Why does Bush believe...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Klaus

Refugee
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Messages
2,432
Location
on a one of these small green spots at that blue p
..that he can turn the Iraq into a democratic regime who cares about international rights when he is willing to ignore international rights too?

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

Klaus

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

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

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

ps. this is an act of self defense but already has more UN resolutions than any other situation to back up the legal basis to act militarily. All of those resolutions were passed under Chapter VII rules.
 
yes, and I responded to specific things that I felt were inaccurate in his post.
 
You can only defend if Saddam attacks you, if you attack because Saddam might be able to attack you in the future, you're not defending but starting a war.

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

Klaus
 
Klaus,

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

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

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

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

Back to the main case though. Saddam attacked Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel in 1990/1991. Until he complies fully with the resolutions, that war is not over. These resolutions where passed under CHAPTER VII rules.
 
STING2 said:
If someone is preparing to attack you, you have every right to do everything in your power to prevent the loss of your country. This is what Israel did in 1967. If Israel had not acted first, they would not exist today.

Back to the main case though. Saddam attacked Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel in 1990/1991. Until he complies fully with the resolutions, that war is not over. These resolutions where passed under CHAPTER VII rules.

That's a bit of a stretch STING. Klaus is saying that Saddam did nothing to attack the US recently so why is it an act of self defense?

You are actually veering further away from what the Bush admin themselves are saying is the reason. I've not heard them say that they truly have evidence that Saddam is preparing to attack America.
 
Its an act of self defense in regards to the threats that is posed to the countries in the region and the naked attack on Kuwait that is unresolved.

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

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

Also, under Klauses Idea of "self-defense" and "international law" , the USA response to the problems in Kosovo was illegal. But I find nothing illegal about preventing the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Kosovo by Serb forces.
 
The "response" in the Kosovo was illegal, some NATO members tried to find new work for the NATO and tried to weaken the position of the UN.

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

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

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

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

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

Klaus
 
Sting2: What happened in 1967? Why did Israel charge out like that? (and why didn't they leave once the danger was over, which it surely is, considering they have the strongest army in Middle East, the support of US and nuclear weapons)

By the way, what do you make of US handling of the Palestine-Israel matter and the way Sharon is handling it? Just curious.
 
It is not illegal because the right of self defense or self defense of others trumps any security council resolution needed to authorize force.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Iraqi people know one thing, they surely cannot trust some of Saddam's biggest supporters.
 
sometimes i feel you only look at "facts" as opposed to reality which in this case, is humanity.
 
U2girl,

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

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

I support the USA and most of the policies of Sharon, because while recognizing the need for a negotiated settlement to a number of issues, they also recognize the need for security from terrorist.
 
Flag Pole Pear,

I'm more aware of the human side than you can imagine. The human side may be the biggest justification for a number of Bush's policies in this regard.
 
Sting:

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

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

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

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

Klaus
 
Last edited:
Klaus said:

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


And the United States has done this how? The country has been working through the UN. I keep going through all the posts on this issue since last summer. Everyone complaining that Bush was going it alone and needed to work through the UN. The United States has. Tomorrow is another attempt to point out that the Iraqi Governement has repeatedly spit in the face of the United Nations and their resolutions. So far, the US has NOT acted without the support of the UN. Can you say the same things about Iraq?

Klaus said:

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

So the use of Biological agents would be much better? Klaus, I am not debating the awful side effects of the A-Bomb. But, if this man uses Chemical or Biological agents in a war with the United States, it is 100% reasonable to expect the president to use any means necessary to protect Amercian lives.
 
Dreadsox: How can he protect American lives if (supposed that your stategy is what Saddam plans) the chem/ bio agents are living in America?

By throwing an A bomb on another part of the earth?

BING! Answer: No.

What you mean is: To take revenge.

BING! Answer: yes (umm, no, its preempitive, innit - doesn?t qualify for revenge - its the other way round).

Second question. How can you be so full of propaganda to confuse protection of Americans with revenge?

Oh, I understand. You expect the Iraqis to be stupid! You expect them to say: first, our airpots are bombed. Then we will fly our agents to America. Yahoo!

I understand your point of view. After all, they are just Arabs, ummm insects. Now hand me your spray can.
 
Klaus,

The USA cares far more about international law and human rights than its friends in Europe, and more importantly, its willing to do something about it.

