Is This Invasion Even Legal?
Comments: 51
In the American (er, ‘coalition’) rush to war a couple of important questions — like, oh, is it legal? — haven’t received due attention.
As attack on Iraq begins, question remains: Is it legal? | csmonitor.com
Peter Ford, Christian Science MonitorInternational-law experts are divided on whether Washington has the right to invade Iraq in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution specifically authorizing such an assault.
But most agree that President Bush cannot justify the war with his new doctrine of preemptive military action to forestall the threat that he says Saddam Hussein poses. Preemptive force “is extremely dangerous and flat-out illegal,” says Jordan Paust, professor of international law at the University of Houston. “Implying a right to take out a regime that threatens us - that is quite threatening to the international legal order.”
•••
Posted to General Rants • 2003.03.21 (Fri) • 11:35
Comments
Posted by Jon 2003.03.21, 12:16
We’re a sovereign nation. Our intelligence has found that Iraq’s regime is a national security threat and it must be taken out. A benefit is we can liberate a freedom hungry people. International law is not an issue.
What’s amazed me is the Saddam supporters. They go to the streets and support him every day. He’s one hell of a SOB. Ask the Iraqi people—the same ones who were thanking the US media in the streets today. The same ones who have seen their friends executed or mutilated. The same ones who can’t eat enough but see the royal palaces the size of counties.
But… [utter sarcasm] This is just blood for oil. [/utter sarcasm]
Posted by splam 2003.03.21, 12:21
Well, “International Law” seems to be dragged out only when useful. For example, Taiwan is not a country, and cannot join the UN, but it is a self ruled country of 25 million people. The PLO has an observer seat at the UN, but doesn’t rule anything.
I think the war is legal as far as “International Law” is concerned because “International Law” doesn’t mean anything. “International Law” only means what people in power want it to mean.
Posted by Gary Santoro 2003.03.21, 12:52
Aside from International Law, there are concerns when it comes to Constitutional Law. For instance, Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles (1919), issued a legal judgement against Germany for engaging in pre-emptive warfare. Every treaty ratified by Congress in the U.S. becomes the “law of the land” according to our constitution. As such, the recent action against Iraq might be illegal under US law alone.
Posted by natalie 2003.03.21, 13:26
If this war were about an imminent threat to the coalition we would be at war with north korea, not iraq.
If this war was about stopping terrorism, we would be at war with saudi arabia, not iraq.
So what is this war about again?
An australian saddened and sickened by her government’s lack of independent balls and intelligence.
Posted by natalie 2003.03.21, 13:28
oh yes, and I take this opportunity to ask you to read this and tell unilever to either take sides or butt out, and not take advantage.
Posted by Jon 2003.03.21, 13:45
“If this war were about an imminent threat to the coalition we would be at war with north korea, not iraq.
If this war was about stopping terrorism, we would be at war with saudi arabia, not iraq.
So what is this war about again?”
Why does a country state it has nuclear weapons? Respect. That’s all NK wants. He’s a nut case, but doesn’t want to die.
Why? Saudi Arabia and the even more terror prone Iran can learn that we mean business by taking out Saddam. Again, they don’t have a death wish. If we say we are going to take out Saddam (via the UN) and don’t then what will they think when we tell them to stop. We’re making an example out of Iraq.
Posted by jh 2003.03.21, 13:49
Jon —-
> We’re a sovereign nation.
As is (or was) Iraq, no matter how despotically ruled.
> Our intelligence has found that Iraq’s regime is > a national security threat and it must be taken out.
I’m not aware of any evidence to support this argument, nor does there seem to be evidence of a connection to Al Qaeda. While the Iraqi regime is certainly undesirable, I don’t think it can be argued that it posed a direct threat.
> A benefit is we can liberate a freedom hungry people.
Perhaps. I really would like to believe that this is a motivating factor. And it always helps when freedom-hungry people sit atop the world’s second-largest reserves of oil. At any rate the Bush regime seems woefully unprepared for the task of liberation (not even having figured its cost into the recent budget). Remember, liberation (if by the word we mean the adoption of democracy rather than delivery into American hands) is not something that happens in the month of war, but in the generation that follows war.
The Bush regime’s utter diplomatic failure in perpetrating this war would not seem to bode well for the even more complicated task of aligning the antagonistic religious, ethnic and political forces that exist into any kind of coherent state.
This is why there is now talk of making Iraq a U.S. protectorate.
> International law is not an issue.
Well, idealist that I am, I’d like to think law is always an issue. But sadly I think you’re statement is correct.
Now I am not a supporter of Saddam Hussein by any stretch of the imagination. The man is indeed a maniac. But unfortunately he’s not the only one. An historically predictable belief among maniacs is that might makes right, and that is what we’re seeing now.
Splam —-
> […] “International Law” doesn’t mean anything.
It would seem that the matter is mostly academic right now, although Gary Santoro’s comment brings it closer to home.
Gary —-
Very interesting. I didn’t know this. I’m curious to see if the illegality issue will gather any steam or whether it will be too ‘unpatriotic’ to pursue.
Natalie —-
This is ultimately the heart of the matter, that there is no compelling argument for a war of aggression against a sovereign state. The only real argument that seems to ‘stand up’ is the one involving pre-emption, and I don’t believe for an instant that this is supportable. Obviously, what we’re discussing is its very legality.
As for Unilever, well, nothing would surprise me I’m afraid.
Posted by Ricardo 2003.03.21, 14:45
My God Jon, change the record! You people have been brainwashed! The reasons you give apply to a large number of other countries around the world!
Take North Korea for instance. They’re bad, they’re communists, they’re nuclear and they don’t like the US, they never did! Bush even branded them as a part of the “Axis of Evil”. Do you see the US making demands that Kim Jong Il must leave Pyongyang? Do you see the US making anything at all? What about that “freedom hungry people”? Don’t they deserve to be saved too?
Now take Bin Laden (remember him?). His brainwashed fanatic intelligence found out that the American capitalist infidel regime is a threat to their beliefs and it must be taken out. A benefit is they can liberate the world from such great evil like yourselves. Since International Law is not an issue they gave you 9/11.
Now think for a minute. Do you think the world, the whole multi-race multi-belief multi-whatever world united against this particular war just to piss the US off? I’m my short 29 years of life I’ve never seen such a thing that brought so many people from all creeds, ages, races, sex, countries, etc together around such event.
The protests and opposition to the Gulf war are insignificant compared to today’s because back them there was a reason for it. Saddam invaded Kuwait by force to take control of their oil (he said Kuwait had always been a province of Iraq since forever but who cares?) and the US charged in! People protested against war because any war sucks but they knew it was righteous.
Today is all about oil, money and power. The US is the school bully no-one likes but no-one faces. The US, as the most powerful country in the world, should learn a lesson or two from the comics, specially the one Peter Parker learned when his uncle Ben was killed.
Peace. Really!
Posted by Jon 2003.03.21, 16:39
Haha. Yes you’re right… It’s all about oil. It’s blood for oil. George Bush is a nazi. If you drive a car or use electricity that you do not make yourself I have no respect for you.
“Do you see the US making demands that Kim Jong Il must leave Pyongyang?”
He’s stable. He just wants to be recognized (he announced the nuclear program). Do you want to go to nuclear war? Are you insane? Let’s PREVENT another NK by taking out Iraq. Think of the future.
“A benefit is they can liberate the world from such great evil like yourselves. Since International Law is not an issue they gave you 9/11.”
What is this garbage? An ill faded attempt at humor? God, you make me sick.
You know what’s different about the US (the world’s lone superpower)? We leave constitutions. Name another country that has done so. We could have easily made Germany a state. Hell, almost all of Europe and Japan could be states. Instead we rebuilt and removed our troops.
