can understand you might think so, respecting that you are coming from a family with military experience.

Now back to Iran. Any news? Or are the arguments pro Iran war really just exactly the same as they were in Iraq? The U.S. administration bores me.
__________________

__________________
hiphop 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 03:25 AM.


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