The US, The UN and Iraq

blatham wrote:

George

That you doubt the veracity of the information Walter provides (to support the claim that the great majority of Europeans are against the war) because the attending article speaks against US policy tells us merely that you aren't reading very much, certainly very little from outside the US. This news isn't news. The following site will link you to a plethora of news/commentary sources... www.aldaily.com

As to foreign nations coming on side...let's have a little bit of realism (realism apparently being a vital component to understanding world affairs and how evil people can be) on the deals that are being cut and the threats being leveled by the US's cadre of diplomat guys.

As to worries about the possibility of ending up isolated...well, this isn't something the US ought to concern itself with as when they have broad agreement it is proof they are right and when they are isolated it is proof they are uniquely right. "Sheesh", the Greek choir intones.
/

More vigorous beating of straw men from Blatham, all with the typical condescending overtones.

I don't claim to know the motivations of the majority of the European nations that have endorsed the U.S. position on Iraq, any more than I know the motivations of France & Germany. Only Blatham claims the ability to see inside the souls of others.

Noting that virtually all of the Central & Eastern European states that were formerly part of the Soviet system have affirmed their support of the U.S. position, it is plausible to suspect they may be motivated by a more recent experience of the dangers presented by foreign tyranny. Other factors, including U.S. "deal and threats" may well be involved. However, one should recognize that, as candidates for EU membership, each of these nations is likely to be much more subject to powerful persuasion from France & Germany, the self-proclaimed heart of the EU, than the United States.

As to the motivations of France and Germany, shall we believe that they are utterly free of the taint of any factor other than the best way to tame an Iraqi regime that has started unprovoked wars with two neighbors and defied the UN for 12 years? Is it conceivable that the relatively far richer commercial and oil development arrangements they have made with Saddam's government, and the large debts owed them are utterly absent from their motives? If the U.S. position is alleged to be about oil, how can one exclude France's opposition as arising from the same consideration? (France has contracts with Saddam's government for the development of the largest remaining undeveloped oil fields in the Gulf region.)

Finally, with respect to Blatham's last paragraph, I have not ever asserted that the fact that many European governments have publically endorsed our policies is proof we are right, any more than the opposition of others is proof we are wrong or right. Instead I merely pointed out that earlier assertions that the "great majority of the western world" opposes us, is quite unsupported by the facts.

The use of straw men and constantly changing the subject to evade responding to a well-considered rebuttal are well-known debating tactics, contemptable, but often used.

0 Replies

Quote:

blatham, I just read again your slate link and had to post this felicitious bracketed turn of phrase from that article.

0 Replies

george

Glad to see you are feeling your oats today.

Sorry, I know this might go up against your affinity for authoritarian rule, but I think a nation's population more accurately a measure of that nation than it's rulers. The populations of the these countries are not in support of present US actions, and by (varyingly) large percentages.

You suggest I am condescending, and it's a charge you've made before. I gather you make it here because I said you likely aren't reading enough, particularly of views from outside your own country. You clearly aren't, or you wouldn't have even contested what Walter and I and Steve have been pointing out.

Of course oil is a large part of this equation...for EVERYBODY. The denials or minimization of this element deserve derision.

And, you keep accusing me of 'straw man arguments'. Please find a definition of this term, then an argument of mine, and demonstrate precisely how the two are similar.

0 Replies

With respect to Blatham's "elephant" there is some area of agreement between us. I believe the evident long-term policy of the Likud governments of Israel has been to annex as much of the territory of the former West Bank as possible while getting as few of its people as possible. This has led Israel to a 35 year military occupation of this territory, condemning its people to a generation without civil, property or political rights. It has also spawned (or augmented, depending on your unterpretation of events) the continuous and growing resistance and terrorism practiced by Palestinian nationalists.

Likud protagonists argue that the Palestinians would never have accepted Israel, no matter what they did, and this justifies their actions. This, of course, is an unknowable and untestable hypothesis. History does not reveal its alternatives. Certainly the Palestinians have made many political errors and seriously failed to even attempt to build the governmental institutions they so sorely need. However this is not sufficient, in my view, to justify the Likud position.

I too am uncomfortable with the Bush Administration's rather unqualified endorsement of the Israeli government. Bush's clear statement that he favors the creation of two states with equal autonomy and independence gives me hope, but not certainty. I know first hand that some fairly senior folks in the administration believe that the deal Barak and Clinton offered Arafat at Camp David was a sham and that Arafat was right in rejecting it (but incredibly inept in explaining his reasons). If, after the current Iraqi and terrorism crises pass their peaks we begin to move decisively in the direction of the creation of an equal Palestinian state and to force Israeli acceptance of it, I will be very pleased. Knowing what I do of our government I believe this is a very plausible scenario. I hope it is true.