We’re the obvious ones to take the blame because we’re in charge. But who do you go to when you need help? Russia? China? France? No, you go to the US.
There is way to much America bashing. Don’t forget the past.
Posted by victor 2003.03.21, 21:03
Alternatively, you could take yourselves out. You are also a threat to the world and have weapons of mass destruction.
I know this sounds harsh, but really, what else were you expecting? Who is a greater threat, actually?
You are a nation in which not everyone agrees with their leader, yet that doesn’t make terrorists out of them, nor makes them wish to be liberated. Stop doing the world favors no one asked for. At least, try not to appear being generous for doing so. No one named you savior.
Look at nicaragua, chile, or panama. Now tell me you were after democracy on those cases.
As for the Saddam supporters, please stop the demagogy. The mobilizations are against war, not pro-Saddam. Criminalizing the people that holds beliefs different from yours, just because, does good to no one. There must be other ways to attain democracy, however slow. Each country when it’s ready. Even taking into account the fact that is fantasy, what does star-trek prime directive tell you? Force-fed democracy will take no roots.
You say NK’s leader is a nut case. Does this means he doesn’t deserve to be taken out? Or that you are afraid of NK actually retaliating, while are over-confident in iraq inferiority?
Posted by pete 2003.03.21, 21:12
don’t forget that my country (uk) and the us are the aggressors in this situation. this makes us no better than them. going in with world opinion behind you is one thing, doing it the way we have is another.
and Jon, your comments about the way germany and japan were dealt with after the second world war are typical hollywood induced falsehoods. i got news for you, the US DIDN’T win the second world war. you helped. we all helped each other. that’s all. whatever happened in the aftermath was probably based on a joint decision and a belief in the democratic system. something which it seems the us has abandoned in recent years (hello President Gore?).
way too much america bashing? maybe - not for me to say. but i think you’ll find that most people who do this believe that have good enough reason to do so. maybe you guys should be addressing this (as a nation) rather than giving another huge portion of society a reason to hate the US more… funny how arrogant people feel they have no reason to be critised… funny how ‘arrogance’ is one characteristic that always seems to be mentioned in the same sentance as the US… don’t get me wrong - i’m not bashing the us, i’m simply pointing out that there are always two sides to a story and the smart person seeks to understand both - and i don’t see much evidence of this in the us’ attitude to world opinion… sorry.
Posted by jh 2003.03.21, 23:51
Pete —- I have to add my country to the invaders list as well. Australia has sent troops.
Jon —- I obviously don’t agree with you but I am seriously interested in your point of view. I don’t know a single person in Japan who supports this war so I haven’t been able to hear a rational pro-war argument. I’m interested in doing so.
There are four essential questions that have not been answered:
1) What is the rationale for this war?
2) How is victory to be defined?
3) What does the “liberation of Iraq” actually entail (i.e., what happens after the fighting stops)?
4) How is it all to be paid for?
Let’s work backwards. We don’t know how it’s going to be paid for. The budget provides no clues, and recent stories suggesting that the U.S. is betting on Iraqi oil to cover the costs don’t exactly inspire confidence (whether or not those wells are burning after the last shot is fired —- the local oil industry is underdeveloped and it’s been estimated that it could be many years before things are running at anything near the required capacity). If the liberation talk is to be believed, the oil belongs to the Iraqi people. But Russia, France and other countries have not inconsiderable investments in the country on which they would undoubtedly like to see a return.
Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton, did $27m worth of business with Saddam in contravention of UN sanctions after the first Gulf War, so presumably they’d be interested in a piece of the action, too.
There are a lot of buckets in the well, so it’s far from clear that the oil will be available in the first place, and be controlled appropriately. Additional pressure comes from considering that the U.S. possesses only 3% of the world’s oil and yet consumes 25% annually. Been noticing a lot of calls lately to cut back on consumption or otherwise preserve resources? I didn’t think so.
Continuing back, the oil question leads us to the liberation issue. To steal the Thomas Friedman line, when we lift the lid off Iraq will we find Japan … or Yugoslavia? Afghanistan may provide a clue. While the ‘government’ of Hamid Karzai (an oil man himself) controls Kabul, the rest of the country is basically under the domain of half a dozen ‘warlords.’ So much for nation building there.
In Iraq the situation is even more complex: Sunni, Shiite, secular interests and of course the Kurds (wouldn’t want to be one of them right now) will all jockey for position. This could include an independent state for the Kurds which then gets Turkey paying attention, too.
So facilitating democratic elections is not exactly going to be easy. Look for an increasing number of rationalisations on why the protectorate approach is the best idea. There’ll be talk of staying to help democracy blossom in the middle east and so forth while Halliburton, its subsidiaries, and Bechtel move in to handle the ‘rebuilding.’
The victory question is thorny because the U.S. seems to indulge in wars without clear finish lines these days (the war on drugs, the war on terror). Can victory be declared when Saddam Hussein’s body is found? When the votes have been counted in the first free elections? When the caches of weapons have been discovered and destroyed (caches which UN inspectors seem not to think exist)?
What is victory in an invasion guaranteed to incite unheard of levels of anger not just throughout the Arab world, but across the globe? Is it when the last Islamic fundamentalist puts does his or her Kalashnikov and says, “You know, maybe they have a point…”?
The U.S. has led its coalition (such as it is) into a war without clear goals and without a definition of victory.
As for the rationale for the whole war, I’m still waiting for a compelling argument. Pre-emption cannot be justified. You’d be done for assault if you took a swing at a guy in a bar because he looked at you funny, and the same minimal standards must be preserved in the international arena. A previous comment has already mentioned the legality of this discredited approach.
The only thing that comes close to a rational argument is the idea that this war acts as a deterrent to states like North Korea or Iran, but even this falls down as soon as we consider that the situation in Iraq and the situation in North Korea are two quite different things. Kim Jong Il actually has ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (sick of that ridiculous phrase by now? I am) and the rhetoric coming form the North is qualitatively different to anything we heard from Saddam Hussein. He’s about to start manufacturing more plutonium (a bomb’s worth a month) and the clear and almost-present danger is not that this plutonium will find its way into the warheads of North Korean missiles but that it will be sold to the highest bidder.
While it’s likely that regime survival is the driving strategy for North Korea (the destruction of the South Korean/U.S. alliance would be a very close second), this is ultimately speculation because Kim is an almost completely unknown quantity. It certainly cannot be argued that North Korea is “stable” —- a point of view that depends as much on one’s being inside or outside its strike range as on anything else. (I’m inside —- North Korea fired a missile over Honshu a few of years ago.)
A crucial difference is North Korea’s ability to strike not just at any invading force, but at Seoul or Tokyo. If push came to shove, I’m not sure it wouldn’t. Iraq lacked any such ability. The U.S. is saying it won’t negotiate as long as the North continues trying to “blackmail” it, and this is also an important difference because it demonstrates the North’s ability to buy itself time. The North has some leverage in this game —- the U.S. is currently unable to engage it. A North Korean spokesman on television just now condemned the U.S. action in Iraq and reiterated that the North now knows what it must do in the case of aggression against it. Them’s typical fighting words, of course, but the North is in a position to make good on its threats whereas Iraq was not.
The message that the U.S. invasion of Iraq sends is that if you are a weak, non-nuclear state that somehow falls afoul of the superpower, you do not have a leg to stand on. The United Nations cannot protect you, public opinion cannot protect you, nor can the rule of law. If, however, you really do have weapons of mass something or another, then the game is different and you give the superpower pause.
Is this a responsible message to be sending to the despots of the world?
Sorry to run on with such a long post. As Pascal used to say, if I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter.
Posted by truthintruth 2003.03.22, 03:07
jh - “And it always helps when freedom-hungry people sit atop the world’s second-largest reserves of oil. At any rate the Bush regime seems woefully unprepared for the task of liberation (not even having figured its cost into the recent budget).”
