STING2 said:
In response to Klaus:
How is interesting that the USA allowed for the export of duel use techonology to Iraq when every other country in the world exported the same technology to Iraq.
As i said before - the bitter irony is that Iraq gets attacked because of technology it got (not only!) from the USA
I took USA as an exemple because they are the ones who are pro war against Iraq - if it was another country i would take a look at its past in Iraq
It makes no sense to single out the USA on this point. The USA UNLIKE some European countries NEVER sold Military Combat Equipment to Iraq. I have the weapons tables for
Anthrax spors don't qualify in your description above - knowhow either.
Also the US dosn't want to invade iraq because of the "Military Combat Equipment"
That is the sad part - most of what GB and USA can prove that the iraq has came from their country!
Yes it was legal to export it in these days - it's no illegal doing i'm showing here
but you must admit that it is strange if a president warns the world of Sadam - the bad boy who has even BC weapons - when you (or your predecessor) sold them and helped to get knowhow.
This is not only against Bush but all presidents of our world who participated.
The USA did not sale duel/use techonology to Iraq so it could make chem/bio weapons. It was exported to Iraq for legitmate medical and scientific research NOT involving military applications. Iraq was recieving this from dozens of other countries around the world as well. Its IMPORTANT to realize dozens of other countries recieved this duel use technology at the same time.
If you give them technology you have to accept that they can use it the way they like. There is a good reason why it's called duel/use techonology!
Sadams character didn't change over the years - as i pointed out the US continued duel use exports after sadam used these wapons against civilists.
Before the break up of the SOVIET UNION, the Soviets were the biggest arms exporters in the world. The most common assault rifle found on the planet is the AK-47, the most numerous tank is the Soviet T-55.
It always depends if you count the # or the $! But anyway let's say Russia China and US are the world leaders in export of military goods.
Every country likes the money they make of it - noone likes to be responsible for the results.
In the cold war nearly every war in the world was US- vs. Russian military goods. Both sides didn't care too much whom they support as long as it hurt the ally of the oponent.
As a matter of fact we have tons of weapons out in the world - the famous "Kalashnikov" (the derivative of the german Sturmgewehr) or the Uzi are quite harmles in our view because they are not threatening us (yet). Our politicians couldn't believe (or just closed their eyes because of the money) that anyone would use them against us.
For >10 Years it's possible to buy nearly every weapon in the world on the black market if you have the money - noone cares until s.o. attacks us with a Apache Helicopter or a MIG Fighter.
But that horror scenario is something for a different threat as we know Terrorists can make lots of damage with a plastic knife. They don't need hightech equipment.
The export of "duel use techonology" for medical reasons is not the reason for war. The development of weapons of mass destruction coupled with Iraq's refusal to comply with the UN CEACEFIRE agreement is why military action has to be taken against Iraq.
The US also gave Anthrax and other bacteriums to Iraq and transfered knowhow in the time of war against iran (who was also "fed" with western technology before the fall of the shah) And their Biological and Chemical knowhow which he got from "us" (particially direct particially the money for it particially we just tolerated it)
And the reason for war (it shifts quite often) is at least also their ABC weapon program).
And for these activities there are only proofs for the stuff he had 10 years ago - so no "new threat" there.
I didn't hear sadam threaten the US - now read the UN resolutions and you find out that it will be illegal without a new resolution. (btw. that's the reason why the US want's a resolution who includes all that which is missing in his opinion now: no more UN decisions neccessar for war in the mid east)
For me such a concentration of power on a single man is dangerous. He could use it wiseley but he also could abuse it. (like all the other changes of paragraphs we saw after 9/11)
If the reason for attacking t
To point this out:
I'm sure the president wants the power to use it - not to abuse it! Aniway.. it's dangerous
The USA has the right to defend itself
Sure
and to define what it considers to be a threat or not.
No the United States have to care about international regulations as all the other countries. If the United States put themself over the international laws they dispose them -> the international work of generations of (not only) us presidents is destroyed.
Don't expect anyone government to care about the contracts they signed with the US when they don't do it themself.
