A strike on Iraq - Page 8 - 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 09-29-2002, 03:30 AM   #141
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 07:43 AM
In response to STING2's previous post to me
Quote:
The members who compose the team making the Human Development report are economist, statisticions, and other experts from around the world. I think they try to give an accurate, objective, unbiased look at what the standard of living is in each country and how each country ranks among others. That certainly does not mean that their info is perfect, but I think they try to present an accurate picture. So I'm not really sure what to think on this. To much conflictive info. I'll give the import/export stats a look and see if that adds anything. I did see in the Economist this week that Argentina's GDP is -16% from this point last year. A 16% drop in GDP is not a recession, thats a depression. The UN development report for 2002 should be out in a few months, will have to see what the new figures look like.
Maybe they have good intentions but as I said it depends on what's the profile of the cases studied, their number, whether figures such as GDP and economic growth ones are given priority over actual field research, etc. It's really conflictive info all right, and it's really alarming to think that in the same way this country's data is badly distorted such could very well be the case with other nations' reports. About our present situation being depressive rather than recessive there's absolutely no doubt.

Quote:
The USA though helped and wanted to prevent the Soviet Union from being Knocked out of the war, because if the Soviets had been knocked out of the war, barring nuclear weapons that had not been developed in 1941, it would have been impossible to defeat the German military machine without the Soviets.
It naturally would have been impossible to defeat the Germans without the Soviets. My point however is that the US did not go into war to save the former USSR from a nazi takeover, but rather to avoid such a takeover in other sensitive areas. I mean that it was a vital reason to lend the Soviets a helping hand because their defeat would have meant the failure of the real objective the US was concerned with which was to preserve their natural allies Great Britain and France as partners in trade as well as to avoid nazi control of the Middle East and of the whole of North Africa further than the already Italian controlled Libya. It's obvious that the Soviets indirectly helped to attain this goal since they were fighting their own war against the nazis. It's also obvious that it was recognised that they almost fought the war single-handed and that it was tacitly acknowledged that they could have probably defeated the nazis in the eastern front anyway in view of the generous compensation they were awarded at Yalta. Re D-Day, it had to wait indeed since it not only required of a certain amount of military power but it also relied rather heavily on intelligence operations. To establish a really effective intelligence network required its time. Moreover as we know D-Day also relied on the internal cracking of the nazi military and governmental hierarchy which was still monolithic in 1942. Furthermore though 1942 marked two decisive setbacks for Hitler at Stalingrad and El Alamein, the nazi forces were still compact and strong enough as to inflict heavy blows on the Allies such as at Dunkirk. I agree on what you say regarding US tactics to force the Axis to fight on different fronts.

Quote:
I see your point with Afghanistan, but again you have to put Afghanstan in the context of the Cold War where resources are limited. Building a nation into a democracy is expensive. The USA only provided 1/3 of the supplies for the Mujahadeen which was little at best anyways. I see nothing immoral about helping people resist Soviet Occupation. I don't think we should have left the area so quickly when the Soviets left, but the demands for aid to Eastern Europe were to strong. Remember all this occured in 1989, Soviets leave Afghanistan Communism collapses in Eastern Europe. We simply do not have the economic resources to help everyone at any given time. Still though, I could tie any support to resisting Soviet occupation anywhere in the world to the goal of one day having a world that is set up along similar lines of American Democracy and Capitalism which was our goal in World War II. Very indirect and not specific to Afghanistan at the time, very true. In general, both examples are still aiding an enemy or a neutral force to fight another enemy. Both examples can be linked to helping preserve democracy somewhere no matter how direct or indirect the link is. So I do think it is a legit example.
There's nothing immoral in helping people to resist Soviet occupation provided those people don't support an ideology as opposed to western moral principles as the fundamentalists do and as long such resistance leads to a truly democratic regime in which the same ideals that are supported in the free world can be applied in benefit of the local population. I mean, I understand that during the Cold War it was paramount to prevent the Soviets from taking over key areas further than what was already under their control, but while Islamic fundamentalism can perfectly well achieve the goal of communism containment, I don't see how it contributes in any way towards the end of establishing democracy and capitalism in the same lines as in the west. The constrainment of communist expansion is not enough a reason in my view to conclude that aid to such groups contributes towards the securing of western systems in the affected areas or in general. Fundamentalism is notoriously opposed to western forms and in particular to the US. Possibly it was thought at the time that as fundamentalist groups weren't self-sufficient as the former USSR was, they would always depend on US (or US controlled) funding to become operative and therefore would be easier to handle than a Soviet-controlled area in the Middle East. In fact they seemed to be for a time until they gained enough power to defy their previous mentors, which they hate anyway, and perform on US soil an attack not even the Soviets had dared to undertake in their own time. In my view this policy is (and has proved to be) extremely dangerous in the sense that it can backfire too easily and can hinder the achievement of the primary goal, as it can be presently witnessed in that terrorist groups of Islamic fundamentalist extraction are having all the west on the rack, not only jeopardising any further expansion of the western system but threatening it at its very origin.

The WWII and the Afghanistan cases are impossible to compare in my opinion because even if during WWII an enemy was helped, such help was accessory to the achievement of another immediate and clear goal which indeed contemplated the reinforcement of the western system. In addition this enemy's contribution in defeating a common evil was more than generously compensated as to secure certain basic lines of future behaviour even in presence of an "undeclared" conflict such as the Cold War. This scheme worked because the Soviet Union was under the control of a steady force with almost no internal opposition ever since the massive purges performed by the the Soviet leadership of the time within their own ranks. This guaranteed that the agreements reached with such authority would have a minimally solid base.

In the Afghanistan case a hostile force was helped to do away in the area with a lifelong enemy, but the concept of securing democracy and capitalism was way too diffused since the force helped was undemocratic and opposed to western systems by nature and to make matters worse it was not conformed by a compact block in which there was either a clearly defined policy (through elements like a Constitution, a government system backed by real power, tradition, etc) or a clearly defined authority which would guarantee basically the enforcement of any agreement. In fact the mujahedeen while reunited in their majority under common religious fanaticism experienced unsurmountable differences within their ranks due to ethnic divisions which prevented the emergence of a clear leadership in absence of a clear political system. In this scenario it was impossible to reach any solidly based agreement, nor it seemed, out of plain arrogance or gross miscalculation, to be of any relevance to the US that it was, since it was probably thought that the mujahedeen could be easily manipulated in view of their outward dependence to be able to operate. What I mean is that it seems that the US didn't see the need of reaching any agreement, let alone to negotiate any compensation since it was probably seen that the aid given during the conflict itself was to be considered enough compensation. The 90s events are clearly consequential. The Islamic fundamentalists' natural rejection of western culture together with the fact that there was no benefit in the area other than the removal of the Soviets has put them in a position of jeopardising the very system the aid given to them was meant to protect.

Quote:
Sorry about the comment, that was not good. I failed to realize that could be personal. I think I was just remembering a debate in a University class where such statements involving realism and idealism are often used. I'll try to make sure this does not happen again!
Apologies accepted. Thank you.

Quote:
You fail to mention the Israely lives that were saved by catching so many terrorist in one spot. The loss of innocent lives is unfortunate but there is only so much the IDF can do to protect innocent lives when a well armed terrorist group decides to make its stand in a civilian area. It has never been confirmed how all the 48 civilians killed at Jenin died. The Bulldozing of a house with civilians inside may of happened because of mis -communication in the heat of battle, which is when these events took place. If it was Israely policy to bulldoze any house in the area with civilians in it, there would be far more dead civilians.
Maybe many Israeli lives were saved, but to this end Palestinian civilians had to be killed. I wonder if the IDF would have been so ready to do away with civilians to catch terrorists, if the civilians had been Israeli, for instance if terrorists were holding Israeli civilians as hostages or were discovered to be infiltrating Israeli civilian centres such as universities, stores, etc. Palestinian civilians immolated to save Israeli civilians. It undoubtedly responds to a logic of war. But then Mr Bush should refrain from calling Sharon "a man of peace". BTW it was not the bulldozing of ONE house but of several of them with people inside. In any case my point is that while it's perfectly legitimate for the IDF to protect Israeli citizens, what's not is that they purport to do away with terrorism with methods way too similar to what the terrorists themselves use. This makes it state-endorsed terrorism. OK they don't use suicide bombers but methods such as bulldozing civilian homes with people inside because terrorists are supposed to be there too aren't much different.

Quote:
Well if there is to be an exchange for Israely forces leaving the West Bank for no terrorism in Israel, why has Hezbolah not ceaced their terrorism since Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon which they promised. Perfect example of how land for peace does not work. Israel had actually pulled out of large area's of the West Bank even when there was a massive increase in terrorism. But following all the attacks in the Spring the Israely's moved back in heavily. What i curious is before last Spring with so many Israely forces withdrawn from the West Bank, why was there a corresponding increase in terror attacks. Your Logic would state that the Israely's would be rewarded for withdrawing many of their forces from the West Bank, not attacked. This turns the logic that, if the Israely's completely withdrew from Palistine there would be no more terror attacks, on its head. Rather, the terrorist are interested in simply one day wiping out Israel and all Jews. It was and has been the stated goal of the Arab countries with four attacks on Israel in the 20th century.
In the first place it has to be stated that Hezbollah and Hamas are extremist organisations who may include in their agenda the wiping out of Israel and Jews in general, but that is not what the majority of Palestinians and Lebanese want. This is not something I'm conjecturing on but rather which I've heard repeated once and again by Israeli Jews who are furiously for retaliation against terrorist groups and blindly approve of everything the IDF does in this sense. However these groups are massively supported by the civilian population mainly because they also claim to fight for their right to an independent state which is what all Palestinians want. The question is why they support the Intifada headed by groups whose motivations represent what they want in a sense but are opposed to their wishes in the other. The answer is fairly simple: they've lost any faith they could have had in the good will of Israel and of the US. A brief analisys of the past ten years' events may be helpful.

In the post-Declaration of Principles years there was a significant decrease in terrorism in the area (even if there were actually attacks on both sides) and the world thought that peace could finally be reached. As a matter of fact Arafat, Peres and Rabin were awarded the Peace Nobel Prize in 1994. However the Declaration of Principles and other accessory agreements like Oslo II and the Wye River Memorandum indicated that Israel had to turn over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the newly created Palestinian Authority whose interim rule would not exceed a five year period (expiring in 1999) after which permanent settlements would be enforced including the proclamation of an independent Palestinian State.