Prior to Saddam’s police state dictatorship and his overtaking of the goverment 20+ years ago, Iraq was one of the wealthiest nations. It was wealthier than Malaysia. Now, after 20 years of his excellent rule, he’s very wealthy, stockpiling money like it was going out of style, and 60% of the country is on food aid programs. The country might be sitting on lots of oil, but the people are not in control. He’s even burning his own peoples oil fields - their key source of revenue.
And as for budgeting the war - well, when you don’t plan on going into war, hoping that diplomacy will work, there’s no need to budget it. However, the tax cut is for around 680-720 billion dollars. And according to NBC last night, the war will cost around 1-1.5 billion. Well, that’s easy enough to remedy. Simply pay for the war first, then initiate the tax cut.
So, in short, I don’t really see your point here.
Posted by truthintruth 2003.03.22, 03:23
Ricardo - “Today is all about oil, money and power. The US is the school bully no-one likes but no-one faces… Peace. Really!”
I simply don’t buy into this FUD. First, the US has more than enough oil reserves on hand w/o having to drill into Alaska to supply our petrol needs for the next 30 years. Unfortunately, our goverment has been paying US oil drillers to not sell oil so that we’ll have it a long time after the Middle East has dried up. That should/could easily change.
Big business and the Oil companies should shift focus to alternate fuel resources, as GM and other companies have in developing Hydrogen fuel cell cars.
You want peace - get rid of Saddam. You want the people of Iraq to be able to sleep at night, be able to speak up, be able to sell their oil instead of have it burned by their “leader” - get rid of Saddam. He’s shown in the past that he’s an clear and present danger. And the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
Pete - “…aggressors in this situation. this makes us no better than them. going in with world opinion behind you is one thing, doing it the way we have is another.”
We were left no other choice. Saddam made the choice to go to war, not the US and the UK. The UN gave him 12 years worth of opportunity to disarm. He didn’t. They passed nearly a dozen sanctions calling for him to disarm - he didn’t. They gave him nearly 9 months recently, sanctions, tried inspections - Saddam thumbed his nose at the whole thing and said “If you’re serious, come and get me.”
Tell me, what about what the UN, US, and UK did wasn’t diplomatic? We tried diplomacy, it didn’t work. Unfortunately, Saddam left us no other choice. We didn’t rush to war. It was carefully thought out and every step was taken on our end to prevent it. One cannot say the same for Saddam.
Posted by Jon 2003.03.22, 04:13
1) What is the rationale for this war? He’s not following the rules set down after the Gulf war and all of the later resolutions (17 of them I believe).
2) How is victory to be defined? When Saddam is gone and his weapons are destroyed.
3) What does the “liberation of Iraq” actually entail (i.e., what happens after the fighting stops)? The people decide who they want to lead them. They don’t get their tongues cut out for speaking their minds.
4) How is it all to be paid for? Tax dollars? Once Iraq gets going we can send a bill like we did for the Gulf war. But, cost shouldn’t matter. It’s freedom, it’s safety. I’m willing to pay more for gas in the short run to liberate a people and disarm a mad man.
If we wanted oil we would:
A) Drill Alaska B) Take over Venezuela C) Take over Iraq (not liberate, take over).
“The U.S. has led its coalition (such as it is) into a war without clear goals and without a definition of victory.” It’s very clear. Regime change and disarmorment. Plain and simple.
“As for the rationale for the whole war, I’m still waiting for a compelling argument. Pre-emption cannot be justified. “ This is a big misunderstanding. This is not pre-emption. He hasn’t followed the rules he agreed to in ‘91. This is throwing someone back in jail for a parol violation.
“It certainly cannot be argued that North Korea is “stable” — a point of view that depends as much on one’s being inside or outside its strike range as on anything else. (I’m inside — North Korea fired a missile over Honshu a few of years ago.)” It’s gotta be scary to be in range. I’m sorry for that. He’s a nut case but he doesn’t want to fall out of power. The moment he uses a WOMD is the moment North Korea is wiped off the map. He just wants respect/attention. But, I can see your worry—you’re close by. Be sure that we’re keeping a good eye on him and that this attack on Iraq can only help the situation (he’s watching closely). We’re actually doing war games in SK right now…
Would it make the situation with NK better if we backed off Saddam? Not a chance in hell. We have to mean what we say. If we say he’s gotta disarm we damn well better make him. Otherwise we’ll be walked all over. I think you understand this… It’s just like punishing a small child.
“The message that the U.S. invasion of Iraq sends is that if you are a weak, non-nuclear state that somehow falls afoul of the superpower, you do not have a leg to stand on. “
I think the message is that if you ignore the World’s demands you get in trouble. Saddam has basically walked all over everything we’ve ever laid down for him and now he’s paying for it. IMHO this should have happened after the first offense a long time ago.
Posted by M Sinclair Stevens 2003.03.22, 09:22
There was another article in similar vein by Michael Kinsley in today’s Washington Post By Whose Authority. Pretty much says what I think.
George W. is a pretty scary guy for whom only a minority of Americans voted and who disregards, rather than defends, our Constitution while thumbing his nose at the rest of the world. He acts as if he were above the law , an attitude which is against everything America is supposed stand for.
Posted by Jon 2003.03.22, 10:14
Has anyone noted that 75% of Americans are in support of the war? You act like we’re a minority. GW has a very high approval rating.
What part of the constitution has he disregarded?
Minority voted for? Same for Clinton. Read up on the Electoral college. Sorry, but that’s how it works.
Posted by pete 2003.03.22, 18:57
“GW has a very high approval rating.”
not outside your country he doesn’t. in the uk he’s considered by most people to be a bumbling idiot who stole an election. you can see a prime example of this when he speaks in public about this whole stinking war. when has he EVER fielded open questions from the press? that’s because he can’t go beyond the script. he can’t answer for himself. when he does find himself drifting off into unscripted territory he snaps back to questionable but quite common US rhetoric about how evil everyone else is. he even was recently introduced to the world’s press as the ‘Leader of the Free World’!!!! WTF? Are you guys serious???
rumsfeld was the same on tv yesterday. he’s another one, who from appearances yeasterday was visibly OFFENDED that anyone of the press corps should have an opposing opinion. i refer you to my comments above about american arrogance above.
i say again - just because the us thinks it’s ok to go after a country DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. that’s taking your air of entitlement a little (read: a lot) TOO FAR.
your country, followed by ours has seriously fucked this up. after sept 11 the world was behind you. in such a short period of time the world is pretty much against you - that should tell you something about the way you treat and view other nations and peoples. and we’re not just talking about fundamentalist states in the middle east - MOST of Europe doesn’t agree with you (and us). we (uk, us) have started some shit here - and there’s mroe to come - probably our way… it comes to something when the country with arguably the worst human rights record is proudly held up as being part of the supporting group of countries! I’m talking of course, about China. Jeeze, maybe the world would be a better place if we went in mob-handed and threw them out of Tibet eh? And, not forgetting their stash of nukes and other ‘weapons of mass-destruction’. And their belief in a different way of life to the US. Now, why aren’t we sorting that particular situation out eh? No oil in Tibet?
No don’t get me wrong - i don’t particularly believe that this whole thing is about oil - but look at the facts above…
i’m not anti-us. but you guys really need to fucking open your eyes. this whole thing is a little too hollywood for you i reckon. like i said, people really felt for you when a group of mainly SAUDI’S flew some planes into your cities. Now you are being the aggressors - THAT MAKES YOU NO BETTER. People died in Iraq last night. People really died. What are you gonna do? Knit a charity quilt? Photograph the atrocity and sell a book passing on most of the proceeds to iraq?
and why are the french the bad guys? because they didn’t agree with you!!! where does it say they have to? all i saw on the news was how they’d screwed the diplomatic process! like i said before - there’s two sides to every story. did you look at both? i hear now that the us suspects france objected because of business interests in iraq. HELLO!!! didn’t a group of us companies (led by some current senior administration figures) sell the bloody chemicals to iraq in the first place?!?!?! sorry fella, just like afghanastan it’s come back to bite you in the arse. a review of us foreign policy is seriously needed here.