0 Replies

Kara

Yes, but as is quite usual in the prosecution of a war, nothing much gets said about the valuable resource (minerals, access to water or seaways, etc etc) that just happens to be located in the place where soldiers are headed to root out evil and save civilization.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

There are only two exceptional circumstances in which America and Britain could legally declare a war against Iraq:

1) If they were acting in self defence. Article 51 of the Charter preserves the right to self - defence where a state has been attacked.

2) If a UN Security Council resolution explicitly authorised force under Article 42 of the UN Charter, the Security Council having concluded that such force is necessary in order to secure international peace and security.

Steve - No offense, but you're ignoring the facts. We are at a state of cease fire with Iraq. The war never ended, so the issue has nothing to do with declaring war. It has to do with whether and when we go in because Saddam has broken the cease fire agreement.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

george

And, you keep accusing me of 'straw man arguments'. Please find a definition of this term, then an argument of mine, and demonstrate precisely how the two are similar.

Blatham, After an earlier discussion of ad hominem attacks, I am convinced that your denial and evasion are too entrenched to make a discussion over yet another rhetorical artifice worthwhile.

You cannot know what I read or don't read. Further the assumption, implicit in your argument, that if I read "enough" or even what you read, I would reach the same conclusion as you do is obviously without merit.

0 Replies

george

Now there's a post I support with raucous northern cheering. If you're interested, I can link you to a very in depth debate between the two views regarding who messed up Camp David by people who were involved.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I'm sure I read somewhere that one in ten Americans believe they have been abducted by aliens.

You don't think much of Americans, do you?

0 Replies

"With the thoughts I am thinkin',
I could be another Lincoln,
if I only had a brain."
--a certain straw man named Ray Bolger, from 'The Wizard of Oz'

(inserted for levity and not to pummel anyone's POV)

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

george

Sorry, I know this might go up against your affinity for authoritarian rule, but I think a nation's population more accurately a measure of that nation than it's rulers. The populations of the these countries are not in support of present US actions, and by (varyingly) large percentages.
.

I just noticed this in Blatham's earlier post.

How do you know that "... the populations of these countries are not in support of present U.S. actions ... by...large percentages"? The only measures I know of are polls. In an earlier discussion you rather categorically rejected the evidence of polls in a discussion of President Bush's popularity among Americans relative to that of Clinton at the same phases of their presidencies.

0 Replies

Blatham,

I would be happy to read your link concerning the negotiations at Camp David.

I believe what has been revealed about the agreement itself is sufficient to confirm the charade behind it. What was offered to Arafat was characterized as 90% of the West Bank, when in fact it was 45% (it was 90% of what the Likud considered "negotiable"). Palestinian territories were separated into about 18 isolated cantonments, each completely surrounded by Israeli territory. The "state" that would have resulted would have had no possibility of an independent political, economic, or social identity, and would have been utterly dependent of Israel for all of its basic functions. It resembled the 'Bantustands' of the former apartheid government of South Africa more than it resembled a real state.

Clinton's endorsement of this superficial "solution" to the serious problem of Israel & Palestine was like his "solutions" to the problems of Iraq and North Korea. All presented only the brief appearance of solutions. All were contemporaneously greeted with warm approval by the world. All merely worsened the problems they pretended to address.

There is a lesson for us in this that applies now.

0 Replies

George

You are right, they don't give the source. I didn't give you the result of the Turkish polls (more then 85% totally against the war), because I can't read Turkish and this is mentioned only in today's papers.
I can't find the 80% of Spain either, although I can read some Spanish.

But I can give you last weeks Swiss' results, a neutral state, you remember, just joined the UN:
"February 6, 2003 11:54 AM

Anti-war sentiment

A new survey shows a majority of the Swiss coming out against military strikes in Iraq.
Forty per cent of those interviewed said United States-led attacks were under no circumstances a legitimate option.
A further 55 per cent made their approval dependent on a United Nations mandate.
Two per cent are in favour of an unconditional war against the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein.
The poll also found that 57 per cent of the Swiss reject US policy and its values.
The survey is based on interviews with 1,000 people conducted during the second half of January.

swissinfo"

0 Replies

Quote:

With respect to Blatham's "elephant" there is some area of agreement between us. I believe the evident long-term policy of the Likud governments of Israel has been to annex as much of the territory of the former West Bank as possible while getting as few of its people as possible. ... Certainly the Palestinians have made many political errors and seriously failed to even attempt to build the governmental institutions they so sorely need. However this is not sufficient, in my view, to justify the Likud position.
....I know first hand that some fairly senior folks in the administration believe that the deal Barak and Clinton offered Arafat at Camp David was a sham and that Arafat was right in rejecting it (but incredibly inept in explaining his reasons). If, after the current Iraqi and terrorism crises pass their peaks we begin to move decisively in the direction of the creation of an equal Palestinian state and to force Israeli acceptance of it, I will be very pleased. Knowing what I do of our government I believe this is a very plausible scenario. I hope it is true

I am in complete agreement with everything you have written here. This is a clear-sighted precis of the recent history of the situation.

