Screaming Flower
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 11,961
Screaming Flower said:
Arun V said:
what I'm saying is..I wouldnt' be so quick to judge.
1. Are you telling me that war can be conducted with no civilian csualties? if so...enlighten us....
2. We dropped an A bomb on japan...after rebuilding their economy we've have good relations with them. We fought a war with germany and until recently we've had VERY cordial relations with the germans. So if you telling me that civilian casutlites inflicted today will impact the way iraqis view the united states historically..you may in fact be wrong. That being said lets move on
3. Let's jsut stop being foreign agressors and let sanctions kill far more iraqis...that of course is a better course of action according to you?....the long term well being of the iraqi ppl is then in very serious jeopardy.
ALEXRUS said:
1. Any big war implies civilian deaths. This is one of the main reasons why Im against this war.
2. Well, historically... Who cares what they think of you in 1000 years? No I meant (quite explicitly by the way) their attitude during THIS war.
3. Im sick of hearing there are only two alternatives: either immediate illegal war or sanctions that will kill more Iraqis. Some people do have serious problems with imagination...
Dreadsox said:
I and others on the pro-war side have started threads many times in here asking for other alternatives. There has been very little responses. Peace
Arun V said:
well genius..in a war civillian casualties occur..it's a sad thing that occurs in war...the word implies it
can you name me one major conflict in which no civilian casualties occured???
Dreadsox said:
I urge you to start your own thread on the topic of what other options there are. I think you will be surprised that many of us, on both sides, have many other ideas of what could have been done. Just start it off with what you would have done if sanctions and war are not the options. I am sincerely curious.
Peace
ALEXRUS said:
If it is about disarmament
1. Continuation of inspections and continuation of military pressure.
Thanks to US pressure Iraq started cooperating more and more actively. Blix said inspectors would need months not years to complete their job...
ALEXRUS said:
2. Whenhiphop... gave u one alternative of CIA and Mossad. I don't believe that much in effectiveness of CIA (look at Fidel Castro). I will give u another, legal one.
ALEXRUS said:
Namely, UNSC resolution authorising use of force against Iraq and consequently a BROAD coalition of countries conducting legal operation on Iraq. Coalition like in 1991. I guess in such case Saddam would not have stood the pressure of the UNITED international community. He would have resigned/escaped before the operation. If not, the war could start but I guess Iraqis would have been far less eager to fight against UNITED international coalition acting on legal grounds than against "US-UK infidels and agressors". The operation would have been shorter despite your assuredness that you dont need others, u r the best, u know it all and can do it all.
Of course, it would not be easy to get consent of many countries to attack Iraq, especially when one lacks convincing reasoning explaining why the war is the ONLY method and why it is so indispensable to start it NOW. But isn't it the job of your diplomats?
ALEXRUS said:
The problem does not lie in alternatives. The problem is that from the very beginning the US was not interested in peaceful alternatives but wanted this war and wanted to do it alone. Do it alone. We will not support you.
Klaus said:Dreadsox:
If the US wanted to strengthen the UN sanctions it's a bad idea to give the UN a ultimatum at the beginning and to ignore the UN if it dosn't agree to the US (miss)interpretation of UN laws
Klaus said:
Another hint that the US wants to get rid of the UN:
Colin Powel starts diplomatic contacts with the Nato to get the Nato the job done what is UN business, the reconstruction of Iraq.
Why? I can only speculate at this point but i guess the Nato is easier controlable for the US than the UN is.
Klaus
Dreadsox said:I am sorry, but I do seem to recall that France said they would again VETO any efforts for reconstruction because it would legitimize the war. How can we work through the UN if FRANCE, one nation, once again stands in the way of the security council?
US ambassador says no need for UN General Assembly session on Iraq
from AFP www.afp.com
UNITED NATIONS, April 2 (AFP) - US ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said Wednesday he saw no need for a UN General Assembly session on Iraq.
"We do not think that it is either necessary or desirable," he told journalists.
"We noticed some talks among delegations, perhaps Arab delegations, and from the non-aligned organization. We see no reason, no reason whatsoever, to transport this issue to the General Assembly," Negroponte said.
The five permanent members of the Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- cannot exercise their veto right on the General Assembly, which comprises all 191 UN members.
Negroponte said there would be ample opportunity for the Council to discuss Iraq in April. Speaking after a closed-door agenda-setting meeting of the Council, he said humanitarian aid would be the main issue.
He declined to discuss questions on post-war reconstruction.
"The questions that really are before us have to do more with the ongoing conflict and the humanitarian situation," he said.
be/pfm/gs AFP 022100 GMT 04 03
Copyright (c) 2003 Agence France-Presse