I count my country in with all of this. And, along with a very large proportion of our society I am against this war. Democracy in our country has failed. The government no longer represents the majority. And, it’s sad day for a lot of reasons.
but, more than anything else, people in iraq died last night - because of us. their lives are no less valuable than the people who died in NY etc. military or not, they’re still people. and we killed them. now, tell me again, what did they (or iraq) do to the west recently?
Posted by Andrew 2003.03.22, 23:44
This is an interesting discussion, and unfortunately it is one that, in my opinion, pretty much mirrors the political discussion in the larger international arena. This war is a done deal now, illegal or not. I am against it. I am now totally anti-US. Totally. Whether you (and I mean US citizens when I say that) support your President or not, he is yours. Deal with him.
My greatest fear is this, since no one really likes Saddam (and let’s face it, he’s a crazed despot, so what’s to like..) so while a large portion of people united against the war effort, it is still justifiable in the minds of a lot of people, but what if it happens again somewhere else? France for instance. There is now a lot of anti-French feeling by a portion of the US, unfounded though it is. What happens if the US decides it wants to go in and “liberate” the obviously misguided French population? That is just a stupid example, but really… what happens? Who can stop them? We have let the US go for too long. They are now so powerful that they are in fact Big Brother, and there is no one left who is strong enough to stand against them.
The “land of the free” can carry out its acts of overt acts of violence against whomever it wishes with impunity, spitting on its own constitution and the UN at the same time.
Since there is no way to beat them at warfare, people will look for other ways. I wish it were not the case, but I imagine there will be increased terrorist activity in the wake of this conflict. My real problem is that I am starting to find myself identifying with the terrorists.
Posted by Andrew 2003.03.22, 23:45
This is an interesting discussion, and unfortunately it is one that, in my opinion, pretty much mirrors the political discussion in the larger international arena. This war is a done deal now, illegal or not. I am against it. I am now totally anti-US. Totally. Whether you (and I mean US citizens when I say that) support your President or not, he is yours. Deal with him.
My greatest fear is this, since no one really likes Saddam (and let’s face it, he’s a crazed despot, so what’s to like..) so while a large portion of people united against the war effort, it is still justifiable in the minds of a lot of people, but what if it happens again somewhere else? France for instance. There is now a lot of anti-French feeling by a portion of the US, unfounded though it is. What happens if the US decides it wants to go in and “liberate” the obviously misguided French population? That is just a stupid example, but really… what happens? Who can stop them? We have let the US go for too long. They are now so powerful that they are in fact Big Brother, and there is no one left who is strong enough to stand against them.
The “land of the free” can carry out its acts of overt acts of violence against whomever it wishes with impunity, spitting on its own constitution and the UN at the same time.
Since there is no way to beat them at warfare, people will look for other ways. I wish it were not the case, but I imagine there will be increased terrorist activity in the wake of this conflict. My real problem is that I am starting to find myself identifying with the terrorists.
Posted by Andrew 2003.03.22, 23:45
This is an interesting discussion, and unfortunately it is one that, in my opinion, pretty much mirrors the political discussion in the larger international arena. This war is a done deal now, illegal or not. I am against it. I am now totally anti-US. Totally. Whether you (and I mean US citizens when I say that) support your President or not, he is yours. Deal with him.
My greatest fear is this, since no one really likes Saddam (and let’s face it, he’s a crazed despot, so what’s to like..) so while a large portion of people united against the war effort, it is still justifiable in the minds of a lot of people, but what if it happens again somewhere else? France for instance. There is now a lot of anti-French feeling by a portion of the US, unfounded though it is. What happens if the US decides it wants to go in and “liberate” the obviously misguided French population? That is just a stupid example, but really… what happens? Who can stop them? We have let the US go for too long. They are now so powerful that they are in fact Big Brother, and there is no one left who is strong enough to stand against them.
The “land of the free” can carry out its acts of overt acts of violence against whomever it wishes with impunity, spitting on its own constitution and the UN at the same time.
Since there is no way to beat them at warfare, people will look for other ways. I wish it were not the case, but I imagine there will be increased terrorist activity in the wake of this conflict. My real problem is that I am starting to find myself identifying with the terrorists.
Posted by Andrew 2003.03.22, 23:45
This is an interesting discussion, and unfortunately it is one that, in my opinion, pretty much mirrors the political discussion in the larger international arena. This war is a done deal now, illegal or not. I am against it. I am now totally anti-US. Totally. Whether you (and I mean US citizens when I say that) support your President or not, he is yours. Deal with him.
My greatest fear is this, since no one really likes Saddam (and let’s face it, he’s a crazed despot, so what’s to like..) so while a large portion of people united against the war effort, it is still justifiable in the minds of a lot of people, but what if it happens again somewhere else? France for instance. There is now a lot of anti-French feeling by a portion of the US, unfounded though it is. What happens if the US decides it wants to go in and “liberate” the obviously misguided French population? That is just a stupid example, but really… what happens? Who can stop them? We have let the US go for too long. They are now so powerful that they are in fact Big Brother, and there is no one left who is strong enough to stand against them.
The “land of the free” can carry out its acts of overt acts of violence against whomever it wishes with impunity, spitting on its own constitution and the UN at the same time.
Since there is no way to beat them at warfare, people will look for other ways. I wish it were not the case, but I imagine there will be increased terrorist activity in the wake of this conflict. My real problem is that I am starting to find myself identifying with the terrorists.
Posted by Andrew 2003.03.22, 23:47
sorry there was an error..can you delete some of those extra posts?
Posted by Jon 2003.03.23, 01:59
“and why are the french the bad guys? because they didn’t agree with you!!!”
Because they promised to veto ANYTHING. Even before Iraq. That’s not right. They voted for the other resolutions as well as 1441 but they are just pussy’s. I’ve never liked the french. I tried to stop buying frech products, but I realized I don’t consume any.
The UN is a joke. It is [now] meaningless. The only power France has is its veto power in the security council. That’s why they were screaming about it having to be through the UN. Now that the security council means nothing, france means nothing.
I’m not really bothered about anti american feelings. When they start having problems who will they run to? The USA. No other country is the history of the world has done more good. When they come running I would personally like to see them suffer and die but I’m sure we’ll help them just like all the other SOB’s we’ve helped through the years.
This is a coalition of 45 countries—the most ever for a war. The press is twisting it to be just the US and the UK for a story. It’s not. Get over it.
Have you seen the video of the soldier tearing down the Saddam poster? An Iraqi ran up and started beating the remaining portion of the poster with his shoe. The Iraqi’s are happy. Shouldn’t that be what matters? When they are free I’m going to be constantly reminding them that “the whole world” wanted them to be opressed. That freedom wasn’t brought by you.
Imagine your wife being raped in front of you. Imagine the tape of that rape being sent to all of your family… All of her family. What’s the cause of this? You spoke out against Saddam and his thugs.
Saddam cares more for his weapons than he does for his power and his people. Already they are firing Scuds which have been disallowed since the end of the gulf war. How long before we find the bunkers full of chemicals? The D shaped bunkers used to glean pure Uranium.
One big confusion with almost everyone is the job of the weapons inspectors. They aren’t supposed to be detectives. They are supposed to suprivise the destruction of weapons. If they had already been destroyed they should be shown the evidence. If Iraq wanted to avoid war only one inspector would have been needed. You all are probably smart people, do you think in a place the size of california you and a bunch of friends could uncover everything? You’re looking for a 2 liter bottle in california. On top of that they move the stash before you get there (well documented).
