|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted March 18, 2003 03:31 AM |
|
|
First PH:
Quote:
How is it imperialism? Getting a corrupt regime out of power is imperialistic?
Perhaps he meant selective about which corrupt regime you consider friends and enemies? Also I have read rumours that the contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq are to be offered only to american companies, not even British/Spanish ones. If that is a forerunner of the oil issue then I think an accusation of dubious grounds for invasion could be levelled.
Bush offered other countries the chance to help rebuild Iraq. Even the UN, no matter who is in the UN. France included.
Quote:
Why is that? Why do you think that?
Quote:
If Iraq is left alone in the future when attention and millitary force is elsewhere the corruption and problems will likely re-occur, just under a new "friendly" leader. Don't think the allies will leave Iraq alone? Why not, they've all but left Afghanistan to fight Iraq whereas the Afghan conflict is still going on........
Kharzi is the leader of Afghanistan now and he seems to be doing a good job. We still have troops over there, so yes you are right in that the conflict is still giong on.
Quote:
but who knows what else they have
Quote:
Indeed, but in the unlikely event that there is nothing else to find a lot of people will have died pretty much illegally and immorally......
It is not illegal, 1441 gives the UN the ability to go in and use force against Iraq. But it seems half the UN doesn't have the back bone to follow through with its decisions. Maybe if you forgot, 1441 was approved unanimously.
Quote:
and why does the US have to go through them?
Quote:
Oh yes, why should you? I mean ignore the UN! You don't need them! Defy them! Then wonder why people compare you to Hussain when he ignores the UN? Who needs the UN when nations can do what the hell they like? Will you be there backing Russia to the hilt the next time they drive their tanks into chechnya in defiance of the UN though?
Other countries have ignored the UN completely, and other presidents, Bush went to the UN and now you people say that Bush didn't care about diplomacy! France destroyed the possibility of diplomacy when they said they would veto any resolution brought to the UN.
And now Peacemaker:
Quote:
who unilaterally imposes its will on muslim nations
Ummm...no, we do not go after these countries because they are muslim. The crusades are over.
Quote:
Some would say there are that many already. Why this one?
Have to start somewhere don't we! But seriously, we have delt with him before and we should use him as an example to the other dictators. Maybe they will change their ways...maybe not.
Quote:
How about the U.S. economy? Can we support war after war in the name of righteousness????
Haven't you ever heard of a war time economy? That is what brought us out of the Great Depression after all.
Quote:
I pray to the Creator...
Now you are going to have all the atheists yelling at you!:0
This looks like a dArGoN post, better stop typing now!
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 03:33 AM |
|
|
Keep this up peacemaker and people will think we're the same person 
*desperately thinks of something we disagree on*
AH HA! I'm not religious! SEE! we're not the same 
Peacemaker does raise an interesting issue though, and that is the long term aims of Bush and how many more Iraq's there will be. As I've said before.... 37,000 british* troops in Iraq is nearly 1/4 of our trained millitary capability at present, and that is using many reservists. We cannot afford more conflicts of this relatively minor scale without conscription! Blair already has around 1/4 of his party's MP's against him, some senior members of the party has resigned, including his first foreign secretary. If another war is proposed, or further conscription you can all but rule out british support......
*slightly misleading as the troops we've sent are poorly equiped, and missing equipment, so much so they beg borrow steal of americans. They now get called the borrowers by your forces.....
Quote:
Bush offered other countries the chance to help rebuild Iraq. Even the UN, no matter who is in the UN. France included
Then why are the contracts going solely to american companies? I doubt the british companies would have turned down such an offer somehow.
Afghanistan is not only far from over, we have installed people who are barely better than those we kicked out and now we're hoping they keep democracy alive in a country were open fighting is the norm and where the taliban are far from defeated. Attention though will now be on Iraq, newspapers and TV reports barely mention Afghanistan these days.
It is to be hoped that this new leader will do a better job than say the Kossovans who have spent the recent years getting revenge on their serbian enemies, reversing the ethnic cleansing which we fought against. As soon as attention fell away from kossovo their actions, though impeded by the Nato units there have been little different from serbian ones in milosevic's reign. You won't hear much about that on US/British media reports though, we "solved" kossovo after all. Now we've "solved or are solving" afghanistan. Evidence would suggest that unless we learn from the mistakes of kossovo, neither afghanistan nor iraq will be much better off under their new leaders.