Internal changes in Israeli politics (the assassination of Rabin in 1995, the victory of the extreme right with Netanyahu in 1996, the return of the Labour Party with Barak and finally back again to the right with Sharon) mainly related to the peace negotiations with the Palestinians conspired against the peace process, since many of the territories that had to be turned over to the Palestinian Authority weren't, Israeli settlements in territories actually turned over were not dismantled but rather reinforced, access to territories now lawfully under Palestinian Authority still remained under the control of Israeli military as well as basic supplies like water to them. This responded both to the fact that Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups were still operative (though on a lesser scale) which could legitimately make Israel doubt of true Palestinian intentions and to the fact that the Israeli right-wing factions disapproved of the terms of the agreement with the Palestinians.

When in 1999 the Palestinian Central Council was legally authorised to proclaim an independent Palestinian State, in the light of the commitment made by President Clinton in a letter to Arafat to do everything he could to ensure that the negotiations on the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza were concluded within a year, they agreed to postpone the proclamation of independence. During that year Barak and Arafat agreed to redefine the Wye River application timeline regarding the redeployment of Israeli troops as well as on the dismantling of 10 of the 42 illegal settlements established under the Netanyahu administration. The failure to proclaim the Palestinian State at the originally accorded date created unrest among the Palestinians and reinforced the position of terrorist groups who had never been favourable to negotiating with Israel (much less under US tutoring). Such unrest officially broke out as new violence after Sharon, at the time the Israeli opposition leader, performed an uncalled for visit to the Al-Aqsa precinct in East Jerusalem, a place considered holy by the Muslims. This was seen as an open provocation and there were massive Palestinian demonstrations which were violently repressed by the Israeli police. This fact, though symbolic, officially triggered the second Intifada led by extremist groups. Sharon's victory in February 2001 didn't but deepen the conflict since his aggressive policy included the reoccupation of territories under lawful control of the Palestinian Authority, expansion of settlements and the persecution of Palestinian terrorists. US Senator George Mitchell elaborated a report which called for a freeze on such activities on part of Israel to put an end to eight months of violence and US Secretary of State Powell even named a special mediator to help the two sides implement the Mitchell report which was naturally supported by Arafat but not by Sharon who has so far refused to co-operate. The Palestinian Authority is now in a position it can't control terrorist groups since they've got massive popular support. If Arafat (who I don't particularly appreciate) should try to oppose terrorist activities he would face a revolution which would put in his place more extremist (fundamentalist) authorities since the people seem to believe that the only way they can achieve the goal of an independent state is through these "freedom fighters" as past negotiations with Israel monitored by the US were never fully respected.

What I mean is that if the peace process would have been respected throughout, there would be no reason for Palestinians to massively support groups like Hamas. Even if they could continue to be operative because of their fanaticism, their resources would be much more limited since less people would want to join them or help them altogether and it would be the same people who would back their government in getting rid of them since they would be seen not as freedom fighters but rather as an obstacle to achieve lasting peace in their hard-earned new country. Also if such peace process would have been completed and the Palestinian government didn't comply in trying to do away with the remnants of terrorist organisations, the UN could easily step in since there would be a breach in some of their regulations (resolutions 242 and 338 in particular) regarding peace in the area.

I hope this helps to explain why terrorism has never been fully done away with in the area.

Which four attacks on Israel do you refer to in particular?

Quote:
Well I guess some UN members are blind. Please tell me who does not agree that Baghdad is not in violation of 16 UN resolutions. Did the inspectors finish their job. NO Who does not know that the inspectors were thrown out of Baghdad in violation of the UN ceacefire agreement? Perhaps reluctence or opposition stems from having to participate in paying for the rebuilding of Iraq after an invasion. We like to have the support of the member nations to enforce the UN resolutions as the law calls for so that we can get help with the cost of undertaking such an operation. But if no one is willing to help, that is not going to prevent the USA from doing the right thing if it feels the need to act.
I was just suggesting that some countries might interpret the law differently, otherwise there would be no reason for them to oppose this action. Regarding the last item I already replied on another post.
__________________

ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 09-29-2002, 07:55 PM   #142
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: 08:43 AM
Hello Sting,
thanks for your detailed reply i just don't have enough time to answer you faster. I'm sorry for that.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In response to Klaus:

The IRA targeted British civilians in England, Scotland and other area's outside Northern Ireland. The Mujahadeen did not target Russians in Moscow or any other Soviet city. The
As far as i know the Mujahideen didn't only target the Soviet army but also critic and civilians.

I didn't want to raise a discussion about Afghanistan here. I just wanted to show you that the "Axis of evil" can change verry fast maybee a better example:

We should take a close look on our friends and enemies when we prepare for war - because it's easy to see only the things we want to see.
Then dictators become monarchs, terrorists become rebells and agression becomes selfe defence and vide versa.

Hopefully a better example:

Donald Rumsfeld visited a country and called the President (or as i would say Dictator) trustworthy. He sent greets from his president and said he was happy to be here...

The folowing 8 years the USA sent equipment and raw materials for manufacturing biological and chemical wapons.
They got differnt labratory equpment. 3 Years late US military labors even gave them Anthrax and Botulinus to the "educational-ministery" of this country.
2 years later the dictator used toxic gas versus a minority in his country more then 5000 people died.
After that US continued to sell "dual-use goods" and helped him to research Biological, Chemical and Rocket technology.

Date? December 1983 - The Country? Iraq

I don't want to say that the US government did evil things - their point of view was just different than today (also it were partially the same people as today)

But like they didn't see the truth in the 80ies there is a good chance that they could miss it again.

Quote:
Hey if you have a factual dollar amount of a money transfer from the CIA to Mr. Bin Ladin himself, prove it.
I know i had it from a serious magazine (ai monitor something like that) but i can't find it anymore - searching the web for "bin laden CIA" is hopeless these days

Quote:
US foreign Politics was not perfect during the Cold War, but it certainly made far less mistakes than had been made prior to the Cold War. There is very little I would have changed about US Cold War policy. It was massivily successful in finally achieving its goals.
nothing is perfect and i don't expect it that way. the USA has much power and because of that a verry high responsibility because noone could stop them if they would do something wrong.

The USA did a lot of bad things starting right after its foundation. But the USA did also lots of verry good things (also starting right after its foundation)

Quote:
I agree that UN resolutions do not explicitly say that regime change is necessary if Iraq violates the ceacefire agreement. But military invasion of Iraq to force compliance with UN resolutions is clearly mandated. If, AND ONLY IF, in such an invasion, it is found that the only way to bring a resolution to the war and there by Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions, would a regime change be justified.
I agree that presure is neccessary on Sadam.
I agree that war is a possibillity
but before that we should invest the same energy and money in peaceful actions to put presure on him (for example controlling the merchandise with military enforcement. Acting against governments which don't sell non-humanitary stuff to the iraq regime.)

Quote:
The UN would not exist if it were not for the USA. We always do seek to work with are allies and listen to their views. But the UN is not the be all and end all of when and where countries can take action to defend their citizens or prevent slaughter. The UN never approved NATO military action in Kosovo but we took it and saved thousands of people from being slaughtered by the Serbs.

Quote:
The USA has the right to defend its citizens without a vote from any international body. We seek support of the international community, but lack of that support will not prevent us from acting to defend ourselves.
Yes of course the USA has the right forr self-defence. Noone qould criticize that.

I just don't see any Iraqi submarins near chicago or Iraqi MIGs over washington that would have to be struck back.
But baghdad has no chance to threaten the United States so the US dosn't have to defend anything.

Preventive war is another thing. It's unlawful. If you call preventive war a defence than every war - even the wars of the 3rd Reich can be interpreted as "only selfdefence".
Preventive war is a taboo in the international comunity - and there's a good reason why it is that way.
It's also a taboo to change regimes of different countries - no matter how much we hate them. This would be colonially.
And colonially would bring up lots of "rebells" (remember what i said before about for rebells?)

Quote:
The USA had to have spies on the inspection team because Iraq was already cheating and hiding its weapons from the inspectors. The USA set of devices to monitor Iraqi movement without them knowing. It was this intelligence, called spying, that allowed us to detect when and where Iraq had stationed sensitive equipment. You CANNOT effectively inspect and disarm Iraq if you do not spy on them without them knowing! This spying was the only way we were able to discover they were cheating. The fact that they were cheating not only allows the us to spy, but were mandated by the ceacefire agreement to actually invade the country with military force let alone spy!

Quote:

We never stated pubically that we were giving up the right of a first use of Nuclear weapons in a conflict, but our goal was simply to be able to deter each type of conflict with similar weapons, a conventional one with conventional weapons a nuclear one with nuclear weapons.
I thought one of your president said this that Nuclear weapons are just for response- but it's too long ago i don't know who it was.

Quote:
If we were being defeated by a Soviet invasion of western europe, it accomplishes nothing to esculate to the use of nuclear weapons to defend
I think you don't have to be a "Hittler or Stalin" to push the button "revenge".
And i'm not sure that everyone who can trigger this button - will stay cool in a situation. I'm glad that most of them are well educated and not hot tempered.

But don't forget the human factor.

Quote:
If chemical weapons were used on a large scale in World War II, please tell me when and where, and how it effected the outcome of the war. Why didn't Germans use chemicals against allied infantry on the beaches of Normandy.
Not in a large scale like in World War I - i agree to that point. Also not in Europe

Why no Chemical weapons in the Normandy?

Several reasons - the most important one was that large parts of the german military were not willing to do this because they knew that they would loose but they hoped to get a carea in fighting against Russia - they hoped that the powerfull German army was necessary to win a fight against the communists.
Some others were against hittler but just too scared for rebelion and they waited for the loss of war "to turn things back to normal" in germany. (fighting against hittler failed misserably everyone who turned against hittler was killed - somme in concentration camps - some emediately, some were killed including their whole family.

uh.. i don't want to turn this into a WW debate maybe we should open a thread for (not only this) subject of WW2

Quote:
How did the Kuwaiti people react to US troops in the 1991 Gulf War? As far as Iraq that might be less certain since Iraq has so many different ethnic groups. There certainly will be ethnic groups in Iraq that will chear a US invasion.
Sure there will be some - but for a change there needs to be a majority cheering - also people who can build up a new state and will be respected by the majority of the country.
A "satelite government" won't work for nation building.

Quote:
I know war is not the only way to prevent terrorism but it is part of it.
Imho war is not a weapon that fits for preventing terrorism.