President Bush was pretty good in braking international laws up to today and i'm affraid he will continue.
And i'm not talking about trade contracts (it's pretty comon to break them i guess) i'm talking aobut the fundamentals of international legislation.
If the US starts a war (no matter how they will call it) against iraq without legitimation of the UN you can be sure that this bad reputation the US earned from that will be remembered for centuries.
Even with legitimation of the UN it won't be perfect for the US reputation because citics of the US wont forget the blackmail (we all remember his comment of the "irrelevance of a future UN) of GWB to the UN
If the UN makes a new resolution according to Article 7 of the Charta imho
there would be no legitime originator of the resolution - so just a worhless paper which would please the people in US that it is no bilateral war their president has started.
Because there is no higher instance there will be no consequences for the US (and even if there was one - who could force the US to care about the law?)
But of course it will be a damage of credibillity and trustworthieness of the US
I'm sure the US will win the war against Iraq but if we take a look at the possible long term result of it (not only for the mid-east region but for the whole world) - we have to ask: is it worth it?
Europe has a poor record in determining what threats are and other countries would be foolish to follow their idea's and foolish interpertation of law.
What do you wan to tell me with this statement?
Please don't start offending and generalizing.
At the present there is no "European interpreation".
There are at least three different mayor streams - and all have good points (as the US has) for their reacton and if you think about them seriousely you will realize that the way G.W.Bushs plans are suboptimal. Caring about the wories from all Presidents could result in a better result for the problem.
The UNITED STATES is currently the only country that seems to care about international laws.
come on - that's why they blackmail the UN and violate all the international laws i mentioned in the posting before?
I know that they want to act because of some good reasons - but the way the current covernment of the US does it ...
that's dishonorable for such a great nation with such a history!
In case you forgot, IRAQ signed a CEACEFIRE agreement in 1991! Open Violation of the ceacefire agreement means that the UN is obligated to resume offensive military operations against Iraq.
please read what i wrote in my mail before!
The resolution was about freing Kuwait. That was the legitimation for war. Since Iraq is out of Kuwait this resolution is no legitimation for war anymore.
NO, the freeing of Kuwait is NOT complete. It will never be complete until Iraq has accounted for ALL Kuwaities that were taken to Iraq and as of today are still missing. In addition the
If you would take it that way you have other dates of the end of WWI and II than all historicans i know!
CEACEFIRE compliance. From a legal standpoint, the conditions regarding Kuwait have never been ...Europe!
There were new resolutions for the inspections but they are not connected with military force - if the US wants that (it's a thing we could think about) they have to convince the other UN members for that.
(p.s. we discussed more than once why the inspecors were thrown out of the country i don't want to repeat it again)
The Military is needed to disarm Iraq, because without them, the UN inspectors will be treated like stooges.
I agree that it is important that the UN takes action when the inspectors will be hindered doing their work - but thats something you have to do when it happens and not before - if they would list all eventuallties in the UN what might hapen and decide what they should do then..
..you see that's not usefull
Also giving the power of decision to a single country is fatal because that demolsihs the support of the other nations. (remember what the U in UN stands for?)
The old inspection regime was a joke, with Iraq blocking access to sites when they wanted to so they could remove Bio/Chem weapons. Then they
They were quite efficient for a joke - come on i don't want to read polemic i want great arguments as you had before :-(
Its not colonialism to change outlaw regimes around the world. Its important to do it for international security and law and order. We do it domestically with individuals and organizations, and sometimes it has to be done internationally.
If a single country decides which government is good or bad for another country -
it is colonialism
We have to respect that not everyone has our opinoin in the world and we are not allowed to force other governments in any way unless.. read my posting above
In 1998, the funds and many of the people who would take part in the 9/11 were actually located in Afghanistan. In addition, much info has been found about Al-Quada since the US invasion in Afghanistan preventing multiple terrorist attacks around the world. Many that would perform such
I just count some of the cities - i don't want to bug you with the names of the terrorists or what hapened where
5. January 2000 first plot in Kuala Lumpur (no that's not in Afghanistan) -
15. January 2000 LA
September 2000 San Diego
January 2001 Washington DC - the CIA found out that one of the ppl of teh USS Cole attack (Jemen) is in the US and might plan a terror act
15. August Minenapolis
23. August Langely
...