Quote:
It is not illegal, 1441 gives the UN the ability to go in and use force against Iraq. But it seems half the UN doesn't have the back bone to follow through with its decisions. Maybe if you forgot, 1441 was approved unanimously
I would imagine if you had told the UN when the voted on 1441 that Bush and Blair would use it to justify war, then the vote would have been different. IF 1441 justifies war in the eyes of the whole UN why ask for another one? The resolution was only considered justification when it was clear a second one was unlikely. The fact is I'm pretty damn sure most countries who voted for that resolution wanted nothing more than inspections, or at least inspections to carry on longer. Now Bush/Blair are finding loopholes in the wording to justify their campaign because they can't get "legal" backing from the UN any other way.
Quote:
France destroyed the possibility of diplomacy when they said they would veto any resolution brought to the UN.
That I believe is their right, america has used the veto, so has britain in the past. If they feel strongly enough about an issue, then they are right to oppose it in any way they can. And I did not say he didn't care about diplomacy, I said he didn't care about the UN. That's his choice, but I will expect him to support Russia if they invade chechnya or another similar case against UN support. America could be considered guilty of destroying dimplomacy by their ham-fisted efforts to outmanouvre the french through Nato therefore destroying trust.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 03:41 AM |
|
|
Wolfman:
OOUUUCH!!! That's about the WORST thing you could have said. If I am coming across like DaRgON then I need to reassess.
You might be surprised to find that I agree with many of your points. But please do not place too much on the idea that I am some sort of religionist. I'm just scared to death...
I REALLY DO have to go now, but will respond more particularly to your post soon --
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 03:43 AM |
|
|
Wolfman -- or did you mean YOUR post looked too much like a daRgON post??
Really, dear, you shouldn't be too hard on yourself... daRgON's a REAL meanie.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 03:54 AM |
|
|
I was joking about the religious thing, and yes, my post was about as long as a dArGoN post. And dArGoN is not a meanie, we have agreed and disagreed on things over the months, if you look back through the pages of this thread you will see PH, dArGoN and I going at it, only once did we all agree. Remember, PH?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 03:59 AM |
|
|
Vaguely, my head hurts when I try to remember what it was about though
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 04:01 AM |
|
|
I can't either! lol
____________
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 06:12 AM |
|
|
Forgive me if someone said this somewhere, but I didn't have time to review the whole thread. Did anybody notice that, on Sunday, Colin Powell stated, for the first time to my knowledge, that US Intelligence believes that Iraq has (as in NOW) one or more nuclear weapons? And Saddam Hussein has vowed to fight in any place on Earth where there is air, water, or land.
If this is true, this "little war," which is now inevitable and coming soon (foreign nationals are leaving Iraq rapidly), coud get really ugly. Here's hoping it's quick and relatively bloodless.
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 07:40 AM |
|
|
Oh happy day happy day. Today it is official the UN is completely irrelevant in enforcing any of their expectations and consequences. Many of us have known this problem for a while as it has been quite clearly indicated by the UN’s 16-17 resolutions telling Iraq to disarm and for 12 years Iraq has scoffed at the resolutions. Why shouldn’t Saddam laugh at the silly resolutions as he obviously knew the UN was not resolute in their resolutions and were but bags of hot air to which he could “toy with”, ignore, and easily manipulate. He knows the UN is but a bunch of diplomats…the lowest form of a government employee/politician.
Thank goodness Bush and allies had the patience to attempt a diplomatic solution but the wisdom and courage to call a spade a spade and move past the UN as the inept institution they are.
But also Bush has graciously opened the door for the UN not being completely left out of the picture as the UN so richly deserves…they may serve an international purpose in rebuilding nations towards democracy and general care after those with true convictions pave the way. But as far as serious consideration of the UN as a force to form the general good of mankind through their meaningless resolutions…well they should forget that aspect of their “mission” as they obviously don’t have the courage of their convictions.