Posted by Jon 2003.03.23, 02:03
Have to get this in. Stop being jealous of our power. We aren’t a fucking empire. If we wanted to, we could own your country (to anyone here that doesn’t live in the US). We just don’t want to. We use our power wisely.
Posted by pete 2003.03.23, 05:31
jon - you’re a twat. you’ve just personified everything that the larger proportion of the world hates about your country…
that rhetoric you’ve just said isn’t even worth addressing.
anyone else up for an intelligent conversation about this?
Posted by Jon 2003.03.23, 06:08
I’m proud to be an American. I really don’t care if that offends you or anyone else. I love my country. I would die for my country. Don’t try to cut me out of this discussion because I have opinions—that’s all you have.
Posted by pete 2003.03.23, 06:28
i wouldn’t cut you or anyone else out of anything for having opinions fella. i am very open to intelligent discussion on this matter - especially between citizens of our two countries. but i don’t believe the stuff you came out with above. how old are you? maybe you’re not a twat, maybe you’re just a little young. who knows.
but, whatever the case - have a read of what you wrote above again will you? ask yourself, in all honesty, if there might be something that others (i.e. other countries peoples) might take offence to in your words?
Posted by Jon 2003.03.23, 09:01
God, you don’t have a sense of humor. Do I really believe we could take over the world? No. It’s a hyperbole. I’m not politically correct and I never will be.
Posted by Jon 2003.03.23, 09:05
Thought this was good. I haven’t verified it’s Dennis Miller but it sounds like him and I know he supports the war:
“TRYING TO HELP” By Dennis Miller
All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war against Iraq has got my little brain spinning like a top. I enjoy reading opinions from both sides, but I’ve detected a hint of confusion from some of you. Maybe this can help. As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice anyone ever gave me. He told me about the “KISS” method (“Keep It Simple, Stupid!”). So with this as a theme, I’d like to apply this theory for those who don’t quite get it. My hope is that we can simplify things and recognize a few important facts. Here are ten things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue:
(1) Between President Bush and Saddam Hussein … Hussein is the bad guy.
(2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right things, keep this in mind: the UN has Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.
(3) If you use a Google or Yahoo search and type in “French Military Victories,” don’t be surprised if your computer panics at its inability to respond to your inquiry.
(4) If your only anti-war slogan is “No War For Oil,” hire a pit bull lawyer and sue your school district for having allowed you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the minimum education that any non-troglodyte deserves
(5) You can take this one to the bank: Saddam and bin Laden will NOT seek UN approval before they try to kill us.
(6) Despite common belief among some, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He only plays one on TV.
(7) If you are anti-war and even an outright “America Basher,” to bin Laden you are still an “infidel” whom he wants dead.
(8) Be careful: if you believe in a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” but not in the danger that Hussein poses, the only job you may be able to get is as an Ivy League college professor.
(9) Even multi-culturalists who try to browbeat us into believing that all cultures are equally deserving of respect have trouble explaining the past 500 years of Islam.
(10) Whether you are for or against military action, our young men and women overseas are fighting to defend our right to speak out on these issues. They deserve our unreserved support.
Posted by Zyzzyva 2003.03.23, 09:50
“…rush to war…” Please define what you mean by “rush”. How long would the run-up to the war have to be before it was no longer a “rush” to war? A year? Two years? Twelve years?
Then add in the number of people who have died because of Saddam to your moral calculus and ask if it is a “rush” to war.
How much more deplomacy do you think these people should have waited for in order for you to feel satisfied:
or these:
” A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip “had shocked me back to reality.” Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera “told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn’t start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam’s bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head.”“
Posted by Jon 2003.03.23, 10:04
Pete:
I never heard what you thought about this:
Imagine your wife being raped in front of you. Imagine the tape of that rape being sent to all of your family… All of her family. What’s the cause of this? You spoke out against Saddam and his thugs.
I’d be interested in finding out why you don’t think that the Iraqi people deserve more? When they have freedom I’ll let ‘em know that you and your fellows wanted to keep them opressed.
Posted by pete 2003.03.23, 19:04
WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE THE IRAQI PEOPLE DESERVE MORE? oh, that’s right you’re american… ffs! the regime in iraq is not the issue here - it’s the bloody american air of entitlement to go round fucking interfering in everybody elses business without regard to the consequences. don’t forget it was your fucking government who funded bin laden all those years ago - painful when that stuff comes back to bite you in the arse isn’t it?
and, you didn’t respond to my comments about tibet etc? they are oppressed, denied their religion, raped, tortured and so on too - but what is there in their country that we want? nothing - that’s why we do fuck all about it. there are hundreds of examples like this around the world - now, again, you tell me this isn’t about oil - however much you want to dress this up as something else - iraq was not involved with 11th sept, nor is there any links with bin laden (hell, bin laden has openly said he hates saddam too!), and the chemicals they have were sold to them BY YOUR COUNTRY. see my comments elsewhere about things coming back to bite you in the arse. stop interfering and people will leave you alone too. you nation is acting like a petulant, over monied child - which isn’t perhaps surprising given the short history you really do have…
wind your necks in - I’M NOT ANTI-AMERICAN - but your attitude is seriously pissing me off. i don’t care about all the little role-playing stuff you are coming out with - the fact of the matter is you are not gods - it is NOT for you decide anything about other countries destiny no matter how that interferes with your country - they only care about you because you keep fucking interfering with them!!! wind your necks in!
(1) Between President Bush and Saddam Hussein … Hussein is the bad guy.
I love this simplistic view between good and bad that you americans have. the world simply isn’t like that. given teh choice between the chinese leader and bush who’s the ‘good guy’? bush of course - but he still holds up china as being in support of this action - that’s desparate. have you seen the list of these fourty countries? lol - there are countries there I’ve never heard of - and I’ve travelled a lot… and let’s not forget - bush DIDN’T win an election - that’s not the actions of a man with good intentions.
(2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right things, keep this in mind: the UN has Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.
What about the only two countries in the world that won’t sign up to an international treaty to protect children? Iraq is one of them - show’s they’re evil right… The US is the other… They’re the only two countries in the world that allow the execution of children… You do the math…
(3) If you use a Google or Yahoo search and type in “French Military Victories,” don’t be surprised if your computer panics at its inability to respond to your inquiry.
LOL!!! And how many US victories would there be - discounting the fact that during the last gulf war the US killed more allied soldiers that fucking iraq did!!!! There are however, lots of confilcts that the US has found itself in as opposed to france - that tells me that you are aggressive warmongers and france aren’t…
(4) If your only anti-war slogan is “No War For Oil,” hire a pit bull lawyer and sue your school district for having allowed you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the minimum education that any non-troglodyte deserves
fuck off. what happened straight after the ‘liberation’ of afghanastan? that’s right, senior government officials in the us administration signed a major deal to install a new pipeline right across the country - something that had been planned a few years ago but was put off because of the political situation. let’s see what heppens after this war shall we?
(5) You can take this one to the bank: Saddam and bin Laden will NOT seek UN approval before they try to kill us.
that doesn’t make it right stupid. well, that’s what we westerners tell our kids isn’t it? isn’t the basis of this war that we’re somehow better than them? obviously we aren’t if that’s yoru attitude.
(6) Despite common belief among some, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He only plays one on TV.
the whole of the us gets confused between hollywood and reality fella - did you see your top general’s speech to the troops teh other day? it was fucking hilarious - straight out of a movie - because that’s how your country works - did you see our general’s speech? it was hailed as one of the all time top speeches ever… now, let’s all clap and hug because the us saved the world!!! LOL
(7) If you are anti-war and even an outright “America Basher,” to bin Laden you are still an “infidel” whom he wants dead.
no. he wants you dead. that’s what you get for your ridiculous foreign policy these past years.
