The US, The UN and Iraq

So, we should have ignored the Iraqi invasion and preparations for invasion of Saudi Arabia? Those are the American deaths we are speaking of, aren't they. We will probably continue to differ on this one.

BillW, I am not talking about "isolationism." I am talking about our tendency to go to war with countries that seems to have huge oil reserves, and usually nothing else of value to the US. Why aren't we stopping the war in Israel with our 'military might?' Why aren't we going to war with either Pakistan or India? Why aren't we going to war with the protestants or catholics in Ireland? Why aren't we going to war with the war factions in Africa? Some or all of these countries are responsible for the death of Americans. I just don't get it, I suppose. c.i.

roger, Why are Americans in Kuwait, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia? Is Saddam a threat to the US? Does Saddam have ballistic missiles that will reach the US with his WOMD? If he produces one or two missiles with WOMD, and uses them against the US, how long afteward do you think Baghdad will exist on the face of this planet? c.i.

Even in this country, you can't be prosecuted for 'criminal thoughts.' It must be acted upon, except for some very specific verbal or written threats against the president, as an example.
c.i.

Definitions from the Cambridge International dictionary of English

Psychopath: In psychology a psychopath is--a person who continuously gets into trouble with society, has no feeling for other people, does not think about the future and does not feel bad about anything they have done in the past.

Sociopath: A person who is completely unable or unwilling to behave in a way that is acceptable to society.

As a capitalist at heart, I do not believe in economic isolation. c.i.

Perception- The terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" has been superceded by the term "Antisocial Personality Disorder." Here is a definition as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV of the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM-IV is THE reference used by mental health professionals when diagnosing a patient:

Link to DSM-IV Definition of "Antisocial Personality Disorder

C.i. your follow up question indicates you do not believe we should have participated in the Gulf War. If that is the case, it is natural you should believe we should not be prepared for the next - if in fact it happens. As I say, we disagree.

Well no, you cannot be prosecuted for criminal thoughts, especially in this country. You can, however, be prosecuted for possession of illegal weapons (full automatic weapons, firearms in possession of convicted felons, etc) and destructive devices, including explosives. I think this is a tighter analogy.

Just in case anyone would like a few facts to go along with their opinions, the text of the UN resolution that will determine whether we go to war or not is provided below.

Para 4 deals with "Material Breach".

Para 8 deals with "threats or acts of violence against member nations" which might eventually be used in regard to the constant "firing upon US and UK aircraft" which has been brought up in this discussion.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/index.html

Good link, perception. Would you consider posting it into the Political Links thread?

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1245

If you haven't been there yet, take a look. Some of the ones we have might save a google search someday.

perception

Thank you very much for the text.

This is not a text I disagree with. Removing Sadaam is also, in a moral sense, not a plan I disagree with.

But Israel is also in violation of a number of UN resolutions. That we pick and choose which UN resolutions to enforce undercuts the justification for this case.

That the US refuses to place itself under the same constraints and rules as everyone else (World Court) undercuts the legal rationale for the US pontifications about 'bringing evil doers to justice' - fine, so long as it's not us.

You could also characterize Saddam as a cold, calculating meglomaniac but trying to peg him is very nearly impossible. Leaders order their military to perform a mission and have had it turn into a nightmare often because of decisions made down the line but that doesn't excuse the leader from responsibility. Using gas against inferior forces is certainly a cowardly act but it also brings up the spectre of a lot of other conflicts, not just Saddam's act against the Kurds. If it was so terrible to our government then, why is it just now being brought up as a back up for invasion? Suppositions that he is a psycopath/sociopath or an APD (whichever you prefer) can be supposed but if too many suppositions are introduced into a debate, it falls apart. I suggest sticking to what he has done not try to psychoanalize him. Maybe he's like Tony Soprano and is visiting his own private psychiatrist. If one weren't so obligated to take this seriously, one could take it as a comedy. True, one that could end up being a tragi-comedy of what happens when nationalism goes berserk.

This thread is listed among the credits of threads I have started. I don't know how it got that way. I only posted here three times early on and have never read any of the follow-up. Oh, well; carry on, troops.

I'd say Saddam is more cunning than smart. Invading Iran and Kuwait seem like anything but smart moves. I think Saddam is going to outsmart himself playing the shell game with his WMDs for the inspectors. That wily old poker player Bush has a couple wild cards in his hand he hasn't shown yet. Saddam is likely to be embarassed by a sudden revelation of the location of his weapons.

Citing world opinion as a reason to invade or not to invade Iraq is fallacious reasoning, specifically an ad populem argument. The popularity of a decisions does not correlate to its moral quality or necessity. Even if it was popular the world over for America to wait for to be nuked before it took action, it would be a bad decision to do so.

Tantor

tantor

You'd be correct to label CI's statement as ad populem if he were using this claim as a reason why not to go to war. But he is using it as an example of Sadaam's facility at PR.

"Waiting for America to be nuked by Iraq" is a straw man argument. A team of Canadian hockey players capturing Bush and replacing his fillings is about as likely a possibility.

Tantor, I don't see any public demonstrations that supports Bush's war with Iraq. I see just the opposite. "Cunning and smart," are only adjectives which are both correct depending on who's using the words. When you talk about "moral quality," we must be damn sure what Bush plans to do has the moral backing of the world community. If we don't stick with the moral high ground, our long term prospects for alliances are going to be short lived, and we will be battling future wars alone. c.i.

Sorry about that, edgarblythe. Chronologically, a discussion was started by Walter, questioning either why there was no anti-war protests, or why they weren't getting media coverage. After something like two responses, it went off in an unexpected direction and the discussion was split. Your discussion seemed more appropriate than starting a separate topic.

If it offends, it could probably be split again, but might cause confusion at this late date. What's your preference?

Cunning -- a good adjective for the majority of our politicians.

Cicerone, Iraq is building a nuke that it will put to evil purposes, threatening America, its assets, and our allies. If you think Saddam does evil now, just wait until he is defended by a nuke and can act without restraint.

I'd say it makes much more sense to fight over something than to fight over nothing. The oil supply in the Middle East directly affects our freedom. The more expensive oil becomes, the less freedom we have to hop in our cars and go where we please, the more expensive it becomes for trucks to haul goods to us, the harder it becomes to run businesses. Oil makes all things go. That's why we don't want to have some evil dictator taking over a significant portion of the oil supply and jerking us around.

By contrast, we have no dog in the fight between Pakistan and India. Personally, I'm rooting for India but the US has no interest in fighting their fight for them. Likewise, the bloodshed between Irish Catholics and Protestants does not affect American interests. We have no interest in fighting African tribal wars for them, either. It is odd that you suggest that we should be jumping into foreign fights everywhere on the globe.

Tantor