The UN needs to leave the big work for the grown-ups who will take responsibility not like the UN in their ineffectual style of….resolution number ?? “disarm Iraq”…next resolution “disarm now”…next resolution “we will issue serious consequences if you don’t disarm”…next resolution “ok we really mean it this time…disarm”….next resolution “ok we are kidding around…we really mean it this time”….and on and on ad nauseum….all the while Saddam is laughing his butt off at their complete insignificance and lack of fortitude.
Now the mature visionaries who understand the basic psychological concepts of logical consequences will have to lead the way where the UN could never go due to their very form and function. Lets all welcome the liberation of the Iraqi citizens from tyranny, torture, rape and genocide.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 07:44 AM |
|
|
Quote
“March troops up to Iraq's border, causing Saddam Hussein to blow up all of his oil wells in panic, then turn around and go home while giggling? Yes!”
ROFLOL…very witty as usual
Quote
“Wolfman and others who support this invasion do not seem to realize that what we are about to embark on is a radical departure from our own precepts of "just war,”
I hope you aren’t referring to Carter’s error filled opinion article…he wouldn’t know a just war if it hit him in the face….and why does anyone give Carter any foreign issue credence…this is the man that brought us the great Iran hostage fiasco! As far as Preemptive doctrine…you might want to look into FDR’s, JFK, and Clinton… all issued preemptive war statements....if you want me to quote them for you I can
Quote
“Now Bush/Blair are finding loopholes in the wording to justify their campaign because they can't get "legal" backing from the UN any other way.”
Please read resolution 1441….has he met the resolution? What are serious consequences? What serious consequence have we not implemented except forced regime change? It is pretty clear. Nevertheless….1441 is meaningless as the UN had no intention of following up on their demands.
Quote
“Really, dear, you shouldn't be too hard on yourself... daRgON's a REAL meanie.”
LOL I haven’t even addressed your posts till now…so what is it that I have said that is real mean…lol. I have read your posts for a while now and find them typically flawed…but at least you are applying an informed analysis upon the situation versus emotional hype.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 01:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Please read resolution 1441….has he met the resolution?
Not the point at all, no-one's debating that issue, we're debating whether the UN's reaction should be to sanction war using 1441 or not. I doubt most of those that voted for 1441 expected non-compliance to be met with war.
Quote:
Thank goodness Bush and allies had the patience to attempt a diplomatic solution but the wisdom and courage to call a spade a spade and move past the UN as the inept institution they are.
Again, I will expect you to fully back russia's next battering of Chechnya when it comes, or will you, like america be clamouring to the "inept" UN to stop this again?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
silx87
Supreme Hero
|
posted March 18, 2003 03:51 PM |
|
|
Well I just heard the news!
Iraq will probably be attacked tomorrow,19th march.
Better prepare myself!
Now where did I put that AK-47...
____________
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 06:12 PM |
|
|
Hey daRgON -- I just cringed when I saw you'd responded to my post, primarily because you tend to insult people with whom you disagree, but also because I was concerned that I might have insulted you in return. I don't like doing that and if you took offense, I am sorry.
If it is not clear what I am talking about, for an example, if you did a word search for the word "stupid" in HC, I think you'd be surprised to find that about 75% of the usages came from you, and that most of them were just ipsi dixit declarations in direct reference to somebody's opinion with which you disagreed. Many of these issues are complex items over which ery reasonable minds can differ greatly. Just because somebody disagrees with you does not make them "stupid." Personally I don't like being called "stupid" even when it is true. I much prefer someone explaining why they think I am mistaken so I can learn from new, frequently better-informed viewpoints. (By the way, what does "typically flawed" mean???)
You're probably not nearly as much of a meanie as you appear in print. Again, sorry if I offended!
As to the "just war" concept, I was not referencing any particular president, but the concept, as it has existed in international habit for two thousand years, has become recognized as "international law". If I recollect correctly, it was one of the original concepts that was internationally recognized and agreed upon as the beginning basis for wht we now call "international law." I am not familiar enough with specific presidential edicts to know what any particlar president has said about it. I just know that when I was studying IL at the graduate level about a million years ago, a "just war" was one fought in defense of one's own established boundaries.