Quote:

The US does not go to war for egoistic reasons. We go for to war for reasons of national security and international security. WE also do not target civilians in any war we go into unlike other countries. In my view and from what I have seen and read, all major US military action since 1945 has been justified.
I didn't want to say that the US is targeting civilians (and i hope i never said this).

1I tried to point out that every fighter fights his enemy - in our understanding civilists are no enemies. Terrorists have a different view of what is worth killing.

1b)i think cruelties and murder of civilians by purpose hapened in every military - after all there are too many humans - some of them are "black sheeps" and seeing all this cruelty in war dosn't turn out the best sides of humans).

2On the other hand lots of innocent civilians are killed by mass destruction weapons (see a-bombs over hiroshima and nagasaki). Also lots of civilians were killed by purpouse some still thought it would be for a good reason (to shorten the war)

If military from our culture kills civilians by purpose our people are shocked because we are sure the other people are not our enemies - it's just something between the governments (classical european idea of war - 2 kings hate each other and the military has to do the job.)


2)This is verry different in other cultures. If the race or the religion is the reason for war ALL civilians from the enemiy are guilty and therefore they do not need to separate between civilians and military.

3)a little different approach are the ones who just hate the enemiy so much that killing civilians is no good thing but it's "legal" because it's the only way to win.


i hope i cleared out what i wanted to say first with just one sentence.
__________________

Klaus is offline  
Old 09-29-2002, 09:48 PM   #143
The Fly
 
Hi Bias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southwest, U S
Posts: 49
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Hi Bias is offline  
Old 10-02-2002, 01:54 AM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:43 AM
In response to Ultraviolet7:

In the case of aid to the Mujahadeen, I still think it was the right thing to do, because while it might not have contributed to the formation of democracy immediately in Afghanistan, it did contribute to the long range goal of containing Soviet Communism which was threatening the very existence of democracy on the planet. The building of democracy today in Afghanistan would not be possible without the democracies of the West. The democracies of the West exist today because the Soviet Union was successfully contained. It is not immediate nor is it direct, but nearly all actions by the West(including Afghanistan) to contain Soviet Communism in the Cold War contributed to the eventual victory over that Global threat to democracy, and there for contributes to all democracy then and in the future anywhere in the world, including Afghanistan where a democracy is currently being built.

In the case of "Fundamentalist" in Afghanistan its easy I suppose to generalize. The Mujahadeen was composed of members who did believe in womens rights and were open to some for of democracy without sacraficing many of their religious beliefs. Members of the Mujahadeen many years later would become members of the Taliban and to a lesser extent Al-Quada, but a large portion would also become members of the Northern Alliance. There was a huge degree of difference between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban/Al-Quada on many issues. Its not really correct to say that in supporting Fundamentalist we were not supporting any groups or people that might be interested in a western style democracy. The problem is there is not actually a single definition of a Fundamentalist and political and social views among them can vary. Maybe many that most might mistake or consider to be Fundamentalist are in fact not. What we do have is certainly a society of tribes where religion is strong and there is no history of democracy. But that in of itself does not mean we should not support them when they are attacked by a foreign power that threatenes us as well.

Al-Quada while based in Afghanistan has cells in many places around the world. Afghanistan was chosen in the mid to late 90s as a place to train, but there are other countries that could have been used as well. It does not follow that are support for the Majahadeen in the 1980s has today threatened are democratic systems. Al-Quada came from outside of Afghanistan and could have been based in other countries. The Northern Alliance has never threatened any western democracy and has only helped the West. The Taliban was supported by Pakistan in 1996 to combat their enemies in the Northern Alliance. In hind site, leaving the region so quickly after the Soviets did may not have been in the immediate interest of Afghanistan, but it was not necessarily a long term threat to US interest since Al-Quada's main base could have been located in a large number of other countries not even in the immediate region.

It may be Israely policy to bulldoze the houses used by terrorist, but its not policy to bulldoze houses with people inside. I'm not saying this did not happen as I'm sure it did. Certainly there may be members of the IDF that took criminal action. Another factor is mis-communication which is so common in intense combat operations especially at night. Some of these houses were bulldoze in the middle of combat. Confusion and possibly some criminal IDF members led to the bulldozing of houses "with people in them", not Israely State policy. I see no equation of Israely tactics with Palestinian terrorist at all. In addition, if the IDF had the goals and aims of the terrorist they are fighting, everyone in the West Bank and Gaza would have been murdered decades ago. While the IDF has the power to do this, they have not done so. IF the Palestinian terrorist had the power of the IDF, they would not even hesitate to do this to the Jews in Israel.

I find Palestinians resort to Terrorism because of the failure to comply with a signed treaty on time an absurd action for them to take. Clearly they have benefited from working with Israel and the USA on eventual statehood. When has violence of any type benefited Palestinians in the last 55 years? The process was working, most Israely troops had withdrawn from the West Bank. Their violence only helped to elect Sharon. The Palestinians failed to crack down enough on terrorist before the 2nd intifada but still Israel was committed to the peace process and working out the final details. The best peace deal the Palestinians would ever get was handed to Arafat and he rejected it. Their reasons for supporting the terrorist stem from a lack of education and the understanding of Law/Government. If your a Palestinian and believed to have aided Israel, you are not given a trial, but are instead beaten to death by a street mob. In Israel, there is the rule of law and a trial for those that are accused of acting against the state.

The 2nd intifada has only made things worse for Palestinians. Clearly their choice to give more support to the terrorist was not at all intelligent when they had gained so much by working with the USA and Israel. If Palestinians want to have a State, they need to disengage from terrorism which will NEVER achieve any of their goals. They then need to form institutions of law and government and show responsibility in those area's before Israel can seriously consider leaving the area thereby allowing them to form a state. The only way the Palestinians will ever have a state is if they work with the Israel and the USA to achieve that. Its unfortunate that Palestinians fail to realize this, but it does not take a genious to do so.
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-02-2002, 07:24 AM   #145
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: 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In response to Ultraviolet7:

The 2nd intifada has only made things worse for Palestinians. Clearly their choice to give more support to
Right - worse for palestinensians - but look who won - the hardliners on both sides got (temporarily) more support because:
if you have a enemy of your people they support you even if they don't share your oppinion
and.. they can say "as i said you can't talk with them, the only thing they understand is force.

Quote:

terrorism which will NEVER achieve any of their goals. They then need to form institutions of law and
Sad but true - only Terrorism brought (back) international attention to that problem

Klaus
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-02-2002, 11:12 AM   #146
Acrobat
 
Not George Lucas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Bend, IN USA
Posts: 399
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Evidently, I forgot to click the submit post button yesterday.

Here's a few random thoughts I've been having recently.

1. The United States does not need war right now. The country is pretty much split down the middle, and unless the president can get the whole nation to back him, any war against Iraq will fail.

2. What the country does need, if, indeed, Iraq really is a threat to us (of which there is still no real hard evidence), is not war, but the very real threat of war to the point where they back down. If there really is a threat, Iraq will respond to violence with violence. They would more likely respond better to immense pressure.

3. If the United States does invade or strike Iraq, there are only two possible results. If they turn out to have weapons, they will strike back. We have no way of knowing, at this point, what, if any, weapons they have, and, should we find and destroy any, there would be no guarantee we got them all. If Iraq ends up not having any weapons, the United States, no matter what our intentions are, will be the international bully, and everyone will see us as the bad guy.

4. Ever since Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States has flat-out refused to perform any pre-emptive strikes. The goevernment had the attitude that such an act is uncivilized, unjust, and beneath us. We're better than that.

5. The president needs to look to his predecessors for inspiration. It is obvious to me that he knows nothing about the presidential legacies before him, he has no understanding of his role, and he's entirely incompetant for his office.

6. The president wants war by any means necessary. There is nothing Saddam could do, short of killing himself and his entire family, that would give teh president second thoughts.

7. One thing I think a lot of people are overlooking is the potential loss of innocent individual lives. Right now it's all political, but I don't believe it is right for anyone to watch a bullet tear through his best friend simply because of the baseless hunch of some Texan thousand miles away.

8. On a completely unrelated note, Israel needs to pull out of Palestine. They have no right to be there.
Not George Lucas is offline  
Old 10-03-2002, 11:47 PM   #147
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 07:43 AM
In response to Sting2

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In the case of aid to the Mujahadeen, I still think it was the right thing to do, because while it might not have contributed to the formation of democracy immediately in Afghanistan, it did contribute to the long range goal of containing Soviet Communism which was threatening the very existence of democracy on the planet. The building of democracy today in Afghanistan would not be possible without the democracies of the West. The democracies of the West exist today because the Soviet Union was successfully contained. It is not immediate nor is it direct, but nearly all actions by the West(including Afghanistan) to contain Soviet Communism in the Cold War contributed to the eventual victory over that Global threat to democracy, and there for contributes to all democracy then and in the future anywhere in the world, including Afghanistan where a democracy is currently being built.
I see the point of communist containment as I've already stated in my previous post. However, while the countering of communism is undoubtedly beneficial to allow for the spread of capitalism, it doesn't in any way guarantee the spread of democracy. I've already stated on previous posts that dictatorial regimes are perfectly well suited to develop capitalist economies. The triumph of capitalism isn't necessarily the triumph of democracy. In fact capitalism and democracy shouldn't be considered as inseparable partners because they are clearly not.

On another account, you seem to believe that fundamentalism, in its role to counter communism, was a completely innocuous weapon which could be easily disposed of leaving behind almost no side-effects after the main objective was reached. While the original idea must have certainly been such, it's undeniable that fundamentalism gained considerable power in the area as a result of its role in the Afghanistan episode against the Soviets. This is because a great part of the victorious mujahedeen were actually fundamentalist (not all of them, it's true) and radical individuals such as bin Laden and others, now members of Al-Qaeda, were undoubtedly empowered by leading them to victory. It may be conjectured that they might have been anyway even if the US had refrained from backing their operations, but that is something we cannot state our opinion on since it was not what actually happened. My point is that while the western system might have globally triumphed (partially - let's not forget China) with the fall of Soviet communism, at the same time it began to become jeopardised by radical Islamic groups - the same helped previously to eradicate communism. Such jeopardy, embodied by more than actual attacks on western countries, can be hardly denied in view of the current "security measures" applied in the western world and in particular the US. In fact, such measures designed with the idea of containing the terrorist threat precisely originated in the action of fundamentalist groups who were in the first place empowered by a US-backed operation and whose presence in the area is mainly US responsibility, are actually curtailing basic freedoms that democracy is supposed to guarantee. Note that I'm not saying that capitalism is under threat but rather that democracy is.

