1
   

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

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 07:01 pm
Get some sleep Craven!

I see your point about the ICC, but I don't think you're giving proper blame to the Security Counsel for failing to enforce their own resolutions. Surely they had the legitimate authority (and duty IMO) to implement their own resolutions prior to the US crying foul! The US's backing of Saddam while he was at his worst in no way excuses his actions nor erases the memory of same. It is a black eye on the international community as well as the US, IMO, that it took an eye-opening event like 9-11; to open our eyes to the inherent dangers of allowing a regime like that of Saddam's to continue after so many violations had taken place. I further find it despicable that the international community was more concerned with who blew the whistle than why.

If Saddam's regime's demise is considered a good thing by most, than that same "most" should have joined forces to accomplish it. I've maintained since before the war that most leaders agreed he had to go, but figured why spend the money, the troops and risk the terrorist backlash; if the Americans were going to do it anyway. Bush's announcement that he was going to do it regardless of what the UN said; is , IMO, his biggest failure in diplomacy yet. A better diplomat may well have attracted the cooperation of the international community. All that notwithstanding, it was still "work that needed to be done". A lot more "work" needs to be done.

As for future Global Military police work: I think it is unrealistic to expect the country that will no doubt carry the largest portion of the burden of expenses and implementation to accept a voice no larger than that of countries who will carry the least. I wouldn't expect the US to sign on the dotted line until such time as the international community agrees to pay a fair share of the costs of implementation. American Dollars built this military monster, and I think it's reasonable to expect compensation for its use if you want us to yield control of it. I think the UN would find the US wide open to acting in a "mercenary for hire" role, so to speak. Of course, ultimately, he who holds the gun will always have the final say.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 07:10 pm
Re: The Rule of Law
pistoff wrote:
If there are no WMD's then what charge does the US have against Saddam and the members of his regime?
As you well know; this is where my politics separate from the current administration (and most everyone else's, lol) and are forced to stand on there own. Saddam needed removal for the sake of HUMANS. I believe the world, not just the US, should have recognized this as their duty to mankind. Of course, as the world's most powerful nation, I believe the US carries a bigger share of this burden.
pistoff wrote:
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.
You have a point here… But I offer that it can be considered permissible to violate a law to prevent the ongoing commission of a crime. Example: Person A strikes Person B on the back of the head with his cane to stop him from continuing the rape of Person C. Person A committed a crime, but would never be found guilty by any jury I sat on. :wink:
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 07:13 pm
An Impass
Most of us here agree that Saddam and his Regime were terrible and needed to be deposed. It's the means that are in dispute also the poor if no planning for the cessation of major hostility. The ends are not yet evidenced either.

What was the huge rush to war? Why was inspection not given more time? Hans Blix would have come up with the same conclusion as David Kaye did.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 07:37 pm
A. No one knew that we would find no WMD. Most everyone in the world thought we'd at least find Chemical Weapons.
B. Failure to find WMD in no way excuses Saddam for violating 17 resolutions.
C. Saddam waited until he was completely surrounded before feigning cooperation by destroying some illegal by design Al Samoud II weapons.
D. Since Saddam was an evil tyrant, with such a long history of violations; he presented a perfect opportunity to set an example in the "post 9-11 era" that we are done playing with monsters.
E. A decade long "Dog and Pony show" had already provided him with more than ample opportunity to comply. His removal was WAY overdue.

Would you really have preferred that Blix gave him the Green light to continue his evil? Since you agree he needed removal; shouldn't you be at least as peeved at the UN for their inaction as you are at the US for their actions? Had the UN did their job, the US wouldn't have had to, and then wouldn't we both be content? :wink:
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 07:43 pm
Agree about the UN
Yes, the UN should have done their job. Same thing regarding Israel who has ignored about 12 UN Resolutions..
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 07:53 pm
dlowan wrote:
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?


My point was to contend with the remark about 80+% of the world decrying the US invading Iraq. I doubt 50% even gives a *edit* crap.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 02:29 am
Re: Agree about the UN
pistoff wrote:
Yes, the UN should have done their job. Same thing regarding Israel who has ignored about 12 UN Resolutions..
Shocked Pistoff, that's twice you've surprised me in as many days. The political divide between us seems to be shrinking. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Camille
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 07:45 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
A. No one knew that we would find no WMD. Most everyone in the world thought we'd at least find Chemical Weapons.
B. Failure to find WMD in no way excuses Saddam for violating 17 resolutions.
C. Saddam waited until he was completely surrounded before feigning cooperation by destroying some illegal by design Al Samoud II weapons.
D. Since Saddam was an evil tyrant, with such a long history of violations; he presented a perfect opportunity to set an example in the "post 9-11 era" that we are done playing with monsters.
E. A decade long "Dog and Pony show" had already provided him with more than ample opportunity to comply. His removal was WAY overdue.

Would you really have preferred that Blix gave him the Green light to continue his evil? Since you agree he needed removal; shouldn't you be at least as peeved at the UN for their inaction as you are at the US for their actions? Had the UN did their job, the US wouldn't have had to, and then wouldn't we both be content? :wink:


This doesn't compute. If he didn't have WMD, what evil (that was an imminent threat to the US) was Blix allowing him to continue? There are many evil tyrants in the world, many a lot closer to home.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 10:47 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:

I see your point about the ICC, but I don't think you're giving proper blame to the Security Counsel for failing to enforce their own resolutions. Surely they had the legitimate authority (and duty IMO) to implement their own resolutions prior to the US crying foul!