Now we can see from history that the United States has not followed that precept on several occasions (one of the many reasons we are perceived as a "cowboy" or a "loose cannon" internationally). I believe a derivative of that notion of "just war," which in part led to the formation of the UN, was the idea that if one nation is under attack, then another can rush to its aid. THis is sort-of analogous to the idea that defense of another is as legal as self-defense (for instance, our participation in WWII). It is my understanding that one of the reasons for the formation and existence of the UN was that to prevent rogue nations from getting out of control, a united effort by many nations would legitimize pre-emption. The very reason for this was because for one nation to act in isolation when they were NOT under attack was to violate the concept of just war, and without that agreement by others to legitimize the pre-emptive effort, anybody could arbitrarily claim a danger from another nation any time they wanted to to justify attacking them.
Iraq is not attacking anyone right now. While we had direct attacks leveled against us inside our own territory on 9/11, far as I know none of those individuals was from Iraq (nearly all Saudi's from what I recall so this strike we're about to embark upon is clearly pre-emptive). The whole involvement by the UN and resolutions back in '91 was precisely to prevent him from engaging in another strike, from an international front. We are now rushing forward to a pre-emptive attack and our push is unilateral. If others joins us in the attack, then legitimacy grows despite the U.N. But nonetheless, it is an unavoidable fact that we are fuelling the very kind of hatred that brought those ******* planes raining down on us to begin with.
(Anyone who can point me to more specific reference material to straighten me out on this if I am mistaken please do so.)
Thanks for the compiment, daRgON, about my analysis not arising from emotional hype. I'm really trying. Fact is I'm not sleeping much these nights because I truly to my bones am in fear that we are starting something much bigger than we realize, and that we may never be able to finish...
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 06:49 PM |
|
|
Tell me, dArGOn, you are just a smart guy with some spare time, sitting behind the screen now and then somewhere in the States... And you have never seen a real war, right?
Nuclear weapons are not "maturity". And the only thing you are going to "liberate" the Iraqi of are their legs and arms.
____________
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 07:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How is it imperialism? Getting a corrupt regime out of power is imperialistic? Then the Allies in WWII are imperialistic, and the Axis must not be because the Allied governments were fine.
Wee all should know that this is backwards.
This isn't about getting a corupt regime...until now the iraqui regime wasn't such a huge threat until herr Bush started to lose out on his popularity...interressting coincidence.
Please don't pull in the world war 2 in. That was something absolutely different. But then again it seems that americns can't tell racists and nazis from other people(according to their laws that is)
Quote:
It is true, they probably wouldn't attack anyone, unless they're attacked. In 1991, Saddam launched scuds at Jeruselem. Did Israel retaliate? Nooooooo. Could they have? Oh, yeah!
I think privatehudson asnwerd that one for me
Quote:
Why do you think the inspections are working? They find things, but who knows what else they have. They will only work if there is an army camped on his doorstep.
And the UN right now is a joke! They are crumbling, they won't last long now, and why does the US have to go through them? France didn't in their wars in Africa, Clinton didn't with the Bosnia and Kosovo mess.
Ok yes the inspectons are working. Apperently u only hear what u want to hear. the thing with the army is bs. They are there for a peace mission and not for militaristic pourposes.
U know what the UN is for. It is for sittuations like this-one. Do u think that the US is above some international law. The pourpose of the UN is to KEEP PEACE!!!!!!! U stupid f***! this ignorance get's me mad! If it wasn't for the UN absurd militaristic superpowers like the US would do what they want!!! The right of VETO is for the worlds strongest countrys to use when they think that the action proposed is...well stupid...there now please get a sort of understanding of the world before u make a stupid outbrust like that again.
____________
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 07:54 PM |
|
|
What was that I was saying about daRgON using the word "stupid" more than others??? (Sorry about that if I started anything there...)
Sir Dunco, I don't mean to pick on you either. You are clearly really upset. So am I for many of the same reasons. As you point out, what the United States is doing can clearly be argued as "imperialist."
im-pe-ri-al-ism n. : the policy of seeking to extend the power, dominion, or territories of a nation. (Webseter's Home & Office)
The problem here is that the United States has always seen itself as the pinnacle of human development -- the ultmate in the trajectory of evolution. It sees itself as the world, surrounded by "cultures" who are "backward" and have not "caught up." While I might be one of the many that feels democracy is more evolved politically than dictatorship, America seems to overlook the hypocracy behind imposing democracy on other nations. Whether or not America is the pinnacle of human development or not, it has no right ot externally impose its form of government on others. This is the height of hypocracy, since democracy embodies the freedom of choice. Democracy must therefore arise from within or else it will be like trying to spread peanut butter on sugar. If the infrastructure is not there is just balls up and blows away, to let whatever kind of power-seeking ego rush in to fill the void. Like it or not, this is usually what happens.