Quote:
In the case of "Fundamentalist" in Afghanistan its easy I suppose to generalize. The Mujahadeen was composed of members who did believe in womens rights and were open to some for of democracy without sacraficing many of their religious beliefs. Members of the Mujahadeen many years later would become members of the Taliban and to a lesser extent Al-Quada, but a large portion would also become members of the Northern Alliance. There was a huge degree of difference between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban/Al-Quada on many issues. Its not really correct to say that in supporting Fundamentalist we were not supporting any groups or people that might be interested in a western style democracy. The problem is there is not actually a single definition of a Fundamentalist and political and social views among them can vary. Maybe many that most might mistake or consider to be Fundamentalist are in fact not. What we do have is certainly a society of tribes where religion is strong and there is no history of democracy. But that in of itself does not mean we should not support them when they are attacked by a foreign power that threatenes us as well.
I'm aware of the differences between the Taleban/Al-Qaeda members and some of the more moderate Northern Alliance ones. Nevertheless they were all part of the force helped to reject the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. Bin Laden and some others - future Al-Qaeda members - were, as it is noted, actually pulled in by the CIA to lead the resistance movement. What amount of power the actual factions did finally retain is entirely another story. What's certain is that the more radical groups seemed to be more organised and clear in terms of political system desired and ideology sustained. In contrast, the more in general moderate Northern Alliance has been notably divided since its very inception because of its multiethnic conformation which included groups with deep ancestral differences as well as confronting Islamic fundamentalists and other members who weren't. As I said before, it was a force with which no solid-based agreement could have been reached regarding the direction the new Afghanistan was to undertake. This and the fact that albeit "having done nothing against but rather in help of the west" no support at all was provided to prevent their overthrow on part of the Taleban back in 96 is really something to think about.

On another account, the fact that some of the Northern Alliance members were not fundamentalist does not necessarily mean that they would be proclive to applying western systems. In fact many of them actually defended a strong nationalistic ideology rather left-wing oriented, though not particularly pro-Soviet, since they saw the Soviet intrusion as another form of imperialism. Such a situation would not leave much room for the development of a capitalist system in the lines the global powers desire, neither it would probably promote a democracy in the western pattern considering their lack of democratic tradition and their otherwise strong tribal organisation. It is more than obvious that the situation with the Northern Alliance is different now than in the early 90s, since the aid they received from the US to unseat the Taleban last year forces them to accept certain conditions from the west if they expect to retain power in Afghanistan. In addition, it must be noted some of their stronger national leaders such as Abdul Haq are no longer around.

Quote:
Al-Quada came from outside of Afghanistan and could have been based in other countries. The Northern Alliance has never threatened any western democracy and has only helped the West. The Taliban was supported by Pakistan in 1996 to combat their enemies in the Northern Alliance. In hind site, leaving the region so quickly after the Soviets did may not have been in the immediate interest of Afghanistan, but it was not necessarily a long term threat to US interest since Al-Quada's main base could have been located in a large number of other countries not even in the immediate region.


It's true that Al-Qaeda came from outside Afghanistan and that it could have been harboured by governments like Sudan's or Libya's, but let's not forget that bin Laden himself and some of his most conspicuous cronies in Al-Qaeda were, as I've already mentioned, actually planted in Afghanistan by the CIA during the 80s. After their participation at the lead of the resistance against the Soviets, they were obviously seen as heroes by the people in the area. It's not too hard to imagine that they would try to cash in on such success by basing themselves where they had already gained a good deal of credibility and popularity by fighting "for Afghanistan".

Quote:
It may be Israely policy to bulldoze the houses used by terrorist, but its not policy to bulldoze houses with people inside. I'm not saying this did not happen as I'm sure it did. Certainly there may be members of the IDF that took criminal action.
I did not say that it is Israel's policy to bulldoze houses with innocent people inside, but rather that they are stopping at nothing in their operation to capture terrorists. This could be considered on superficial analisys a legitimate intention but it actually can't in view of the way it is causing scores of victims (and not particularly by accident) among the Palestinian civilian population. I mean that Israel is perfectly entitled to go after terrorists but it is certainly not entitled to systematically murder Palestinian civilians in such operations. What I'm trying to say is that in their legitimate fight they are using illegitimate methods which are comparable to what the Palestinian terrorists use. On another account I've never heard of Israel's government ever acknowledging the fact that IDFmembers at Jenin might have incurred in criminal action and much less issuing a mea culpa for it. Such a fact implies that they do endorse such methods.

Quote:
If the IDF had the goals and aims of the terrorist they are fighting, everyone in the West Bank and Gaza would have been murdered decades ago. While the IDF has the power to do this, they have not done so. IF the Palestinian terrorist had the power of the IDF, they would not even hesitate to do this to the Jews in Israel.
They haven't had the need to, but anyway I did not say that Israel's policy is to wipe out Palestinians, though Sharon personally and others in his line of thought would probably wish to. The difference here compared to the Palestinians is the wider control opposing forces within Israel can exert due to its democratic stability. That is the reason why Israeli governments led by extremists like Sharon have refrained from wiping out Palestinians. If Palestinian terror had the power the IDF does there certainly would be no more Israel, since their goal is to wipe out Jews, but again such a goal is the exclusive priority of Palestinian terrorism and not of the bulk of the Palestinian people.

Quote:
I find Palestinians resort to Terrorism because of the failure to comply with a signed treaty on time an absurd action for them to take. Clearly they have benefited from working with Israel and the USA on eventual statehood. When has violence of any type benefited Palestinians in the last 55 years? The process was working, most Israely troops had withdrawn from the West Bank. Their violence only helped to elect Sharon. The Palestinians failed to crack down enough on terrorist before the 2nd intifada but still Israel was committed to the peace process and working out the final details. The best peace deal the Palestinians would ever get was handed to Arafat and he rejected it. Their reasons for supporting the terrorist stem from a lack of education and the understanding of Law/Government. If your a Palestinian and believed to have aided Israel, you are not given a trial, but are instead beaten to death by a street mob. In Israel, there is the rule of law and a trial for those that are accused of acting against the state. The 2nd intifada has only made things worse for Palestinians. Clearly their choice to give more support to the terrorist was not at all intelligent when they had gained so much by working with the USA and Israel. If Palestinians want to have a State, they need to disengage from terrorism which will NEVER achieve any of their goals. They then need to form institutions of law and government and show responsibility in those area's before Israel can seriously consider leaving the area thereby allowing them to form a state. The only way the Palestinians will ever have a state is if they work with the Israel and the USA to achieve that. Its unfortunate that Palestinians fail to realize this, but it does not take a genious to do so.
It is an absurd action from our western point of view. Not from theirs since in view of actual facts they were entitled to legitimately doubt Israel's and US' intentions. Let's not forget that this was a very delicate peace process because there was mutual mistrust from day one, in addition to the fact that it was the US, Israel's perennial mentor, to become the tutor of such negotiations. To make matters worse, the most inflexible factions on each side (Israel's more extreme right wing and Islamic fundamentalists from Hamas on the other) were never in agreement with these negotiations. It was then more than predictable that if conditions weren't respected to the last comma it was calling for trouble. Even if the peace process was taking place in part, the fact that Israel had reinforced settlements in areas they had to evacuate, that they refused to hand over control of water supply and access routes to the West Bank and Gaza and on top of that the Palestinians were asked to postpone their lawful right to statehood in 1999 in exchange for the promise of the completion of the process within 2000, which did not happen, didn't certainly contribute towards Israel's and the US' credibility regarding the actual intention of completing this process in compliance to what was accorded. Conversely, as Klaus rightly says, it gave arguments to more extreme organisations like Hamas to justify in the eyes of Palestinians the need to engage in the second Intifada and naturally to the hardliners on the other side who had not been favourable to negotiate with the Palestinians in the first place to justify in turn their access to power in order to go back on what had been signed and strengthen their aggressive policies regarding Palestinians on the excuse of countering terrorism.

It is more than clear that Palestinians have to disengage from terrorism to conform a stable state, but then there must be also true will on part of Israel to allow them to have this state on the agreed conditions. The problem rests in my view on the fact that there are strong factions on both sides which don't really wish for peaceful cohabitation. As it may be true that Palestinian terrorists wish to wipe out the Jews it is also true that many Israelis don't want a Palestinian neighbour state. It is wrong to say that everything is the Palestinians' fault, mainly when such conclusion derives from the sole consideration of the Palestinian reaction rather than including the origin of such a reaction, which is related to the fact that they were kicked out of their soil in the first place to allow Israel to exist. In this context the claim that "Palestinians need to show responsibility before Israel can seriously consider leaving the area thereby allowing them to form a state" should be really thought over.

On another account, violence has indeed benefited Palestinians in the last 55 years! Do you think anybody would be even considering granting them anything near statehood if they hadn't resorted repeatedly to violence as the powerful method it is to draw attention on their cause? Not certainly that I approve of such a method, but if something's certain is that nobody was paying attention to their claims until they engaged in this modus operandi, which has certainly succeeded in putting their case under the noses of those responsible of ignoring them for so many years.

Quote:
Sorry but I never said that the attack was impending or about to happen at any minute. Were acting because of the possibility of this in the future, and Saddam's violations of the agreements he signed. In addition, any large scale invasion of Iraq requires the deployment of large numbers(250,000) troops many from the continental USA itself. This is not like Afghanistan! All of the support element for such a force are in the US reserves and would have to be called to duty, which requires congressional approval, which the President is trying to get. Bottom line, we could not invade Iraq tomorrow even if we wanted to. Its going to take several months to position the forces that would be required to take over a country the size of Iraq half away around the world. While we prepare to position forces to possibly do that, we are trying to seek support from other countries for rebuilding Iraq after a possible invasion. Until any invasion force for Iraq is ready, we will continue to hunt for Al-quada using special forces and other intelligence organizations.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you regarding the immediacy of the threat posed by Iraq - my bad. In any case it's me who is saying that if the threat the US claim exists regarding bio/chem weapons is as real as they say, Hussein could provide such weaponry to terrorist groups any minute now. There's no logic in saying that an enemy is armed to his eyeteeth with WMD and because of it is subjecting an important part of the world to a bio/chem hazard at the same time of claiming that he is not going to carry out his threat immediately! If he is posing a threat because of present armament he can put such armament to use whenever he decides to which could very well be right now.
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 10-06-2002, 05:48 PM   #148
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:43 AM
In response to Klaus:

It is true that "Duel Use Technology" went to Iraq in the 1980s but also to dozens of other countries around the world. Unless there were already sanctions on a particular country at the time, "duel use technology" would be approved. In addition, Iraq recieved most of its duel use technology from other countries besides the USA. Germany in fact not only sold "duel use techonology" but military weapons to include The Milan Anti-Tank Missile, The Roland Anti-Tank Missile, and various armored vehicles which I don't recall at the moment but could look up if need be. This is military combat equipment with only ONE use! The USA never sold Iraq Military combat equipment. Its true that we contributed to Iraq's Bio/Chem program because of lax import/export controls and the "duel use" factor. But the US aid given to Iraq had no relevant effect on the Iran/Iraq war or the conflict with the Kurds. Even if the USA had not given the permission for the shipment of "duel Use Technology", the Iraqi's would have recieved what they needed from Europe which was already directly selling them Military Combat Equipment. But even Western Europe's role is minor when compared to the Soviet Union's sales and support for Iraq. In fact, Iraq really did not need support from anyone else but the Soviet Union. I have the Military Equipment table for Iraq posted on one of these pages for 1989, the massive support from the Soviet Union and China is self evident. Their support of Iraq was really the only one that was substantial enough to matter and be relavent.

