1
   

Old Story, may have some teeth after all! Check this out!

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 03:47 pm
You'll get many answers on the same intellectual level as those you'll get from American teenegers who supported the war.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:00 pm
Craven: My satellite connection is acting up today, or I'd have responded sooner. It was indeed a loaded question. You made my point by stating your own motivation for the statement, which had very little to do with "the justification for the invasion" and a whole lot more to do with precedence. I am sure that much of the world shares your resentment of the US's arrogant assumptions that it can do as it pleases, regardless of consensus. Could it then also be said that some of the opposition may have stemmed from this resentment? I have seen virtually nobody attempt to defend Saddam. I certainly wasn't serious about implying that you would.

My point is: if the members of the UN had put aside ALL of there political differences and power struggle fears; the fact remains that Saddam was a vicious tyrant that needed to be disposed of. Had the UN recognized this simple fact, and backed the invasion (or instigated it years ago); there would have been no flaunting of International Law and the UN (not the US) would be in control of the rebuilding process. It seems to me that the messenger here (the US) was as much a point of opposition as any evidence (or lack there of) or justification for the invasion.

My reasons for backing the war are completely non-partisan and further have nothing to do with world politics. I support any action that removes the likes of Saddam. I consider despots of his ilk a threat to HUMANITY and this consideration overshadows any concerns for World Politics or consensus. The fact is; the US does have an overwhelmingly powerful position and I think it's high time we use it for the good of mankind. I consider removing a tyrant like Saddam is a step in this direction.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:05 pm
Principles
"It was a flaunting of the very principles we hold others to.."

It seems that the concept of principles is extemely difficult for most people to relate to.

The main reason I was strongly against the invasion of Iraq was the concept of pre-emptive war. This concept opens up an extremely dangerous precedent. By the standard of the US Govt. to invade another sovereign country on the basis it did, it makes it legitimate for any country or countries to invade or attack the US or any other country.

That the UN could not prevent the US & UK from illegaly invading Iraq points to the weakness of the UN. There are many instances of a weak UN but that is another topic for another time.

In my view the presenty US Admin. has placed has placed itself in a position of utmost hypocracy and most nations of the world know this. The illegal invasion of Iraq and Occupation has placed that US in an "The ends justify the means" and "Might makes right" position. Is it any wonder that many nations view the US with contempt and disdain?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:07 pm
McGentrix wrote:
dlowan wrote:
You'd be surprised whoall has transistors! I am actually absolutley serious.

And what is this about under 18? Many young people are extremely passionate about politics - I, just as one example, was very aware of wars and politics from about 5 up - but teenagers are very aware.

However, be that as it may, do you two agree that a very large percentage of the world's population was against the war?

And NOT to protect a tyrant - to attempt to protect the delicate fabric of civilised international law and custom against a superpower at large with no balancing force left against its power, and using it to do what it wanted, based on obviously tissue paper excuses and outright lies.


So if I go down to the local Jr. high school and ask some random kids if and why they opposed the war, they are going to give an answer even resembling this? I seriously doubt it.

If I go to Liberia and ask some of the people there that have just been through a civil war if and why they opposed the war, what answer will they give?

If I go and ask an average teenager in Japan if and why they oppose the war, what answer will they give?

If I go to Brazil and take a boat ride up the amazon stopping and asking people if and why they opposed the war, what will they say?

If I go through the peasant farms in China asking people there if and why they opposed the Iraq war, what will they say?

If I go to a mosque in Palestine and ask some of the members of Hamas if and why they oppose the war, what will their answer be?

Do I need to keep going with this?


Lol - so - what is that saying, McGentrix?

What do people anywhere say when you ask them their reasons for things?

Aer you saying only American opinions are important?

Are you saying only well-educated opinions are important?

Only pro-war opinions are important?

What is the significance of your post?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:08 pm
Thank you Fbaezer - exactly - I was just about to post that, on the criteria used by the US, we should be invading you guys.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:29 pm
Re: Principles
pistoff wrote:
That the UN could not prevent the US & UK from illegaly invading Iraq points to the weakness of the UN. There are many instances of a weak UN but that is another topic for another time.
Actually, this is very much part of the topic and a fine time to discuss it. Had the UN acted against this much deserving tyrant; the question of pre-emption wouldn't have even come up. You recently admitted that if the UN were to overwhelmingly vote to force a regime change in North Korea, you would be in favor of it. Retrospectively, would this not have been true of Iraq?

I believe it is precisely the failure of the UN that has led it's most powerful member to act on it's own. It seems to me that most of the opposition were opposed simply because the UN didn't approve it. This makes the motivation for the UN's dissenting members a matter of utmost importance and very deserving of much scrutiny. Can we agree on that?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:37 pm
when flogging dead horses, its seems rude perhaps unreasonable, asking sitting juries attesting to the flogging to get on and ride the dead horse back to the stable.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:43 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I support any action that removes the likes of Saddam.


I don't think this is true. It certainly isn't true for me.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:51 pm
Not sure I follow you Dys. Rolling Eyes The article that re-opened the thread is dated today. If it's information proves accurate, a reference to a dead horse would not be. :wink: Do you have anything useful to add?

You are correct Craven. The statement was over-broad, but I think you understood me. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:53 pm
Yeah, and that's where it all boils down to for most anyone.