It was US led military action that stopped the violance in Bosnia and Kosovo and it will be some type of US led action against Iraq that will disarm Iraq and finally enforce resolutions that Iraq was supposed to comply with over a decade ago.

Its not the USA that is frustrating or attempting to stop the process of international law, rather its the Europeans that are doing that.

The USA has reserved the right to use nuclear weapons IF IT FELT it was necessary in any situation since 1945. This is nothing new. It does not mean that Nuclear weapons will be used against Iraq. Nuclear weapons will not be used Iraq because they are not needed to accomplish the mission. But, we always reserve the option to use them in any senerio as we have done for the past 60 years.

The number of Iraqi civilians that will be die in a 3 week war will be much smaller than the number of Iraqi's that will die if Saddam continues to rule Iraq indefinitely.

This so called "dirty ammunition" is not dirty enough to cause ill effects to civilians are the soldiers that come in contact with them the most often. Most of the fighting took place in Kuwait and the prevailing winds in that particular area usually blow from north to south. Yet, where is the rise in Kuwaiti childern suffering from similar conditions? Its not there. What about Saudi or Iranian childern close to the region? Again, nothing. The USA has used Depleted Uranium in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia in the border towns, and will be using these weapons again if there is war in Iraq.

France, Germany, Russia, and China's attempts to block enforcement of UN resolutions and a UN ceacefire agreement, and there refusal to do what is necessary to disarm Iraq and desire for Oil contracts with Saddam, show me that term "international justice" is not really apart of their vocabulary.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
Dreadsox: How can he protect American lives if (supposed that your stategy is what Saddam plans) the chem/ bio agents are living in America?

If it comes to war, and he launches Biological/Chemical/Nuclear weapons I support a strike. Yes.


whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:

By throwing an A bomb on another part of the earth?

BING! Answer: No.

What you mean is: To take revenge.

BING! Answer: yes (umm, no, its preempitive, innit - doesn?t qualify for revenge - its the other way round).


Yes, That is it. You are brilliant. I want revenge. Give me a break!



whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:

Second question. How can you be so full of propaganda to confuse protection of Americans with revenge?

Oh, I understand. You expect the Iraqis to be stupid! You expect them to say: first, our airpots are bombed. Then we will fly our agents to America. Yahoo!

I understand your point of view. After all, they are just Arabs, ummm insects. Now hand me your spray can.

This is absolutely one of the most insulting things anyone has ever thrown at me. I may be conservative in my views. I may have a difference of opinion from you on the world events. This does not mean I have this view of anyone else in the world. For you to insinuate that I or anyone else with a view different view from yours is a "racist" is pretty disappointing. You and I have disagreed before on things, but you have never made comments like this.

Very disappointing.
 
Last edited:
HIPHOP,

What Dreadsox is talking about is using Nuclear Weapons to nuetralize Iraqi WMD capability if that were the only way. If this indeed were to be the case it and it was the only way, it could potentially save hundreds of thousand of civilian lives if done properly. If that was the case I would indeed support it.

I don't think Nuclear Weapons will be necessary in any situation we get into in Iraq, but the USA can never take that option off the table. In addition, keeping it on the table has a benefitial deterent effect that has been helpful as history has sometimes shown in particular cases.

HIPHOP,

I don't know where you get off insinuating that Dreadsox is racist or thinks of Arabs as insects. One could easily say the same thing towards you in regards to Iraqi victims of Saddam or potential victims of WMD attacks in the region or around the world by Saddam. Both assertions are wrong.
 
Dreadsox:

>And the United States has done this how?

Bush repeated several times that he will attack Iraq either with or without the UN.
And he continued his speech with:
"Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"
That's what i was talking about.
For me this means:
Either UN does what US wants - or they're irrelevant and we play police of the world without asking other nations.


>So the use of Biological agents would be much better? Klaus,
>I am not debating the awful side effects of the A-Bomb. But,
>if this man uses Chemical or Biological agents in a war with
>the United States, it is 100% reasonable to expect the
>president to use any means necessary to protect Amercian
>lives.

Biological and Atomic wepons have a really awful long term effect.
It's impressive to see the Battlefield of WWI between France and Germany, and a-bombs are far worse. They do not "only" destroy one region for centuries, they have global influence.

whenhiphopdrovethebigcars:

i like your first question.. but the 2nd one is unbelievable.
Also Dreadsox and Sting2 have a different opinion than we have i'm sure they care about allk humans and ii'm sure they don't think that an Iraqi man has less right to live than a US man.