As far as Iraq, we have done nearly everything we can short of war to get them to comply with the resolutions and ceacefire they signed. From a purely legal standpoint, the UN should be and is legally at war with Iraq already. If Iraq would be willing to agree to coercive inspections, which involves the deployment of US military forces with the weapon's inspectors in Iraq, then I think we could for the time being hold off on regime change and see if it works. Anything short of that won't work as the past 11 years has proved. If they don't agree to it, then regime change is the only option left.

Iraq does not have to have Mig-25s over New York or troops in Miami to threaten the USA. This the 21st century not the 16th century. Our security is hurt and threatened any time a country that has a large trading relationship with us is attacked or stability in an economically important region of the world and there for the USA is upset. Its an economic fact. You don't need to cross a single countries border to hurt and threaten that country, they are many other ways.

It is never unlawful to prevent the slaughter of thousands of people. It is in fact immoral to not prevent such slaughter from happening. But in Iraq, it is really about Iraq's unlawful invasion and anexation of Kuwait in 1990 and the ceacefire agreement of the 1991 Gulf War which they have been in open defiance of since 1998. We are legally and morally bound to enforce the ceacefire agreement. Again from a legal standpoint, we have been at war with Iraq since 1998.

The Germans didn't use chemical weapons in WW II because their military usefullness was in question since proper use relies on so many variables(example:Whether, othersides protective measures, etc.) when attacking another military force. In addition, the use of such weapons would simply bring retaliation in kind from the Allies. Bottom line, Chemicals were not used on a large scale because it was not clearly defined from a military standpoint that it would give either side an advantage. Attacking and killing civilians is a different matter all together though. Its far easier to kill unprotected, unknowing, civilians going about their business in a small area, than to attack a fully protected, armored mobile unit, that is prepared to respond in kind if need be.

War can be very effective in preventing terrorist attacks. One only wonders if an invasion of Afghanistan in 1998 would have prevented 9/11. It is not the only tool in general, but it may be the only tool especially when terrorist are in route to their objectives. It also may be the only tool that will successfully prevent Saddam from transfering large quantities of WMD to terror organizations in the future.
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-06-2002, 06:21 PM   #149
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:43 AM
In response to Not George Lucas:

1. Most opinion polls I see show that there is strong support for a war against Iraq. Just watch the Senate and House votes this week. It is expected that 75% of the Senate and 75% of the House of Rep. will vote for the Presidents resolution. It is a fact that there is more public support for action against Iraq today than there was in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

2. Iraq has never responded to immense pressure in the past. They have only substantially altered their behavior when military force was involved. If Iraq agrees to COERCIVE inspections with US military forces in Iraq to ensure there is no obstruction and the UN inspections team can go anywhere and inspect anything, then we may be able to temporarily hold off on regime change and see how it goes.

3. Certainly Iraq will try to strike back with these weapons, but by striking first the odds go up that we will be able to neutralize many of the delivery systems that would be used to spread these weapons around the battlefield or an attack on Israel. An invasion and regime change in Iraq have far better odds of achieving disarmement of Iraq than the old UN inspections regime.
Even if Iraq does not have weapons, we will simply be forcing compliance with the UN ceacefire agreement which calls for Iraq to be completely disarmed. Again the last time UN inspectors were in Iraq, even Scot Ritter himself said(1998, the last time he was in a position to know something) that Iraq still possesed significant amounts of WMD capability and was still a threat to the world comunity.

4. Actually the USA has acted perhaps pre-emtively several times after WW II, Panama and Cruise Missile strike in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998 just to name a few. Quicker Pre-emtive action in Bosnia could have saved thousands of lives.

5. You have to realize that presidents are not kings and have large numbers of advisors around them. Bush is not making US policy on his own, he is consulting with perhaps the best Foreign Policy team this nation has ever had with Colin Powel, Condelleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

6. "The President wants War by any means necessary" Clearly that is not the case. The presidents wants to protect the world community from a grave and growing threat. He wants to prevent the slaughter that we saw on 9/11. He currently has the support of the Congress and the American people. He is working with the UN, but will not rely solely on the UN to defend US and other countries citizens lives.

7. This is not simply the "Baseless Hunch" of some "Texan". The US military and intelligence community in addition to former UN weapons inspectors, plus Iraq's UN and ceacefire obligations provide all the basis the USA and Allies need to take action.

8. Israel has every right to defend itself from Palestinian terror or invasion from Arab countries which has happened multiple times in the past 50 years. Israel will withdraw once there is a peace agreement and Israel's security concerns have been solved. It would behoove the Palestinians to adopt a course of action that actually has a chance of achieving their goals which terrorism will never be able to.
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-06-2002, 07:52 PM   #150
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:43 AM
In response to Ultraviolet7:

The US did not empower Al Quada because a decade before we provided 1/3 and I underline 1/3 of the material support for a different group called the Mujahadeen. This support was cut off in 1989, and the money and small amount of weapons were already used up by the time the Taliban took power. Bin Ladin already had his own money and supporters without any aid from any country. After 1991 Afghanistan fell into a period of ethnic conflict which was a natural part of its history for thousands of years until the Taliban siezed power and pushed the Northern Alliance into the mountains. Democracy is NOT in jeopardy in the USA because of support for the Mujahadeen in the 1980s nor is any democracy in jeapardy because of that support. Nor was Fundamentalism really used in a significant way as a bulwark against Soviet Communism. Yes there was some material support (1/3 of which came from the USA) for the Mujahadeen in the 1980s, but much of that was already used by the time Al-Quada became active on the international scene in a major way. Most Al-Quada members today never fought in the 80s against the Soviets and Bin Ladin's true role in that war was mainly support for the Mujahadeen with money. Its true that US withdrawel from the region allowed Al-qauda to later set up an impressive base there, but that could have been done in several other countries so it can be seen as empowering them.

The Northern Alliance were not supported because the USA did not feel the region of a great enough importance to warrent major support, especially with the newly independent countries of Eastern Europe needing aid quickly. Money is limited and nation building was seen as being more important elsewhere than in Afghanistan.

There are all kinds of places around the world in which democracy has developed without there being a long history of democracy prior to it. Anyways back to the original point, I see US aid to the Mujahadeen as being clearly justified from the point of 1. Self defense against an invader 2. Helping to contain an enemy that threatens the vary existence of democracy worldwide.

The CIA did not plant Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, he planted himself and others. Many people in the Mujahadeen back then did not even know who Bin Ladin was. Bin Laden and Al-Quada operated largely outside of Afghanistan before the Taliban came to power there. The only thing comparable to a hero was the leader of the Northern Alliance who was murdered by Bin Ladin on Sept 10, 2001.

It is not clear nor has it ever been proven that any member of the IDF intentionly killed an unarmed civilian that was known not to be a terrorist. Most likely what happened is simply what always happens when urban combat occurs. Civilians get caught in the crossfire or are killed in structures that collapse. First the Palestinians claimed thousands were dead, then they claimed hundreds. Finally it was found that 48 civilians had died. A very small number considering the intensity of the fighting. The only guilty party here is the terrorist themselves who decided to use the urban environment to hide among the civilians to make their stand against the IDF.

Israel's slowness to comply with certain resolutions does not change the fact that continueing to cooperate with Israel on these matters resulted in a major net positive for the Palestinians and they were well on the way to a peace agreement and withdrawel of Israely forces. Its not simply rational for them to stop cooperating and resort to terrorism because of Israel's failure to yet comply with a few conditions here and there. Clearly the process was moving forward and despite the setbacks, it was a net positive. Terrorism will never help Palestinian achieve any of their goals. It only ensures that the IDF will never leave the West Bank.

There is a common view among many people that in 1947, Israel was created when a large number of Jews from Europe moved in and kicked Palestinians off their land. That is not what happened. First, there had been a Jewish community(however small) living in the area on a constant basis for thousands of years. Jewish emigration to Israel started to grow in the late 1800s with the approval of the Ottoman Empire which owned the area. There was no Palestinian State and the area only had 400,000 a tiny number of which were Jews that had lived there for thousands of years. Most area's were basically unoccupied. The Jews from Europe settled in unoccupied area's. As Jewish emmigration increased some people became concerned by the Ottoman Empire continued to allow it.

At the end of World War I the Ottoman Empire was defeated and dismantled and the British and the French began to build independent states in area's where no states had existed for hundreds if not thousands of years. Of course the Jews wanted a state as well as the Palestinians wanted a state. The Palestinians would not except any Jewish State. The UN plan in 1947 allowed for a Jewish State that was divided into 3 parts while the much larger Palestinian state was fully connnected. The UN plan did not require the removal of anyone.

In 1948 when Israel accepted the plan, it was attacked by 5 Arab nations which attempted unlawfully to destroy it. Israel defended itself and in the ensueing military operations came into possession of more land than it had been given in the original agreement. MOST Palestinians fled these new area's Israely military units moved into the area. SOME were kicked out by Jews by they are the minority. Most fled or actually stayed. One out of every 5 Israely's is a muslim.

The formation of Israel did not cause anyone to be kicked out of their home. But the fighting started by the invasion of Israel by 5 Arab countries did. If the Palestinians and the Arabs had simply accepted the UN plan offered in 1947, the Palestinians would be in a far better position today and would have their own state, plus no one would have been kicked out of anywhere.