(8) Be careful: if you believe in a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” but not in the danger that Hussein poses, the only job you may be able to get is as an Ivy League college professor.
wtf is that about?
(9) Even multi-culturalists who try to browbeat us into believing that all cultures are equally deserving of respect have trouble explaining the past 500 years of Islam.
why should it need explaining? you probably wouldn’t understand it if someone tried - YOU try the explaining fat, overeating, vain, materialistic, group hugging culture of the us to them! i bet the don’t get it either - and you guys don’t even have 500 years of history worth a spit.
(10) Whether you are for or against military action, our young men and women overseas are fighting to defend our right to speak out on these issues. They deserve our unreserved support.
like you guys did for the vietnam vets right? and sorry mate, you DO NOT need to bomb another country in order to be able to speak out about it - that’s why france isn’t bombing you right now - idiot.
so, you keep role playing with your rape fantasies, i’m off to watch what we’re doing to iraq on the bbc - because, unlike cnn and fox et all, the bbc doesn’t contrbute to political campaigns, we pay for it as citizens of this country and the news they deliver is factual and not tainted in order to provoke opinions that otherwise wouldn’t be there. mate, like i said before, have a read through what you’ve written - be honest with yourself…
Posted by victor 2003.03.23, 19:55
I’m not really bothered about anti american feelings. When they start having problems who will they run to? The USA. No other country is the history of the world has done more good. When they come running I would personally like to see them suffer and die but I’m sure we’ll help them just like all the other SOB’s we’ve helped through the years.
Well that speaks for itself. This is the kind of arrogance we are tired of. Stop pretending everyone runs to the USA. Stop speaking of America as if it only was one country (only in contitental north-america there are three)
As for the videos, let me guess which was the source: a US media outlet. Have you looked at ALL the videos? Would the watching of all the videos filmed there change your opinion? Have you actually spoked with an iraqi citizen? You might realize that while they don’t like their governant, they don’t approve of an invasion as a means to get rid of him, either. But, of course, iraq being the evil empire, you wouldn’t listen to an iraqi, would you?
and as for miller’s questions:
1) both are bad. both exercise power without check. don’t you think saddam would like to free us citizens from bush if he had the power to do so?
2) If the us had had the intention of following UN guidelines from the beginning, it wouldn’t have helped found it. If it had taken it seriously, it wouldn’t have allowed for that.
3) Unrelated. Offtopic. I won’t bother.
4) Non-troglodyte? Speak about matters you know, please. How can you judge education of foreign countries when your own education is useless? (http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/. And not only iraq, not even regular european countries)
5) When that happens, we will take measures. Not before. Else, we wouldn’t be better than them (which means, yes, you are not better than them. So don’t try to use them as an example of evil, ‘cos you are no better)
6) sorry i don’t watch much american tv. Why’s this relevant?
7) bin laden wants dead everyone. Again, why’s this relevant? what is the connection between laden and hussein?
8) We agree Hussein is dangerous. To its people, at least (not so much to the world). Still, that doesn’t make an invasion right.
9) Christianism had a dark age, too. Yet we somehow managed to get past inquisition. What makes you thing Islam is a worse religion? Islam had a glorious past when half of europe didn’t even know about personal hygiene.
10) Well that doesn’t apply direclty to me as my country doesn’t have young men and women. Anyway, the fact that you don’t approve war doesn’t mean that you hate somehow those soldiers. Also, if the way you speak about those issues is this (with tanks and guns) you better stay quiet. You seem to imply they are defending YOUR right to speak. What about everyone else’s right? weren’t they defending the whole world?
By your last post, I see you still equate anti war with pro-saddam. Stop the demagogy already man.
Posted by Zyzzyva 2003.03.23, 21:52
WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE THE IRAQI PEOPLE DESERVE MORE?
Who are you to decide that they don’t?
Posted by pete 2003.03.24, 00:04
not Zyzzyva - i don’t think that i’ve suggested that they deserve any more or less - unlike you and jon who think you know what’s right for a country you’ve probably never even been to. hello, arrogance and the US again anyone?
check these links:
http://www.firethistime.org/fearusgovt.htm http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_1960to1964.html
this one’s quite interesting: http://www.awolbush.com/
and here’s a quote for you:
“America is consistently the most indebted country to the UN. It consistently fails or refuses to pay its’ UN dues if in opposition to UN resolutions. In September 1995 its’ debt to the UN stood at $1.6 BILLION. [Source: ‘THE SCOURGING OF IRAQ’ by Geoff Simons, MacMillan Press, 1996]
Simultaneously the US insists that Iraq, and other countries, must comply with the UN, but has told the UN that it has no jurisdiction in the affairs of the US.
Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the UN Security Council in October 1994 that the US would act: “….multilaterally when we can, and unilaterally when we must.”
read that last sentence again… fucking amazing… jesus, god help us all…
AND, i just heard on the news, an American Patriot missle just WORKED!!!! Well, kinda, it just shot down a British Tornado jet - nice one lads - if we can’t count on being shot by the enemy, we can certainly guarantee it from the US… You might have the largest army in the world, but they gotta be the dumbest and most dangerous to their allies…
Posted by pete 2003.03.24, 00:08
oh, and another link about the good intentions of the US administration:
http://www.guerrillanews.com/waronterrorism/doc1229.html
Posted by Michael Morgan 2003.03.24, 01:34
The war is legal.
Remember, the last war never ended, a cease-fire was declared. Saddam Hussein’g Murderous Regime is in violation of the terms of the ceasefire, and has been for some time. For example, his forces have regularly targeted and fired upon Coalition planes lawfully enforcing the no-fly zones. All of the other blather at the U.N. was really more of an academic excercise. Sadly, some people decided to refuse to accept that Saddam is a threat to world security.
We’ve worked for 12 years to get him to comply and disarm. He refused to do so. Six days, six weeks, six months of more “inspections” will not accomplish what 12 years of efforts have failed to do. There are regimes in the world that only understand force. You can rest assured that they are paying close attention to our actions now, and will pay close attention to our actions once hostilities in Iraq cease.
Someone had to take action, and, as usual, it was the United States who spearheaded the movement, now joined by a coalition of more than 40(!) other countries. And they say we are unilateralists. Do they even know what that word means?
Its clear to many Americans that opposition to the war is deeply rooted not in any sort of peace movement, but rather is motivated by resentment for the American hegemony and, more specifically hatred, yes hatred, for the current American administration. I do not recall peace activists protesting Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. I do not recall any protests against his invastion of Iran. I do not recall any protests when he GASSED KURDISH CIVILIANS.
The United States does not need the U.N.’s approval to do what’s right and what’s prudent. It would have been nice if we could have, but certain nations chose not to support that effort out of concern for their own selfish interests. Happily, the American Constitution trumps the U.N. Charter.
Posted by Jon 2003.03.24, 02:35
“WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE THE IRAQI PEOPLE DESERVE MORE? oh, that’s right you’re american… ffs! the regime in iraq is not the issue here - it’s the bloody american air of entitlement to go round fucking interfering in everybody elses business without regard to the consequences. don’t forget it was your fucking government who funded bin laden all those years ago - painful when that stuff comes back to bite you in the arse isn’t it?”
You’re such a bastard. You won’t talk about the raping of women to get back at men. You won’t talk about torture. If I went through that and heard you say that I didn’t deserve more I would find where you live and see how you like it. All humans deserve more. Get it through your thick skull.
Did you see the cheering and dancing? Did you see the Iraqi man beat Saddam’s poster with his sandal? They know we are there to help them.
