Why does Bush believe... - 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 02-03-2003, 08:19 AM   #1
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Why does Bush believe...

..that he can turn the Iraq into a democratic regime who cares about international rights when he is willing to ignore international rights too?

Bombing for peace, using dirty amunition to stop dirty bombs , using weapons of mass destruction against weapons of mass destruction and being willing to ignore international laws (if the international laws tell something different than we want, we ignore them)..
..end the terrible threats to the civilized world by being willing to ignore civilized institutions like the UN security council?

Klaus

p.s. the UN security council is the only institution in the world who can make a war legal if you don't have to self defend.
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 04:41 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Klaus,

Disarming Iraq is in the self defense of the United States and the rest of the world. In addition Security Council Resolution 687 passed in November 1990 approved military action against Iraq and ALL SUBSEQUENT actions needed to bring Iraq into compliance with all resolutions. The 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire laid out a number of conditions for Iraq to comply with. It was understood that war could resume if the ceacefire agreement was violated.

There are few situations that have more international legal basis than military action to disarm Iraq. The UN Security Council resolution passed in October reafirmed these facts. The French and the Russian are whining now because they have lucrutive oil contracts from Saddam that they fear they will lose if military action is taken to disarm Iraq and potentially change the regime. If there is anyone that worried more about oil and unwilling to enforce international law, its the French and the Russians.

ps. this is an act of self defense but already has more UN resolutions than any other situation to back up the legal basis to act militarily. All of those resolutions were passed under Chapter VII rules.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 05:41 PM   #3
Bordering Purgatory
 
Flag Pole Pear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 794
Local Time: 09:45 AM
sting2, did you even read what klaus asked?
__________________
you could have it all
my empire of dirt
i will let you down
i will make you hurt
Flag Pole Pear is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 06:01 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:45 PM
yes, and I responded to specific things that I felt were inaccurate in his post.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 06:26 PM   #5
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:45 PM
You can only defend if Saddam attacks you, if you attack because Saddam might be able to attack you in the future, you're not defending but starting a war.

There was an interesting debate of members of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) about the resolutions - and they all said that the lots of iraq resolutions were written in a style that both parties (pro and contra war) could read it in the way they like it.. but if the law - situation is unclear you normaly have to create a new resolution to decide something fundamental like the a war.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 06:40 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Klaus,

Saddam attacked Kuwait in 1990 and has failed to comply with the resolutions in regards to that action. Breaking a ceacefire is an act of war period. It is a fact that 687 approved all SUBSEQUENT actions to bring Iraq into compliance with the resolutions. There is NOTHING unclear about that fact.

Any war against Iraq will be to enforce resolutions. United Nations Security Council resolutions is all the justification that is needed.

"You can only defend if Saddam attacks you, if you attack because Saddam might be able to attack you in the future, you're not defending but starting a war."

If someone is preparing to attack you, you have every right to do everything in your power to prevent the loss of your country. This is what Israel did in 1967. If Israel had not acted first, they would not exist today.

Back to the main case though. Saddam attacked Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel in 1990/1991. Until he complies fully with the resolutions, that war is not over. These resolutions where passed under CHAPTER VII rules.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 06:51 PM   #7
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,834
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
If someone is preparing to attack you, you have every right to do everything in your power to prevent the loss of your country. This is what Israel did in 1967. If Israel had not acted first, they would not exist today.

Back to the main case though. Saddam attacked Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel in 1990/1991. Until he complies fully with the resolutions, that war is not over. These resolutions where passed under CHAPTER VII rules.
That's a bit of a stretch STING. Klaus is saying that Saddam did nothing to attack the US recently so why is it an act of self defense?

You are actually veering further away from what the Bush admin themselves are saying is the reason. I've not heard them say that they truly have evidence that Saddam is preparing to attack America.
__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 02-03-2003, 07:10 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Its an act of self defense in regards to the threats that is posed to the countries in the region and the naked attack on Kuwait that is unresolved.

I have read UN Security Council resolution 687, and that one resolution justifies all action to bring Iraq in compliance with the resolutions. The fact that were talking about an unresolved issue from 1990/1991 does not change the situation. Iraq was required to disarm under the conditions of the 1991 United Nations Ceacefire agreement. Iraq's failure to do so is an act of war against the international community.

I've not said that Iraq was about to attack US soil, but war refering to the philosophical issue of what is consider to be "self-defense".

Also, under Klauses Idea of "self-defense" and "international law" , the USA response to the problems in Kosovo was illegal. But I find nothing illegal about preventing the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Kosovo by Serb forces.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 05:26 AM   #9
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:45 PM
The "response" in the Kosovo was illegal, some NATO members tried to find new work for the NATO and tried to weaken the position of the UN.

Also the "response" was illegal it was important to do something.

Same to Iraq, it's important to do something, but an attack without the legitimation of the Security Council is illegal (and if some members of the UN are unsure if a older resolution alows military action they should make a new resolution which clears cut uncertainties)

So - back to my original question:
Why does Bush believe that he can turn the Iraq into a democratic regime who cares about international rights when he is willing to ignore international rights too?

Bombing for peace, using dirty amunition to stop dirty bombs , using weapons of mass destruction against weapons of mass destruction and being willing to ignore international laws (if the international laws tell something different than we want, we ignore them)..
..end the terrible threats to the civilized world by being willing to ignore civilized institutions like the UN security council?

, why do you think the people of Iraq can trust the US?

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 02:20 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Sting2: What happened in 1967? Why did Israel charge out like that? (and why didn't they leave once the danger was over, which it surely is, considering they have the strongest army in Middle East, the support of US and nuclear weapons)

By the way, what do you make of US handling of the Palestine-Israel matter and the way Sharon is handling it? Just curious.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 03:48 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:45 PM
It is not illegal because the right of self defense or self defense of others trumps any security council resolution needed to authorize force.