In light of the fact that the Palestinians could of had everything they wanted and more in 1947, I do not know how you could say the violence has helped the Palestinians cause. It certainly did not improve their situation in 1948 or in any of the Arab/Israely wars that followed. Palestinian violence has only produced negative effects for them. The USA would be far more likely to put pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza if the Palestinians were engaged in passive resistance. Israel is a democracy and a nation of a laws. In such a situation, passive resistance like that of MARTIN LUTHER KING can produce a positive result. Israel never annexed the West Bank and Gaza and was always willing to talk about resolving its disputes. Israel is not a dictatorship and there for a passive form of resistance can effect it just as the US civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s brought about better equality for African Americans in the USA. Violence has only made things worse for the Palestinians and brought Israely soldiers in large numbers back to the West Bank. It has only increased support among American voters for strong military response to terrorist actions. The US does have strings it can pull with Israel, but its never going to pull them as long as Palestinians try to use terror to achieve their goals. Violance has been an utter and complete failure for Palestinians over the last 55 years. Its time they adopt a new strategy that does not involved terrorism and actually has a chance of achieving their goals of statehood.
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-07-2002, 02:15 PM   #151
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: 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In response to Klaus:

It is true that "Duel Use Technology" went to Iraq in the 1980s but also to dozens of other countries around the world. Unless there were already sanctions on a particular country at the time, "duel use technology" would be approved. In addition, Iraq recieved most of its duel use technology from other countries besides the USA.
Right! I didn't want to say that only the US - it was just one example of many
The interesting fact of the US export of duel use technology was that they sold it when they allready knew that Sadam uses Chemical weapons against people of his own country

Quote:
Germany in fact not only sold "duel use techonology" but military weapons to include The Milan Anti-Tank Missile, The Roland Anti-Tank Missile, and various armored vehicles which I don't recall
Right - but America dosn't want to invade in Iraq because of Anti Tank Missiles - do they?
I don't want to say that Germany didn't sell chemical technology to the iraq too - BUT
The interesting point (for me) of this fact was:
- the US sold the stuff and now they want to start war against this country because they own it!

Quote:
The USA never sold Iraq Military combat equipment. Its true that we contributed to Iraq's Bio/Chem
Afik the United States did but i have no proof at the moment i can't remember on which magazine they mentioned it.

Quote:
program because of lax import/export controls and the "duel use" factor. But the US aid given to Iraq had no relevant effect on the Iran/Iraq war or the conflict with the Kurds. Even if the
You mean the US tried to support Iraq against Iran (after an anti-american regime change there) but all the support did not have relevant effects?
I really can't believe that.

Quote:
USA had not given the permission for the shipment of "duel Use Technology", the Iraqi's would have recieved what they needed from Europe which was already directly selling them Military Combat Equipment.
When the US wanted a boycott against iraq i'm sure most of the western countries would have folowed it.
But i'm also sure that there was heavy lobbying inside the US pro export.
The United states sell more weapons worldwide than any other country (followed by russia, china and france imho)
*polemic on*I hope they won't "ringback" all weapon exports with wars *polemic on*

Again i don't want to say that it was America alone who sold wepons (maybe not even alone in selling abc knowhow) - the point is - you can't take your own exports as a reason for war.


Quote:
As far as Iraq, we have done nearly everything we can short of war to get them to comply with the resolutions and ceacefire they signed.
If America is interested in the "law of nations" (they should - it's the only protection against terror acts from countries) you have to accept that "Praeventive Wars" are illegal it's a trivial point if you read and interpret the "law of nations" (Article 2. Abs. 4 and Article 51 of the UN Charta) noone can deny this

The only exception of this is the natural law of self defence.
That dosn't mean you have to wait for the MIGs in the Washington sky but the Attack of the other State (US) has to be the curent situation. (for example the threat (strike of Iraq against the US) must be imminent. Every delay would bear the risk that the defender would loose.
Not even washington says that Iraq will atack the US they just say that he could do it - that's not enough!
Just an Opponent who gets a technology boost in warfare is not enough when no matter how you interprete that law.

Every attacker i can remember just defended himself.
(You coult take a look at the Nuernberger Tribunal for example - no i don't want to put any coherence between the way the US acts today and the way the third Reich acted - it's just an example that even the extremest ones "just defend" if you ask them).
the International Court of Haag formed the "Caroline criterias" - up to today the accepted rule of the international law.

If we change international law the way the Bush administration likes it it would just turn the international law to the law of the stronger.
That would stop the civilized relationship between countries and go back to barbarism.
If the US go that way they can be sure that the attacks of the opponent barbars will not care about international laws either.
And i do not talk about single Terrorists who attack the US - i'm talking about attacks against of the US of countries who don't like the US - as soon as they see their chance (maybee in an anti american aliance)
Of course this is the worst case scenario.
But it's really hard for me to understand why anyone should care about laws when the most powerful country stops doing so.

Quote:
From a purely legal standpoint, the UN should be and is legally at war with Iraq already.
If you take a closer look on Res. 686 and 687 (91') you realize that there only was a UN mandate for freeing Kuwait - that's done.
After Iraq left Kuwait every authorisation of military force against Iraq expired.
All other military actions after that point against iraq were illegal.

Quote:
If Iraq would be willing to agree to coercive inspections, which involves the deployment of US military forces with the weapon's inspectors in Iraq, then I think we could for the time
I can't see any active roll for Military in that.
The Inspectors should be able to access military data about the Iraq from all UN members. There's no need for a bidirecitonal connetcion between the Inspectors and the military. That would only result in disstrust.

Quote:
being hold off on regime change and see if it works. Anything short of that won't work as the past 11 years has proved. If they don't agree to it, then regime change is the only option left.
No matter how much you dislike other governments in the world you have no right to change them - the belief that you have the right to do so would be Colonialism

Quote:
War can be very effective in preventing terrorist attacks. One only wonders if an invasion of Afghanistan in 1998 would have prevented 9/11. It is not the only tool in general, but it may be the only tool especially when terrorist are in route to their objectives. It also may be the only tool that will successfully prevent Saddam from transfering large quantities of WMD to terror organizations in the future.
War against Afghanistan would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks.
How could they? The Terrorists were living in US and Europe the organisators were globally connected.
[list=The best chance for preventing Terrorism is:][*]A well organized secret service. (They don't need more rights for that. They had the chance to prevent the attacks but screwed it up)[*]and in a long term way - and much more important We have to take a look at the reasons not only at the symptoms[/list=a]

International laws yes - but just for the others - that won't work as a future politics it would destabilize the world.

It's a shame that the curent US Government weakens the UN - and on a long term view it's verry contraproductive for US interests.

Klaus
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-07-2002, 03:11 PM   #152
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus


It's a shame that the curent US Government weakens the UN - and on a long term view it's verry contraproductive for US interests.

Klaus
No way! The UN weakens itself by not enforcing its own resolutions.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-07-2002, 04:05 PM   #153
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:43 AM
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. 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 Iraq for 1989-1990 from the "International Institute for Strategic Studies" which confirms this. Its true that the USA exported "duel use technology" which actually has Important medical use! BUT we never sold Military combat equipment which only has ONE use, unlike other countries! Without Iraq's invasion of Kuwait it would have been impossible to organize international sanctions against Iraq at the time.

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.

Nearly all of Iraq's support came from the SOVIET UNION and CHINA! I have the facts and figures to prove it. Iraq did not need support from any western nation! Their of course not going to turn it down, and German and French companies made some good money from selling Iraq some Military Combat Equipment. But the only relevant support for Iraq came from the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent China. That is an undisputable fact. The USA gave no military combat equipment to Iraq, and the Chem/Bio duel use techonology exported to Iraq was never used in the Iran/Iraq war or in fighting against the Kurds. Mustard Gas was used against Iran and to a lesser extent Sarin Gas against the Kurds, weapons Iraq had without the export of "Duel use techonology" from the USA.

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. Most US exports went to European countries, Israel and Egypt back then. Since the end of the Cold War arms exports worldwide have fallen by more than 50% worldwide. The US of course does continue to export weapons to its longterm allies as does western europe, for legitmate security reasons.

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 USA has the right to defend itself and to define what it considers to be a threat or not. 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. The threat from Iraq is #1 based on the behavior of the Regime PLUS the weapons of mass destruction they have. It may be impossible to know when an attack is in fact imminent or about to happen.

The UNITED STATES is currently the only country that seems to care about international laws. 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. 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 CEACEFIRE agreement laid down a number of other conditions to be met by Iraq for the Conflict in Kuwait to be considered to be complete, including Iraq's complete elimination of weapons of mass destruction! Iraq has FAILED to comply with any of these conditions and until they do, the War with Kuwait is NOT over! Iraq has not complied with 16 UN resolutions related to the Gulf War and until they do, military action against Iraq is mandated to bring them into compliance. From a legal standpoint, the conditions regarding Kuwait have never been fullfilled. Military action to force Iraq's compliance is not only justified, it is mandated. The USA seems to be one of the few countries the recognize these facts of international law and are willing to fullfill their obligation to them, unlike Europe!

The Military is needed to disarm Iraq, because without them, the UN inspectors will be treated like stooges. 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 would let the UN inspectors in to search the area after they had removed everything. IT would be plain DUMB to repeat this foolish game again, and the only way to prevent it from happening again in the future is the deployment of military troops to force open and prevent any Iraqi attempts to stop the process. Its not about inspections and inspections procedures, its about disarming Iraq period! The UN inspectors have a far better chance of achieving this goal if they are backed up by US military force which can force its way into any area of Iraq to ensure the destruction of these weapons. Iraq won't agree to this because they know it will insure that they are disarmed of CHem/Bio weapons.

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.

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 acts have been siezed because of the operation. This type of prevention is an important component in stopping terrorism. The USA is already strengthing its intelligence services and NO were not going to sell out Israel just because it would supposedly decrease the number of terrorist recruited. It has 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 supporting the only democracy there at the moment, Israel and building a new one in Afghanistan. A regime change in Iraq followed by the development of democracy there would have a major positive impact on the whole region.

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. 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. 11 years is to long, Iraq must be disarmed, and if that requires regime change, so be it. Europe and other nations can either abide by the UN ceacefire agreement of 1991 and help the USA, or become irrelevant to the process and what goes on in Iraq in the future!
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-07-2002, 07:18 PM   #154
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: 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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

Quote:
The USA has the right to defend itself
Sure

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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)

Quote:
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?)