STING: Well first i'd like to read the ai report of the united states for the last year. I'm sure every single american cares about human rights, but the government dosn't allways act that way.
I don't want so say europeans are better in this issue, they just have less power which results in less mistakes, because they can't do everything wrong they'd like to ;)


>Its not the USA that is frustrating or attempting to stop the
>process of international law, rather its the Europeans that
>are doing that.

Well it's the US who boycot the ICJ (International Court of Justice) and for that they even bribe small countries.

But of course that's not because Europeans are better than Americans.. there are 2 simple reasons:
first: the US has more to loose (since without laws they always have the power to enforce their point of view)
second: Since the american independancy there were many wars which resulted in lots of suffering in europe. And this impression is still recent in our memory.

As far as i know a-bombs were only to be used if America was attacked by nuclear weapons - so "whenever we feel it's neccessary" sounds a little more agressive then that.

And this slight change might be a reason that hundreds of warlords will try to buy a-bombs from pakistan, russia, china or north korea. (If the USA threatens with a-bombs anyway they want to strike back with the same wepon)


This so called "dirty ammunition" is dirty enough - ask the
"Medecins sans frontieres" that's an international organisation which dosn't make politics - they just try to help people (and write down what hapened).
This "dirty ammunition" had serious effects on children (enourmous increase of cancer).
But that reminds me on the debate about the people who lived at the Bikini island. I'm not sure how long it took the US government to confess their guilt.


>France, Germany, Russia, and China's attempts to block
>enforcement of UN resolutions and a UN ceacefire
>agreement, and there refusal to do what is necessary to
>disarm Iraq and desire for Oil contracts with Saddam, show
>me that term "international justice" is not really apart of their
>vocabulary.

Well Germany for example has only one irellevantly small oil company, we buy almost everything from British companies.
So you might think about the folowing..
..maybe the countries who criticize US politics are not allways selfish driven but might have good noble reasons to do so.

Klaus
 
Well i almost forgot:

Back to my initial posting:

since US supported warlords and dictators in the arabic countries in the past why do you think should the arabic countries trust the US this time?

Klaus

p.s. i have a problem with governments who tell me "trust us, we are good, they are evil" and the bombing of the chemistry factory in arabia (clinton) didn't make me less sceptical - i'm still waiting for the proof they had that they produced chemical weapons.

And because of that i'm really courious about Powell's speech at the UN Security Council. I hope Joschka Fischer does his job there as briliant as we know him ;-)
 
Last edited:
Klaus,

I take it your not aware of the contracts France and Russia have signed with Saddam in regards to Iraqi Oil? I definitely see those countries acting for their short term economic interest and being mysteriously un-supportive of attempts to stop Saddam and enforce Security Council resolutions against Iraq. I think they need to re-read UN Resolution 687!

As far as that "dirty Amunition" if its really "dirty", why are all the alleged effects felt in Iraq and not Kuwait where the majority of the "dirty Amunition" was used? How come soldiers working at Marylands Aberdeen proving grounds that test this stuff not effected? Afganistan? Bosnia? Why only Saddam controled Iraq? Think about that.

ps. I have a problem with governments that bend over backwards to ignore resolutions like 687 that they signed on to support. I have a problem with governments who will do anything they can to prevent other governments from protecting the world community. I have a problem with other governments that seem to enjoy scratching the back of a man like Saddam.

When Saddam worries about the USA, he knows he can always count on France, and Russia to help stall or prevent efforts at enforcing international law against him. Interestingly, Germany has recently decided to join this bandwagon. Saddam could not be more pleased.
 
Sting2:

well i'm surprised that their oil-contracts would be affected when the government changes - 3rd world depts aren't canceled when a government changes.

And of course, if their contracts will expire, you can say that the interest of Russia and France is as high to keep them as USA and Britains interest in getting those deals.

Klaus

p.s. there is a difference between being against war and ignoring resolutions. I know you come from a military point of view but military is not the only option.
 
STING2 said:


The USA cares far more about international law and human rights than its friends in Europe, and more importantly, its willing to do something about it.

Right. I guess that's why they won't sign international agreement like Kyoto treaty, they don't respect international organisations like ICC or UN (remember, they said they'll act "with or without UN" - arrogant attitude IMO) and they trample human rights when it comes to fighting terorrism.
 
Back
Top Bottom