“and, you didn’t respond to my comments about tibet etc? they are oppressed, denied their religion, raped, tortured and so on too - but what is there in their country that we want? nothing - that’s why we do fuck all about it. there are hundreds of examples like this around the world - now, again, you tell me this isn’t about oil - however much you want to dress this up as something else - iraq was not involved with 11th sept, nor is there any links with bin laden (hell, bin laden has openly said he hates saddam too!), and the chemicals they have were sold to them BY YOUR COUNTRY. see my comments elsewhere about things coming back to bite you in the arse. stop interfering and people will leave you alone too. you nation is acting like a petulant, over monied child - which isn’t perhaps surprising given the short history you really do have…”
What is the main reason we are in Iraq? They broke the rules. Saddam has WOMD, the world has agreed he shouldn’t. He didn’t want to give them up, so now we’re kicking his ass. It’s pretty fucking simple.
I don’t think China should have such a good trade status, but the American (and British) people have voted with their pocketbooks. China has actually been getting better lately (getting much more liberal). Still no excuse, but it’s a start.
“wind your necks in - I’M NOT ANTI-AMERICAN - but your attitude is seriously pissing me off. i don’t care about all the little role-playing stuff you are coming out with - the fact of the matter is you are not gods - it is NOT for you decide anything about other countries destiny no matter how that interferes with your country - they only care about you because you keep fucking interfering with them!!! wind your necks in!”
Winding necks must be a cultural thing. Since we’re God’s I figured we would have heard of it… :P
“not Zyzzyva - i don’t think that i’ve suggested that they deserve any more or less - unlike you and jon who think you know what’s right for a country you’ve probably never even been to. hello, arrogance and the US again anyone?”
Do you need to have your life destroyed to know you deserve better. Human fucking rights. Because everything in your life is great doesn’t mean everyone else is fine. Get out of your bubble. Oh, and your country agrees. It’s a coalition of 45 countries—not just us.
“check these links:
http://www.firethistime.org/fearusgovt.htm
this is laughable. Bring something credible to the table you tool.
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_1960to1964.html
Ditto. If it couldn’t be used in an academic piece, don’t even bother linking.
this one’s quite interesting: http://www.awolbush.com/
Couldn’t get to it—but I don’t want to anyways. You think that might be biased against Bush. What are you going to pull next a geocities page?
and here’s a quote for you:
“America is consistently the most indebted country to the UN. It consistently fails or refuses to pay its’ UN dues if in opposition to UN resolutions. In September 1995 its’ debt to the UN stood at $1.6 BILLION. [Source: ‘THE SCOURGING OF IRAQ’ by Geoff Simons, MacMillan Press, 1996]
Good, the un is a joke. We practically have to fund the whole thing. I’d love to see the building converted to apartments—it is a high rent district afterall.
Simultaneously the US insists that Iraq, and other countries, must comply with the UN, but has told the UN that it has no jurisdiction in the affairs of the US.
We’re the big boy at the table. Sorry if that hurts you.
Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the UN Security Council in October 1994 that the US would act: “.…multilaterally when we can, and unilaterally when we must.”
Sounds good to me. We don’t piss around. If it’s gotta be done we’ll do it.
read that last sentence again… fucking amazing… jesus, god help us all…”
I know, it’s great that a country can actually stand up for things. Good to see. Wish Europe was like that.
“AND, i just heard on the news, an American Patriot missle just WORKED!!!! Well, kinda, it just shot down a British Tornado jet - nice one lads - if we can’t count on being shot by the enemy, we can certainly guarantee it from the US… You might have the largest army in the world, but they gotta be the dumbest and most dangerous to their allies…”
Do you know how many lives the patriot missiles have saved? It’s amazing. If you could step off your hatred of the great evil platform maybe you’d realize. I’m sure your military would scoff at your sophomoric remark—they understand how important we are.
Pete, it comes down to the fact that you can’t answer to the facts.
Does Saddam have WOMD? (even France agrees he does) Has Saddam destroyed these weapons to make peace with the world? (Hans and crew say nope) Has Saddam’s regime broken human rights conventions? (hell yes) Will Saddam either A continue on his path to more WOMD and death to his own and other people or B peacefully disarm and become a nice fellow?
The fact that you won’t answer my question about the feds raping your wife in front of you (let’s say gang style so 4 or 5 SOB’s can get off) just shows that you have no answer. Luckily your opinion doesn’t matter (nor does mine) for the ones we have ELECTED (yes, Bush did win you fucking prick) have made the call.
Posted by Zyzzyva 2003.03.24, 04:14
hello, arrogance and the US again anyone?
I know you don’t claim to represent the entire anti-war movement, but I see so much of this sort of sentiment that I’m left in awe of the lack of concern that you and others seem to have for the people of Iraq. (Forget all the other important issues of world security.)
You’re on the wrong side of history. The world is changing. In the wake of 9-11, the post-Cold War stasis that has let so many dictators and aggressors stay in power is not going to be tolerated by the free world. I’m willing to bet that years from now, people are going to be ashamed to admit they were ever part of this so-called “peace” movement.
You know, the left used to actually be the ones who were militantly agressive at fighting fascism. It’s funny that the same people that get all misty-eyed at the thought of the Abraham Lincoln Brigades fighting Franco in Spain, or who swell up at the mention of Che Guevara, are now supporting keeping fascists in power in the name of addressing “U.S. hegemony.” Woody Guthrie used to have a sticker on his guitar that said “This Machine Kills Fascists.” What ever happen to this ferocity in the face of aggressive fascism? It used to be fanatics on the right that didn’t want to confront fascism. Look at the America First Commity leading up to World War II. Charles Lindbergh to this day is besmirched by his involvement with that group.
And by the way, about those links. I’m so tired of looking at all that bluster. If you’re willing to be seduced by a bunch of grassy-knoll style propaganda, you’ve forfeited your right to ever label Bush “stupid.”
Posted by victor 2003.03.24, 05:24
Ummm… who gave weapons to Saddam to kill the kurdish in the first place? ok, forget about that, just try to think WHY.
oh… that’s right, because it favoured us interests back then.
BTW, what makes you think that the us is not a threat to world security? Imagine that the UN wanted to put a check on US military prowess and demanded that they disarm. Not even 120 years would be enough, the rest of the world would have to resort to force. I’m sure you wouldn’t find it right then…
Posted by Michael Morgan 2003.03.24, 05:47
Victor, anyone willing to do the research, and it doesn’t take much, knows that France and Russia are the largest supplier of arms to Iraq. You may recall that it was France that decided to build a nuclear reactor for Saddam, which the Israelis prudently destroyed.
And let’s assume for a second that you’re right: The U.S. gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein’s Murderous Regime which he then used against the Kurds. Ok, well that didn’t work out so well. When I spill milk, I wipe it up. Doesn’t it make sense to clean up the mess? Regardless of who spilled the milk, it’s time someone cleaned it up. That’s what we’re doing now.
Posted by S. Patrick Eaton 2003.03.24, 11:28
I think a great deal of the popular support Bush now enjoys stems from the fact that my compatriots are unaccustomed to being wrong. For much of its (comparatively short) history, the United States has been a force that has worked to bring about good. Our country was founded on sound principles and has, for the most part, stuck to them. (For America to be so flagrantly wrong in this instance is simply too much for most Americans to accept. So they don’t, assuming instead that the rest of world is simply jealous of American hegemony. The notion that America could be in the wrong is a notion that many American people would find difficult to accept, hence the dissonance with world opinion.)
Until now. With Bush in the White House, everything has changed. Bush has systematically undone just about every sensible thing that previous administrations—including his own father’s—have ever done. It’s not just this war that is inconsistent with our nation’s founding principles, but everything Bush does.
The key difference is that this unprecedented war has captured the attention of the whole world, whereas Bush’s unprecedented behavior at home is much less noticeable to those outside our borders (or even those within our borders—as few seem to realize how much Bush has done to change our country in fundamental ways that many find inimical to our founding principles).