Quote:
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 :-(

Quote:
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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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.
[list=A short balance sheet to Afghanistan:][*]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.

Quote:
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

Quote:
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)

Quote:
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
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-08-2002, 12:04 AM   #155
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:43 AM
In response to Klaus:

It is not exactly known which technology and from which country Iraq recieved it, was the most vital in the development of its WMD. Much of this was actually developed by Iraq itself. Clearly the USA and other countries made mistakes in exporting some duel use technology to Iraq. The problem is that much of this duel use technology has life saving medical benefits and I could see it now how the USA would be accused of hurting a thirdworld country by denying them access to such duel use technology. In addition I detect a generalization from you that the only reason that Iraq has WMD is because of the USA. The Fact is that Iraq would of had WMD with or without the export of duel use technology from the USA. Even if the USA had taken action to isolate Iraq before their invasion of Kuwait, it would have failed. Only Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and attack on Saudi Arabia and Israel created the support that would be needed to have an effective sanctions regime to prevent Iraq from getting any more weapons or technology. Rather than being ironic, its a fact that this technology is rather widespread because of its duel use and international trade in which creating an effective sanctions regime to block a single state is difficult and requires that state to commit gross violations. There was dispute at the time over who started the Iran/Iraq war plus some states thought that it was Iran that had used chemical weapons and not Iraq. It was only until 1990 and the invasion of Kuwait that there was sufficiant support to create an effective sanctions regime against Iraq.

Believe it or not, Anthrax spores also have important medical uses. Armored Vehicles and anti-tank missiles do not! I never said the USA is going after Iraq because of Armored Vehicles and anti-tank missiles. I was pointing out an important difference between exporting "duel use technology" for medical purposes and exporting Military Combat Equipment which has only ONE purpose! The USA never exported Military Combat Equipment to Iraq, the Soviet Union, China and to a lesser extent France and Germany did! While it was a mistake for the USA to export duel use techonology for legitimate medical purposes because of Iraq's actions and the possiblity they could use this for things other than medical uses, it was a far worse mistake for other countries to sell massive amounts of military combat equipment that has only ONE use!

You can certainly buy a large number of weapons on the blackmarket but definitely NOT everything. There are many weapons systems that the USA does not sell to any country and others that are sold are the EXPORT VERSION that have downgraded capabilities so as not to risk sensitive US technology falling into the hands of people that would duplicate it. Of course with the passage of time, restrictions on the sale of much older weapon systems are relaxed.

The Anthrax and the Bacteria all have very legitimate and usefull medical purposes. Again even if the USA had prevented the export of this technology to Iraq, they were already getting this technology from the Soviets and other European countries. Iraq was a Soviet Client state and the Soviet Union would have blocked any resolutions against Iraq at the UN. Other countries would have blocked or ignored back then as well. This was before the invasion of Kuwait. We know a lot more about Saddam Husseins behavior and actions in 2002 than we did in 1988 at the end of the Iran/Iraq war.

Saddam threatens the USA on nearly a daily basis in his crazy speaches. In addition Iraqi airdefense weapons fire on UN coalition aircraft patrolling the UN approved No Fly Zones nearly a thousand times a year. Iraq has tried to murder US citizens(former President Bush), taken US citizens hostage and strapped them to possible military targets in Iraq in the months right after their invasion of Kuwait. I can on and on, but what is really relevant is Iraq's behavior in regards to its neighbors(which does effect the USA), attacking four countries in the past 20 years, development of weapons of mass destruction and the failure to comply with the UN ceacefire agreement of 1991.

The USA is going to the UN for a new resolution because we want the explicit support of the international community for an inspections regime that has a military force that is apart of it to aid the inspections. Breaking the UN ceacefire agreement does allow the USA and other countries to resume offensive operations against Iraq without further approval. BUT we want to work with the international community on a resolution short of full scale war, which there is legal approval for already by the UN ceacefire agreement, to see if we can effectively disarm Iraq this way. The old inspections regime did not have a military contingent with it, but this new one should. If Saddam refuses this or the UN does not agree on the new UN inspections regime, then the US and allies will have to resume offensive military operations against Iraq that were put on hold(but not stopped completely) by the UN ceacefire agreement.

President Bush is not breaking international laws, Saddam Hussein is. We do have a right to determine what threats there are to our security and deal with them. A US president would be impeached and thrown out by the American people if he subordidnated the USA's right to act to defend itself and determine threats to its security to an international body like the UN!. The USA is doing its best to respect its allies and others in the international community, but will not be restrained by them in taking action important to defending itself.

Why does much of the international community not care about enforcing the UN ceacefire agreement which it agreed to do? Why does the international community fail to enforce these laws? The USA is not the violator of international law here, Iraq is. The USA's actions are legal because of the UN ceacefire agreement. Oh, and please don't bring up international trade, there is NOT another country that is more open to internatinal trade than the USA. Thats why the USA has had a trade deficit for the past 30 years. We let the world dump their products in the USA and in return we have more difficulty exporting to them. I'm not talking about any specific trade area, I'm just speaking overall, considering all trade relations, the USA is more open to trade than any country on the planet which is a huge benefit for the world community to have so much access to the largest market on the planet. Of course no one thanks us for this fact.

The USA already has a legitimate right to act because of the UN ceacefire agreement of 1991. Acting outside the UN though is not necessarily wrong and certainly won't lead to it being condemed for centuries. By that logic I guess we will be condemed for hundreds of years for our actions in KOSOVO which was NOT UN approved. I'm happy the USA acted along with NATO without the support of the UN in saving thousands of muslims from murder by Serbs in Kosovo. The UN most of the time lacks the consenses to do ANYTHING. It might be an effective organization in the future once there is greater economic, cultural, and political intergration throughout the world. Right now its good place to discuss and comunicate views, but has a mixed record when it comes to resolving key international security issues.

So even if the US does get the backing of the UN will still supposedly be consider to be evil. Sort like were damned if we do get UN support, damned if we don't get UN support. All this time you have been talking about the importance of the UN and now your basically saying it doesn't matter what the USA does. If that the case, the USA does not need to pause and worry about other countries concerns of unilateralism because will be accused of it even when we act multilaterally. What this really means is that there are certain people who want the USA to do nothing and are simply against any enforcement of the resolutions, regardless of the massive cost to the world that would entail.

We are looking at the cost of disarming Iraq, if need be with military force and we strongly feel that is worth it. We understand the views of the international community all though we don't share them all. We seek their support in this action but will not be restrained if we do not get it, because this action is a matter of international security and saving lives.

I don't see how any of my comments would have offended you personally because I'm not talking about you. I could also accuse you easily of offending and generalizing as by your logic you have done already several times. I've read many European views on the entire situation and have attempted to understand. I don't share their views on many things and yes, I do think several of their idea's policies in the past have been foolish. My opinion. Europe's foreign policy has been a major disappointment in the past in regards to many situations. I am generalizing a little I admit, but Europes record on many international issues is poor, and their record with this one is poor as well. Certain countries in Europe do standout against this but they are in the minority.

The US is enforcing international law which the UN obviously does not want to do, or at least is unwilling to act to do so. Come on, Blackmail?!?! I don't call enforcing international law blackmail. I don't call defending the citizens of the world to be a violation of international law or blackmail. Jeez, talk about generalizing! Disarming Iraq is certainly not dishonerable, its legally mandated and morally the correct thing to do!

The UN ceacefire agreement explicity states that Iraq has to comply with certain conditions in order to avoid the resumption of hostilities. Thats what a ceacefire agreement is. Its not a peace treaty. The UN resolutions calling for throwing Iraq out of Kuwait are trumped by the UN ceacefire agreement which sets up the conditions that Iraq must comply with for there to be a final end to hostilities. Failure to comply means legally that UN members of the right to resume hostilities to force the compliance of Iraq with the conditions. I don't know what your refering to with World War I and II but this is not a peace treaty but a ceacefire agreement which Iraq signed and are in violation of! The new resolution is an attempt to get support for a new inspection regime instead of changing the regime with military force. Its a last attempt to avoid a war. To have an inspections regime that has a military comenant to act on site if Iraq tries to block anything. But legally, the UN ceacefire agreement is all we need to resume offensive military operations against Iraq.

UN inspectors were thrown out because through spies they were catching how the Iraqi's were fooling the UN weapons inspectors. It would be stupid to have an Inspections team that did not have spies on it. Thats sometimes the only way to detect that Iraq is cheating. In order to properly perform inspections and disarm Iraq, you have to have spies! Otherwise, Iraq will get away with hiding a substantial portion of their weapons program.

You have to have the threat of military action to force open suspected sites to prevent the blocking of those sites to begin with. We can't sit down at every moment when Iraq blocks the UN and debate it for weeks about what to do while Iraq hides the equipment were after. This is the old inspection regime and it failed. Iraq has to be disarmed, and in inspection regime that has inspectors inspecting with military force is the only way short of war to disarm Iraq. The Old inspections regime will never fully disarm Iraq.

The old inspection regime was a joke, because when ever Iraq wanted to hide sensitive equipment they were able to. Part of their strategy was to "appear" to be giving up its weapons of mass destruction, while hiding the key things to restart their production once inspectors left. If UN inspectors are un able to go into a suspected site and are blocked by Iraqi military, while trucks go to the back of the building and remove the equipment and info, inspectors will never be able to complete their job! They become a joke, how can you inspect and verify someone does not have certain weapons if they have the power to prevent you from fully completing your mission. Its crazy. A new inspection regime of inspectors with military force is needed to make sure Iraq is 100% completely disarmed. Its the only way short of regime change.

If defending yourself requires changing the regime of another country, it is not colonialism. We do respect other countries opinions but not to the point that we will not defend ourselves or others.

A lot of the funding came and training for terrorist operations came from funding and training that was occuring in Afghanistan in 1998 before the dates you mentioned in your post. A military operation in Afghanistan in 1998 could definitely of disrupted future operations in the next couple of years just as the current operation in Afghanistan has done. Not all operations but MANY. An operation in 1998 could have yielded key info that would have stopped many operations and provided evidence on the locations of certain individuals just as the current operation in Afghanistan had done there by helping to catch terrorist and prevent other terrorist attacks. We have not stopped using the CIA, FBI and other intelligence services to defend the USA and find out things, but that is only one of several abilities the USA has to defend itself. It would not be intelligent to rely on only the CIA or FBI to defend the country. The invasion of Afghanistan in 1998 could have prevented 9/11 in 2001 because the dates that you site happened several years later. Many of the individuals that committed terror actions in 2001 and 2000 were in Afghanistan at some point in 1998! In addition, information on those that were not was available there. A US operation in Afghanistan in 1998 definitely could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Waiting for the FBI to pick up on the imminint attack at the last minute is waiting to long. The risk of such a strategy is what if the FBI fails, which in this case it did. Its not smart to rely on only one type of security to defend yourself. Far better to act much ealier than that to prevent even the planning of some attacks by striking in 1998 or earlier, 3 years before the attack happened.