During the early part of the 20 Century, the US tried to impose its particular form of democracy on every single of the hundreds of Indian nations that were already here. The irony of that aside (Indian nations already for the most part operated on a concensus basis which is arguably even more politically advanced than democracy) some day I will detail the debacle that followed.
But the real underlying message there is the the motivation in doing this was clearly not for our own good. It was for the US to have something familiar with which to negotiate and that would be more malleable. Thus, this too was in America's self-interest.
For those of you who are interested, more info can be found on this in the Indian Reoganization Act of (either) 1923 (or) (1938) (too long can't recall the exact date or the citation at the moment).
Anyway, the bottom line here is that, even assuming the U.S. motives are pure, we are still acting alone in deciding what is best for somebody else by claiming this whole thing is justified by the end-result of installing democracy in Iraq. Either way, what we are doing can be seen as Imperialist by those who do not want us invading.
(By the way, Wolfman, I did not mean to suggest we attack nations BECAUSE they are Muslim. I do not believe this is the case. It just so happens, though, that the Middle East is where most Muslim nations are located, and it is where most of the oil is located too. Which ever the reason for our omnipresence there, it is felt and resented deeply by them equally.)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 08:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why do you think the inspections are working? They find things, but who knows what else they have. They will only work if there is an army camped on his doorstep.
And the UN right now is a joke! They are crumbling, they won't last long now, and why does the US have to go through them? France didn't in their wars in Africa, Clinton didn't with the Bosnia and Kosovo mess.
Quote:
Ok yes the inspectons are working. Apperently u only hear what u want to hear. the thing with the army is bs. They are there for a peace mission and not for militaristic pourposes.
I only hear what I want to hear? I'm sorry that I am informed enough to know what 1441 says. Saddam was supposed to disarm in 1991 as part of his terms of surrender. So the UN put inspectors in, Saddam was messing around and hidding things. So the inspectors said "to hell with this", and left for 4 years. And now 12 years later, 1441 is approved by the entire Security Council (15-0). 1441 says if Saddam is messing around again and hiding weapons, the UN is going to go in with military force. Collin Powell provided evidence to the Security Council of Saddam moving trucks out of suspected weapons factories, right before inspectors get there. So the US and UK and Spain and Australia are just carrying out what 1441 says. Is that so wrong? It is legal to go in because of 1441.
Quote:
U know what the UN is for. It is for sittuations like this-one. Do u think that the US is above some international law. The pourpose of the UN is to KEEP PEACE!!!!!!! U stupid f***! this ignorance get's me mad! If it wasn't for the UN absurd militaristic superpowers like the US would do what they want!!! The right of VETO is for the worlds strongest countrys to use when they think that the action proposed is...well stupid...there now please get a sort of understanding of the world before u make a stupid outbrust like that again.
Yes and I do know what the goal of the UN is, when you get rid of threats it leads to peace. I have a huge understanding of the world, I don't want to "hear" you yelling about my not knowing things. And easy on the swear words pal. Peacemaker just talked about that. I am not an ignorant person, but you seem to be.
____________
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 09:05 PM |
|
|
all right lad,
u my friend must have some mixed-up values.
#1.: The so called "evidence" that Colin Powell presented was rejected in all major powers except in Britain. There wasn't anything actual on the material that he provided but i'll leave u ur ehmm "truth".
#2.: Calling me an ignorant person is quite interesting. I'm hearing this from a person that compered the present-day situation to WWII.
I guess that were one of those people spilling French wine...
I agree here with Peacemaker on the point of how america sees it iself.
Truly it is acountry wiht mixed up values...
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 09:28 PM |
|
|
I only compared the imperialistic factor to WWII, not the whole Situation.
____________
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 09:55 PM |
|
|
|
Wolfman, what makes you say that 1441 states "if Saddam's messing around again, we'll go in with military force"?
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