There is nothing ambigious about United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 unless the country does not have anyone that understands English. Any country at any time could make the claim that they suddenly don't understand this or that and call for a new resolution. This makes the entire process look silly, meaningless, and irrelevant. The time to oppose 687 was in November 1990, not February of 2003.

Any attack on Iraq is justified by a large number of Security Council resolutions and the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire. The Ceacefire clearly said that violation of the conditions could result in the resumption of offensive military action against Baghdad to ensure that the conditions of the ceacefire and requirments of the United Nations resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules were met. There has never been an attack on any country in history that has had more legal documentation to support it than a potential attack on Iraq today.

Bush is not ingnoring international law, he is enforcing it as he is obligated to do under Security Council Res. 687 and the Gulf War Ceacefire terms. It would be helpful if other member states would decide to meet their obligations in this regard as well. Iraq must be disarmed with military force if necessary. That is mandated by the UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire.

The only objective here is to disarm Iraq per the Security Council resolutions and Ceacefire. Regime change may be needed to accomplish the goal of full and complete disarmament. All actions are justified under Security Council resolutions to bring Iraq into compliance with the resolutions.

What is seems to be going outside the law are these new resolutions needed to justify what is already on the books. It is not the Bush administration that is going against the law or ignoring it, it is countries like France and Germany that are unwilling to enforce the law. In France's case it looks like they care more about the oil contracts that Saddam has given them, than enforcing security council resolutions that they are obligated to enforce with the military force if necessary.

It is countries like France, Germany, Russia, and China that have decided to ignore international law because it tells them somthing that they don't want. These are the countries that have weakened Containment of Iraq over the years, making the need for military action even more necessary. These are the countries that value and Oil Contract from Saddam more than Security Council resolutions that require the disarmament of Iraq. These are the countries that have companies ready to do business and sell Iraq tons of new military equipment once they achieve the lifting of sanctions. These are the countries that dismiss Saddams threat to the world, and only see in Iraq short term economic gain.

The real question is how can anyone trust the above countries when they are unwilling to help or support the actions that are needed to disarm Iraq and are more concerned about the short term economic gain they can get from Saddam who probably laughs himself to sleep at night about how easily those countries are manipulated and willing to make an easy buck.

If there is any reason that Saddam thinks he can avoid disarmament and even war, its because of France, Germany, Russia, and China.

The Iraqi people know one thing, they surely cannot trust some of Saddam's biggest supporters.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 04:04 PM   #12
Bordering Purgatory
 
Flag Pole Pear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 794
Local Time: 09:45 AM
sometimes i feel you only look at "facts" as opposed to reality which in this case, is humanity.
__________________
you could have it all
my empire of dirt
i will let you down
i will make you hurt
Flag Pole Pear is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 04:09 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:45 PM
U2girl,

In 1967, Egypt violated a number of UN restrictions designed to prevent hostilities and war between Egypt and Israel. Egypt began mobilizing its military forces and kicked out the UN forces in the Sinai. It also began blocking Israel's port at Elat. Raids also continued from the area that is known now as the Gaza strip. In the North, Syria massed its troops as daily artillery attacks on Israeli settlements near the Golan heights continued. Jordanian and other Arab forces massed in Jordon. These near simulatanous actions put the Israely military in a difficult situation. The potential they would soon have to fight a 3 front war was great. Israel is a tiny country and the width in some area's is only 20 miles. Rather than risk being overrun and having their population potentially slaughtered by Arab forces or the country cut in half, Israel took pre-emtive steps to prevent this disaster from happening. Over the next 6 days, they successfully defeated the Arab armies in a surprise attack. They gained the entire Sinai, West Bank, and Golan Heights. All of these territories were important buffers for the security of the new Israely State.

The Arab countries at the time did not recognize Israel and were committed to destroying it. Israels small thin size made protecting it difficult. It was surrounded on all sides by hostile states. This is part of the reason for Israely pre-emtive attack in 1967, because of the likely hood they would be overrun if they did not act first. The territory was held onto in the aftermath because the high possibility of a further military action by the Arab States in the future. But Israel did hold out a an olive to the Arab States. It was willing to negotiate withdrawal from the occupied territories if the countries were willing to make peace with Israel, recognize Israels right to exist, and sign a peace treaty. In the late 70s, Egypt went against the other Arab countries and made peace with Israel. In return, Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt. Israel will leave the other occupied territories once there is a negotiated settlement, and the threat to Israely security has largely subsided.

I support the USA and most of the policies of Sharon, because while recognizing the need for a negotiated settlement to a number of issues, they also recognize the need for security from terrorist.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 04:12 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Flag Pole Pear,

I'm more aware of the human side than you can imagine. The human side may be the biggest justification for a number of Bush's policies in this regard.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 04:26 PM   #15
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Sting:

i don't want to say that one side is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong.
Germany and USA for example both made lots of mistakes in their history.

But.. if the USA would care about international rights and the UN they wouldn't weaken their possition by telling them "either you do it the way we think it has to be done or you're irelevant"

And if they'd care about the people in Iraq they wouldn't think about droping the A-Bomb we know how generations later still suffer from that, not only from Japan but also from the A-Bomb tests in Bikini.
Also the use of dirty amunition in the operation Desertstorm (the cancer rate of small children exploded after that in southern Iraq) dosn't seem verry humane to me.

Boycoting the (ICJ) International Court of Justice looks to me like the current US government shows to us that international justice isn't top priority.

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus 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 10:45 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