Had Bush ever been truly serious about diplomacy (and I don’t believe he ever was), he would have produced better evidence that Saddam Hussien poses a clear and present danger to the world. He failed to produce any compelling evidence. For those who remember that one of our country’s founding principles is that one must assume innocence in the absence of proof of guilt, this is a significant problem. Beyond that, however, Bush seemed intent on branding those who were not convinced by the evidence provided (which included, among other things, a ten-year-old report that had been plagiarized from the Internet—one the Colin Powell described as “exquisite”) as back-stabbing traitors—a tactic he has used in other contexts at home.
Also, had he been serious about diplomacy, he wouldn’t have insisted on crafting resolution 1441 in such a way so as to allow members of the Security Council to interpret it differently. (This is what really caused the controversy: Russia, China, Germany, and, yes, France did not assume that 1411 would automatically authorize the use of force—which Bush later insisted that it did.) Here, as he often does in addressing the American people, Bush was being intentionally obtuse.
Ultimately, though, the Bush administration’s handling of this new doctrine it is so enamored of will prove unsustainable and, in all likelihood, self-destructive. It has, after all, already caused great damage to U.S. prestige around the world.
Although you can argue that removing Saddam Hussien from power might have good long-term benefits for the region, one can make a much better argument that removing Bush from power will have even greater long-term benefits for the entire world. I pray that my fellow Americans will come to realize this by the time the 2004 elections come around.
Bush, for all his good intentions, is an unschooled amateur where foreign policy is concerned. And that, I feel, makes him entirely unfit for the office he now holds. After all, declaring a unilateral war against a significantly weakened third-world dictator requires little more than a stubborn conviction that nothing else matters. True leadership would recognize that there is an entire world outside of Iraq, all of which matters. True leadership would have addressed the shortcomings of a Cold War institution in a post-Cold War world, not simply insisted that diplomacy is worthless.
Diplomacy is not the weak link in this crisis, Bush is.
Posted by pete 2003.03.24, 18:28
jon - mate, i don’t care whether you’re young now - you’re still obviously a twat. your comments show a desparate lack of intelligence and ability to take part in a serious discourse about the troubles of the world. go play with your gi-joes.
Posted by victor 2003.03.24, 22:42
Michael, you may wipe all the milk you want. But don’t pretend it’s others fault, then.
Oh, and France and Russia may have sold weapons too, but so what? They at least aren’t attacking Iraq for it (which makes sense) (I don’t think the french are that good. They also are an evil empire, remember the nuclear tests they did at Fangataufa)
I just wanted to point out the inconsistency between past and present american behavior.
Posted by Abdul 2003.03.25, 00:32
Hmmm. Saddam bad boy in 1990s-now. There is democracy in Kuwait now? Saudi? Jordan? But Saddam good boy in 1980s Iran/Iraq war. Supported by America. Khumeini push out The Shaw (Iran) who was American lap dog so Kheumeini bad boy in 1980s (hostages, Death to America, etc). Pinochet, Ortega, Noreiga, Batista (Cuba 1950s), Marcos, etc. all good Yankee boys til they do too much bad things. Then they bad boys. America no care in WWII until Perl Harbor. Muhajedeen in Afghanistan good boys vs. Russia. Supported by America. Give much money and training and good weapons. Russia go bye-bye but America no care about Afghan people. Then muhajedeen bad boys with Taliban/Al Qaida. America no care about Taliban killing own people before 9/11. Why America no claim Indonesia gov’t bad? They have much oil. Kill many own people. No democracy. Malaysia? Much oil, also muslim, support terrorists. No democracy. They next? South Philippines? Where stop? Tibet? Chicken of Chinese? What if China take Taiwan? What if N. Korea go to South again? or Bomb to Japan? War to N. Korea? China behind N. Korea again? Where stop?
Stupid Americans think anitBUSH = support Saddam. No, antiBUSH & antiSADDAM. War is not answer (unless you want control oil).
Not all Americans stupid media lap dogs. Many protest. I sorry for good Americans cuz now all Americans are terrorist target everywhere in world. World no hate all Americans only fools who become blind to flag and song.
God is good.
Posted by Jon 2003.03.25, 04:57
Pete answer the freaking question. I figure you at least have an on par IQ. I’ve asked multiple times but you keep going back to name calling.
Not answering the hard questions is a popular thing with people of your viewpoint. It’s ok to say, “I don’t know” or “yea that sounds bad”.
Not answering makes you weak.
Posted by pete 2003.03.25, 07:26
jon, me name calling? sure - that’s what i do when someone (you) calls me a ‘bastard’.
and no. you answer the questions. all you have posed are silly make believe scenarios that are designed to invoke some kind of kneejerk reaction. my questions to you have been about real world politics and situations. why do you just dismiss the fact that the person in overall charge of your military is a deserter himself? and all the other points.
‘people of my viewpoint’? that’ll be most of the world outside of your country then. you know, we get fox, cnn and all the other 24hr news channels over here. flicking between european channels and us channels is bloody eye opening… on our channels yesterday, the headlines were about the americans shooting down one of our planes (shooting us and the canadians is a habit with you guys eh?) and about the US soldier who threw grenades into the tents of his fellow combatants. cnn said that ‘an allied plane was feared missing’ and ‘grenade attack on US camp kills one and wounds…’ - slightly biased then? no, not really - they just don’t tell you lot how it is. your media treats you like mushrooms - keeps you in the dark and feeds you shit.
the rhetoric (read: bullshit) you’ve been coming up with here is no better than the crap we see bin laden spouting all the time. neither of you are worth the time to listen to.
I welcome the ongoing discussion here, but I’m not going to entertain your particular strand of crap any more… you can bait me all you like. and you probably will - ‘cos that’s about your level by the look of things…
Posted by Jon 2003.03.25, 08:28
jon, me name calling? sure - that’s what i do when someone (you) calls me a ‘bastard’.
By stating that a human being doesn’t deserve more than torture? If you don’t believe they do—you are more than a bastard. I’d like to think that you do believe in human rights (I can’t imagine that you dont).
and no. you answer the questions. all you have posed are silly make believe scenarios that are designed to invoke some kind of kneejerk reaction.
That’s not make believe. That’s what happens. If you don’t want to believe it, that’s your problem.
We’ll never see eye to eye.
Posted by pete 2003.03.25, 18:20
“you are more than a bastard”
see? lol :)
Posted by Sandra Monday 2003.04.08, 05:22
I think people like Jon have to live in denial, telling them what the world is really like won’t make them believe it. Challenging their american fairy tale makes them cry out like children and sing their catechisms of red, white and blue brainwashing. People like Jon are zombies, so deeply indoctrinated and sublimated by the media, their upbringing and their own clinging need to hold onto illusions that they will never ever see your point of view. It’s similar to trying to deprogram someone’s whose been in a cult too long, if they don’t have a strong individual mind of their own so they will never get out. This is a problem that faces our entire human species and we with strong minds and the ability to see the truth must spend most of our efforts from being trampled by the ignorant enslaved herd. If you tell Jon that Prescott Bush, George Bush’s Grandfather was kicked out of the banking industry for financing the building of over 40 concentration camps in WWII when he was coluding with the Nazis, even though that is an absolute fact documented in the encyclopedia Britannica and that many of George Bush’s ideas come from Nazi style propaganda methods he will deny it. NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF DENIAL. America is not just a country it is now a religion an idol of perfection that most people place above and beyond GOD. If you challenge that you challenge thier attachment to lies that they have become comfortable with. Stop wasting your time on the ignorant who think FREEDOM IS SLAVERY and WAR IS PEACE.
Post a comment:
Send This Story to an Enemy
• • •