Hamburg, Madrid, London
They didn't need too much contact to Afghanistan
And even without the stike in Afghanistan the Secret Services of the US and it's allies knew enough to stop them.
It was not the fault of a non cooperating regime or of too liberal laws. Humans don't act allways perfect - and sometimes they even make terrible mistakes.
We could open a new thread about "what went wrong on 9/11 if you like.
always been USA policy to spread US capitalism and democracy around the world and we will continue those efforts in the middle east to include
Because of the spread of capitalism many people in the world hate the US some even think that capitalism is the religion of the USA and it's their kind of "holy crusade".
Of course this is nonsense - but if you seed feelings like that you might raise terrorism
So one way in war against terrorism might be not to offend sensibilities of others in cultures we don't understand!
supporting the only democracy there at the moment, Israel and building a new one in Afghanistan.
Iran is on a good way and when this region won't be destabilized the Iran president has good chances to turn his country from the former theocracy to a democracy.
- The Taliban are gone (good job)
- In Kabul a fragile regime has only power because of thousands of western soldiers
- In the rest of afghanistan local Warlords have the power (not the regime in Kabul)
- Some Al Quaida leaders are caught lots are still free
- We have no clue where Osama bin Laden could be
[/list=a]
let's hope it developes better than in Somalia, Bosnia or in the Kosovo
It's easy for us to win with our military - the step to peace is a verry big one.
Its a shame that the Europeans are unwilling to enforce the UN ceacefire agreement and other UN resolutions. The Europeans and other countries are simply making themselves less relevant when it comes to international relations.
You should be happy about the critics from europe - it shows that the main lesson of the re-education program after WWII was succesfull "praeventive war is evil"
The Europeans are standing for classical American values.
The Europeans are just sceptical about the way - not about the goal.
We learned from history that exporting our values in the world - no matter of the political costs" is not the right way.
I translate you a rhyme from the german past i mentioned before from to english:
"the world should be cured by the german values/nature/character"
it's hard to translate - and impossible for me to keep the rhyme
And with all erspect there is more than one way to achieve this goal
The United States is going to act to protect the interernational community with or without its help. We never have nor do we ever need to, ask another country if we are allowed to protect the lives of our citizens or are legitimate material interest and US lives overseas. The USA is going to act to disarm Iraq either by getting a new UN resolutions for a new inspections regime that would involve inspections backed with military force to disarm Iraq, or a regime change of the government of Iraq as the last resort in accomplishing the the conditions of the ceacefire agreement of 1991 which call for Iraq to be disarmed.
If you really belief what you are writing here you didn't understand a single word of what i was trying to tell you.
Both parties have to suppose that the other one could be right - otherwise any discussion is useless
this and the last post took me several hours to write (incl. reading yours and validating of the facts) i'd appreciate if you would take also some time to read everything and think about it.
Noone can force the US to respect other countries (even if they could i wouldn't like it because you can't force anyone tho think different).
What you are describing here is "others are just relevant for us if they have the same opinion than we do"
and "we are the world police - if you are on your side - fine, if not we are it anyway" and "we know what's best for you".
This attitude won't bring peace but it will be perfect seed for extremism.
Their military agony combined with some moral failings will lead to legends and their triumph (and noone will care about the moral faults of theirself)
Originally posted by Dreadsox
In response to Klaus:
No way! The UN weakens itself by not enforcing its own resolutions.
Right someone who has no army like the UN seems to be to weak from the 1st point of view. So they can't enforce their ideas through brute force. But that's one of the streghths of the UN also.
They have to convince their members (which have the military strength). And only with a wide acceptance the resolutions will be enforced
Of course there's allways a problem if a single country shifts is focus (for example a new government which has other opinions how to create their international politics).
But i like the idea of the UN as a demorcratical organisaiton which convinces their members and dosn't force them like a dictator would do.
(btw which resolution were you thinking of?)
Klaus