The USA is not trying to offend anyone sensibilities or cultures. When was the last time any of them were sensitive to are sensibilities or showed respect for our culture!

When it comes to Afghanistan, I have a friend who has been there for over 6 months now and should be returning home in a few weeks. He has not been able to talk much while he has been over there, but his view and experiences over there about what the real situation is like will be interesting. Nation building is a long process, and the USA so far has done a good job. No other country has had as much success as the USA has in bringing stability to Afghanistan. Bin Ladin is most likely dead, and if he is alive, he has not been effective.

If Saddam Hussein continues to defy the UN ceacefire agreement, then there is only one way to achieve the goal of disarmament in Iraq. 22 years of dealing with Saddam has tought us this.

Preventive war to protect legitamite international security is not evil. If the Europeans feel that it is, they have failed to learn from their own history. Most Americans would laugh at your assertion that the Europeans are standing for classical American values. Their reluctance to support legitamite military action in other area's in the past and now is in conflict with your statement. The Europeans have failed to realize that you have to act if need be militarily to prevent and destroy some threats. Their failure to do so in their own history has led to millions of deaths.

"If you really belief what you are writing here you didn't understand a single word of what i was trying to tell you."(your words) So I guess by this statement your implying that in understanding what you had to say, I would have to change what I said or believe.


"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."(My Words)
I certainly do believe what I said above nor do I understand why you think I have failed to understand you. I believe I understood what you said, but I simply disagree with it and have great reason too. I would appreciate it if you could be more specific and tell me what you mean.

You are making claims that I am not thinking your thoughts and ideas through or giving your opinions time and thought. In fact I have, but just because I have does not mean I'm going to agree with everything or anything you have to say. I usually only read or respond to idea's that are different from mine to try and educate myself and learn more about the strength or weakness of my own ideas. I've never assumed before hand that you were wrong, but I am not going to agree with anything after anylyzing it and finding it to be wrong, in my opinion.

The USA respects other countries, but not to the point that it is willing to sacrifice the lives of its own citizens or the citizens of other countries. Europe unfortunately has irrational fears about USA unilateralism and unfortanate passivness which prevents it from taking tough military action when its in their own interest to for legitamite security reasons, and to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians. The USA often has to lead and provide the bulk of military force for anything to get done for security reasons or to prevent the slaughter of innocent people in places like the Balkans. Europes attitudes of inaction and isolation don't bring peace and allow extremism to breed and threaten its security.
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-08-2002, 05:13 PM   #156
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: 08:43 AM
Hello Sting,

I proved that Bush violates international laws when he invades the iraq without UN permission.
And you replied again and again that he's the only one who cares about international laws. I could cite numerous other things where he broke international laws if you like.
If you take a look at the laws i mentioned it's not even a thing of interpration - it's a fact that he'll violate it when he goes there alone.
The only thing you could say is "so what - we don't care about international laws we have enough power to live without these rules" - but ignoring the facts lead me to the idea that you might not read everything i write.

it's absurd to thing that you would have to change to what I said or believe (especcially if you take a look on my green statement.
But ignoring the facts i've pointed out witout any comentar like "no way because of article blabla" made me think maybe you did not read it.

We could discuss for months about >90% of all things which were exported to Iraq - Sadam is no fool. He didn't order a completely armed car.
He bought, for example, a Mercedes Unimog (can be used to transport medical goods into mountain villages) and ordered the rest from the black market or as spare parts.
I'm pretty sure that the german distributors had an idea what he could/would do with - and their american counterparts were as clever as the germans.

It's useless do rate the "evilness" of several decision for me now.
As i said before - most industrialized governments who were able to sell stuff to Sadam did it. (Like they sell to millions of other dictators to).
Lots of western countries supportetd Sadam with tons of money while he was fighting against the Iran like they do it with "strange" regimes in these days.

The reason why i mentioned especcially the US is because of the reasons i was talking about in my last postings.

We all dislike the Iraq regime and we would welcome a change there.
But unlike you i think that war is not the best option.

But you really shocked me with your statement because i missunderstood it - i thought you were talking about europes interpretation of law in general - (not in this special case). That's why i was talking about generalizing.
Generalizing European politics is problematic because most of the time there is a bigger difference between the opinions of Germany, Great Britain and France (to mention the most important ones) than between one of them and the US.

European foreigin politics is a big dissapointment for me to - mainly because there is no single European foreigin politics therefore no powerfull European foreigin politics at all.

So back to the subject:

As far as i see it now there are 2 condtions which must be fulfilled to legitimate war:
  • Morale Reasons
  • Must not violate laws (in the own country or international laws)

We had an interesting debate about the Moral background. I'm sure that it is not a reason for war (i don't think that we would have lots of wars in the world if it was only for the morale). But - not only in our democratic countries - it's neccessary to "motivate" the nation for a war. (if you don't do it you won't winn the next eleciton or will be even killed).
Also i enjoyed the pro and contras of morale in this verry much

Part 2 - the laws
- US laws: they're working on a legitimation and i don't see anything which could be illegal
- the international laws: also i try to see it with your eyes i can't find legitimation afik there were 2 points:
  • Self defence
  • War with Iraq (based on that UN res.)

1. When you take a look how self defence is described in these articles - i don't find any points that would fit to the current situation.
(mainly bacause the threat of Iraq is not immediate present)

2. the Iraq army is out of Kuwait because of this this UN res. dosn't allow more military action. And because it was no war between Iraq and the US (it was a UN mission no bilateral thing) the US also can't continue this war.

Just because i criticise the US dosn't mean that i would not criticise the others also (maybee even more at some points)

Klaus
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-08-2002, 06:21 PM   #157
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:43 AM
In response to Klaus:

NO you did not prove that Bush violates international laws if there is an invasion of Iraq. You seem to want to ignore the most important international law document in regards to this situation. The 1991 Ceacefire Agreement! Thats all the authorization the USA from a strictly legal perspective needs! You read far to much into seperate resolutions that were passed before the Ceacefire agreement. Those resolutions authorized the USA and allies to use all means to eject the Iraqi military from Kuwait and restore it to its previous condition. The Ceacefire agreement laid down the conditions under which the USA would stop its advance into Iraq to neutralize the threat of attack to Kuwait. Iraq has failed to meet those conditions which means that the war is on again from a legal standpoint. Iraq has also failed to meet certain conditions in regards to their attack on Kuwait and therefor from a legal standpoint, Iraq is in violation of even the resolution you claimed they have complied with.

I never said "so what or that we don't care about international laws". I said the USA cares about enforcing the 16 UN resolutions that Iraq signed onto and agreed to comply with and is failing to. It doesn't take 11 years for these resolutions to be complied with. The only way to disarm Iraq is through a new military supported inspections regime, or military invasion to change the governmental regime in Iraq so that disarmament can be achieved. The old inspections regime failed to disarm Iraq and never had the ability to really completely do so. Only a military supported inspections regime, with the military being part of the inspection team has the ability to disarm Iraq. If Iraq does not agree to this, then again the only way to disarm Iraq is through regime change of the government through military invasion. Whether Iraq agrees with the UN ceacefire agreement that signed onto or not, the conditions of the 1991 ceacefire agreement must be met, even if it requires changing the governmental regime in Iraq.

I don't know why your bringing up Mercedes armed cars or whatever. If you want to know what Military Combat Equipment Germans sold to Iraq I'll list that for you in another post. There is NOT a comparison to be made between deliberately selling military equipment that has only one use(Soviet Union, China, lesser extent France and Germany) and exporting medical equipment that has duel uses(USA and dozens of other countries).

80% of Saddams military support came from the Soviet Union and China, then to a much less extent France and Germany with the rest. Only in an indirect way could the USA and other countries be seen as supporting Iraq with certain products and that support is a tiny fraction of what the Soviet Union gave Iraq.

1. Iraq is a threat to the USA currently and its past behavior is part of the reason we have to act now. Iraq's failure to comply with the UN ceacefire agreement is a threat to the lives US and other nationals citizens. This threat has to be neutralized and the conditions of ceacefire agreement it signed met!

2. The mere fact that the Iraqi army is out of Kuwait does not mean they have complied with any of the UN resolutions. Realize that the ceacefire agreement occured and was signed after Iraqi military units had been forced out of Kuwait. US military operations went far into Iraq itself during the Gulf War. The 1991 Gulf War will never be over until Iraq complies with the terms of the ceacefire agreement! That is a legal FACT!
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-08-2002, 06:42 PM   #158
Acrobat
 
Not George Lucas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Bend, IN USA
Posts: 399
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Um, first of all, you don't need to end every sentence with an exclamation point. It gets annoying and makes your arguments look emotionally-driven.

If, as you say, the United States needs to invade Iraq because it violated the UN ceasefire agreement, why doesn't the US also go to war with Israel? They violated a lot of UN agreements.

Also, they are, as you put it, UN resolutions. The UN does not want action taken based on their resolutions. Why does the US?

And another thing, Iraq agreed to allow inspectors back in (even though, technically, the inspectors left of their own accord). Why is this unacceptable?
Not George Lucas is offline  
Old 10-08-2002, 06:46 PM   #159
Acrobat
 
Not George Lucas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Bend, IN USA
Posts: 399
Local Time: 07:43 AM
And yet another thing...

International law is a joke. There is no all-encompassing organization to legislate, pass, or enforce any of these so-called laws. All it is is an unspoken universal understanding that people can accept if they want to.

In other words, citing international law as a legal basis is laughable.
Not George Lucas is offline  
Old 10-08-2002, 07:26 PM   #160
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 02:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Not George Lucas
Um, first of all, you don't need to end every sentence with an exclamation point. It gets annoying and makes your arguments look emotionally-driven.
Then perhaps in all fairness you should also suggest to Klaus that he not put things in bold although I think Sting2's posts are usually too well-documented to be dismissed as simply "emotionally-driven."

Just a thought.

Thanks.

~U2Alabama
__________________

U2Bama 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 02:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×