Removing Saddam is fine with most, the means is what's in dispute.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:57 pm
BTW, Bill, I'd not get too excited about the Safire op-ed column. I strongly doubt any of his implications will go anywhere outside of the realm of implication.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:06 pm
Excited I am not. I am encouraged that there is some press pointing towards examining the reasons for the UN's failure as opposed to bashing the US for picking up the slack. If "Removing Saddam is fine with most", than the failure of the UN to do so should be the bigger issue than it seems to be.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:10 pm
Bill; that comment doesn't seem to indicate much understanding of the UN.

How is it "failure" when the UN's will reflects that of the overwhelming majority of the world's citizens? They wanted Saddam gone but did not wish to use any means. Just as they wish for Bush to be gone but also do not support all means.

The US mounted a WMD casus beli. The UN entertained this. The US broke it off and went to war.

IMO what you want if for the UN to have served as a US rubber stamp, lending validation to our adventurism.

I understand very well the world's reluctance to play that servile role.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:16 pm
OCCAM BILL SAID
Quote:
"Do you have anything useful to add?"

mea culpa, but then the leap from concrete to formal operations is oft times an existential leap, not unlike locating a rainbow. It's not necessarily in the optic nerve nor is it afixed in the sky; it's most often a process of vision.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:36 pm
Logic
Yes, I did say that about N. Korea.

Hans Blix team were in Iraq and in my view should have been given at least six more months to inspect. The US Admin. would not wait against protests from many nations' govt.'s and their citiizens. Pre-emptive war in this case was wrong and I believe vilotated Intl. Law. Now that no WMDs have been found which was the justification the US & the UK and a few others have definetely violated Intl. Law.

That the US Pres.. joked about the search for WMDs is a great insult to those who have died and been wounded and are still dying and being wounded in this illegal invasion and occupation.

If there are no WMDs then what charge does the US have against Saddam and the members of his regime?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:41 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Bill; that comment doesn't seem to indicate much understanding of the UN.

How is it "failure" when the UN's will reflects that of the overwhelming majority of the world's citizens? They wanted Saddam gone but did not wish to use any means. Just as they wish for Bush to be gone but also do not support all means.
We'll never know if "the overwhelming majority of the world's citizens" would have opposed a UN instigated regime change in Iraq. I don't think they would have.

Craven de Kere wrote:
The US mounted a WMD casus beli. The UN entertained this. The US broke it off and went to war..
Bush's exaggerations probably did more damage than good. It's been widely reported that majority of the UN, like the US, thought Iraq possessed WMD. Only the urgency of the threat was seriously contended. Again, we'll never know how they'd have responded had the US not been the messenger... or had delivered a more honest message.

Craven de Kere wrote:
IMO what you want if for the UN to have served as a US rubber stamp, lending validation to our adventurism.
On the contrary: I would have preferred it had the UN not turned a blind eye to the 17 resolutions Saddam violated. That in my opinion is a failure. Empty threats are more dangerous than no threats at all.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I understand very well the world's reluctance to play that servile role. While that might seem "broke" to you, it doesn't to me.

But I'm willing to give your point of view a try. From now on, if my friends do not agree with me, I'm calling them broken.
LOL Craven... I'm new to this debating stuff... Is that what you would call a Strawman?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:54 pm
Craven: That's makes twice you've edited your posts in this thread, presumably to appear less inflammatory. I appreciate your concern, but I'm not made of glass. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:57 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
We'll never know if "the overwhelming majority of the world's citizens" would have opposed a UN instigated regime change in Iraq. I don't think they would have.


Aha, I was reading a different meaning and I'm inclined to agree with you.

Quote:
LOL Craven... I'm new to this debating stuff... Is that what you would call a Strawman?


Yes. Based on my initial misunderstanding of your point.

----

Now here's the kicker. The US opposes the only meachanism that has ever been proposed to deal with such a man as Saddam.

The truth is, that the world lacks a entity to deal with domestic abuse of power unless it is an ongoing humanitarian crisis.

At the times when Saddam was actively creating a human rights crisis the US supported him.

So once he calmed down a bit it's hard to make a case for intervention, absent entities and mechanisms to do so.

The ICC was formed to try war crimes when the host nation is unwilling or unable to do so.

But the US so fears the leveling of power that is a judicial system that we vehemently oppose it. That would have been the perfect place to seek grounds for regime change under humanitarian reasons.

So when you fault the UN, make sure to fault the big guys like Russia and the US, who make sure to deny the UN enough power.

A judicial system is an equalizer. Those who are in power do not seek a level playing field.

So the US wants to both deny a judicial entity to deal with the types like Saddam AND act as the cop.

IF you want the end of such madmen, how about supporting the ICC and helping to make it an entity that addresses such situations?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:58 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Craven: That's makes twice you've edited your posts in this thread, presumably to appear less inflammatory. I appreciate your concern, but I'm not made of glass. :wink:


Actually, it wasn't to make it less inflammatory, but because I haven't slept in a while and read your posts incorrectly.

For e.g. I quoted "broken" then didn't see you having used the word so I removed it.

I'm gonna go home and collapse soon. "I see missing words"
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 06:11 pm
The Rule of Law
If the law is flaunted or outright ignored then there is fault.
No matter what the reasoning of the US Admin. was for invading Iraq and occupying it, the law was broken.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2019 at 01:07:06