0 Replies

We are watching history being made right now, in the UN. I hope my country is listening with an open ear and mind.

0 Replies

I think you are sadly on the wrong end Kara of where the "thinking" happens.

0 Replies

More than a hundred posts since last i checked in, so hard to keep up . . .

I saw a photograph today of a man in desert fatigues, kissing his wife while his toddler daughter clung tightly to his leg. So many human tragedies, all so small, so insignificant in the counsels of the high and mighty. Here's a thought from an old Rolling Stone's song:

Say a prayer for the common foot soldier
Spare a thought for his back breaking work
Say a prayer for his wife and his children
Who burn the fires and who still till the earth

So much to lose, so little thought given, so little time left . . .

0 Replies

Quote:

For What It's Worth
~Buffalo Springfield

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound

0 Replies

Can we have less poetry please, it was never my strong point.

However

There was a young man from Baghdad
Who thought oil and gas was a fad...

now complete the limerick in 3 lines and win a prize from England

George. I agree with your analysis of US/Israel. There seems to me there is something unhealthy about it, but I don't know what exactly.

Tres w. Rather upset by your assumption that "I dont think much about Americans", because at the moment you get a little too close to the truth. The fact is every American I've met has been genuinely friendly and thoroughly decent individual. Perhaps my judgement about "Americans" is getting warped by extrapolation from the individuals in the news, to the reality of the people as a whole. Love and kisses on Valentine's day. S

0 Replies

In answer to some questions, above, I went looking for recent poll results in Spain on the war. Combed El Pais and Cambio16 and even Vanguardia and came up with nothing -- partly because one search engine was "on overload"..

However, UPI posted this info 40 minutes ago and I put it in here for your interest:

Europe braced for huge anti-war protests
By Gareth Harding
UPI Chief European Correspondent
Published 2/14/2003 12:36 PM

BRUSSELS, Belgium, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- Millions of Europeans are expected to take to the streets Saturday to protest the looming war in Iraq, in what is being billed as the continent's largest ever day of demonstrations. United for Peace and Justice, a U.S.-based campaign group, estimates that 603 anti-war protests have been organized across the globe, with over 200 taking place in European cities. Around 150,000 dissenters kicked off a weekend of worldwide protests in Melbourne, Australia Friday in the country's greatest anti-war rally since the Vietnam conflict 30 years ago. Marchers brandished placards proclaiming: "No Blood for Oil" and "Uncle Sam is a terrorist."

The largest demonstrations in Europe are forecast in Britain, Spain and Italy, where the ruling governments support the American military build-up in the Gulf. London is bracing itself for the biggest march in British history, with over half a million people expected to converge on Hyde Park for a star-studded rally. U.S. civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, playwright Harold Pinter and human rights campaigner Bianca Jagger are due to address the crowds. "Iraq is a challenge that must be put into perspective," Jackson told the British Broadcasting Corp. "It is not a priority that Bush and Blair have made it to be." Chris Nineham from the London-based Stop the War Coalition told United Press International: "What (U.S. President George W.) Bush and (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair are attempting to do is so unjustified that people's anger is understandable."

In Spain, where over 90 per cent of the population is opposed to a unilateral strike against Baghdad by the United States and its allies, all the major opposition parties and trade unions have joined forces to protest in over 50 cities. The largest demonstration is likely to take place in Barcelona, where up to half a million marchers are expected to voice their opposition to Prime Minister Jose-Maria Aznar's hard-line stance. Italy is also likely to witness massive protests, with hundreds of thousands of peace campaigners likely to hit the streets of the capital Rome Saturday. In France, Germany and Belgium, where ruling parties have called for more time for United Nations weapons inspectors and blocked NATO plans to protect Turkey in the case of a war with Iraq, the anti-war demonstrations are likely to be smaller and more muted. However, 50,000 protesters are due to march through Paris Saturday, with rallies anticipated in 50 other French cities. With opinion polls showing overwhelming opposition to war across the continent, Nineham says politicians have "lost touch" with the voters they are supposed to represent. "Blair and Bush are driven by different priorities than most people live their lives by. They have used the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States as a smokescreen to push for profits in parts of the world they see as rewarding for them."

0 Replies

The US, The UN and Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know