The US is the biggest part of the Security Council, so it's odd to suggest the Security Council didn't act.

And furthermore, the resolutions wre complied with for the most part. Far more than Israel has complied with the resolutions against them.

Do you fault the Security Council for not upholding Israel to the resolutions they have been in breach of (and in breach for several times longer than Iraq ever was)?

Quote:
The US's backing of Saddam while he was at his worst in no way excuses his actions nor erases the memory of same. It is a black eye on the international community as well as the US, IMO, that it took an eye-opening event like 9-11; to open our eyes to the inherent dangers of allowing a regime like that of Saddam's to continue after so many violations had taken place. I further find it despicable that the international community was more concerned with who blew the whistle than why.


I don't think 9/11 opened any eyes in regard to Iraq. I think it just gave political capital for the military adventurism the administration would have wanted anyway.

I also do not think the fact that America "blew the whistle" was a facto as much as the fact that many did not believe the whistle, thought it was a lie and said so.

Your comments continue to assume that the world thought invading Iraq was a good thing.

Quote:
If Saddam's regime's demise is considered a good thing by most, than that same "most" should have joined forces to accomplish it.


This is a false premise that once again conflates end to "any means".

Here's an intentionally absurd logical statement to help illustrate it:

"If everyone likes sex, they should have joined us in raping the woman."

Quote:
I've maintained since before the war that most leaders agreed he had to go, but figured why spend the money, the troops and risk the terrorist backlash; if the Americans were going to do it anyway.


They were very clear that their objections were not of this variety. It was more along the lines of: "There are many world leaders we may not like but when the criteria for going over and toppling governments is fecklessly invoked world security is undermined."

Many currently think Bush has got to go, but do not support toppling his government either.

Quote:
Bush's announcement that he was going to do it regardless of what the UN said; is , IMO, his biggest failure in diplomacy yet. A better diplomat may well have attracted the cooperation of the international community.


It was just one in a long series. Bush should have muzzled Rumsfeld as the man was intentionally trying to undermine diplomacy at all.

He repeatedly called the UN a "danger" and a "diversion" and made very clear to the world that he thought it shouldn't have ever gone there.

The world's rejection of our plan was as much a rejection of the way Rumsfeld and co saw the UN as anything else.

The choice presented to the UN was pretty much: "be insignificant".

The threat was that if they did not rubber stamp our war they would be rendered insignificant through being circumvented, but to put that threat to them is already to assert their insignificance in our eyes.

Yes, clearly saying we'd go to war anyway was a big mistake. It was calculated to try to make them sign on and accept the war but showed a lack of understanding of how geopolitics work.

I was very surprised that this administration thought that ultimatum would work.

Quote:
As for future Global Military police work: I think it is unrealistic to expect the country that will no doubt carry the largest portion of the burden of expenses and implementation to accept a voice no larger than that of countries who will carry the least.


And others think it simply unjust for Americans to think they should have more say because we have more money and guns.

Quote:
I wouldn't expect the US to sign on the dotted line until such time as the international community agrees to pay a fair share of the costs of implementation.


This is a bid of an ignorant comment. The US is the one who frequently does not pay a fair share of UN dues. Our adventurism doesn't count. If you are saying, for example, taht you expect everyone to pay a "fair share" of the cost when we decide to invade a nation against the will of the whole world I will have to disagree.

The notion that the world does not pay a "fair share" is absurd on its face.

In the first gulf war the wrold paid their share and ours and a bit for profit. YEs, the US came out witha profit from that war.

When they support something, they pay. Germany and Japan especially because they are economic powers committed to not having militaries.

So I'm not sure what the heck you mean by paying a "fair share". Do you mean things like paying UN dues? Or funding our military acts that they disagree with?

Quote:
American Dollars built this military monster, and I think it's reasonable to expect compensation for its use if you want us to yield control of it.


Nobody expects America to yeild control. They simply expect America to act within the boundaries of international standards.

Quote:
I think the UN would find the US wide open to acting in a "mercenary for hire" role, so to speak. Of course, ultimately, he who holds the gun will always have the final say.


I disagree. The US fears this more than anything else. The opposition to the ICC is opposition to a global standard of justice.

Our hawks want to heed no court and also want no court to even exist that might paint one of our military acts in a bad light.

Furthermore what we think is reasonable military spending is what the rest of the world together spends. They would be very happy with far less militarism and military strikes. So this will never work.

America will want war (while finding reasons to call it justified, of course) more so than all the world put together and we will not mind paying for it as it helps us keep a stranglehold on the globe.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 10:59 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
A. No one knew that we would find no WMD. Most everyone in the world thought we'd at least find Chemical Weapons.


This is misleading. Many strongly doubted the WMDs. Furthermore the overwhelming majority of the world did not think chemical weapons worth invading for unless they were advanced and well weaponized.

All of us have "chemical weapons" in our homes. Most nations did not expect chemical weapons that posed a viable threat to be found but did expect some chemicals here and there. And these have been found, they pose no significant threat and are thusly not being touted by the US.

Quote:
B. Failure to find WMD in no way excuses Saddam for violating 17 resolutions.


America has no right to determine what is and is not a violation. You can't cite a UN resolution using your own individual interpretation of it.

You can't use the UN as a means to make legitimate your act while flouting the UN itself.

IF you want to ignore the UN's wishes, you can't just arbitrarily decide to interpret their resolutiont to your whim AND invoke the UN to justify the act that is trying to circumvent them.

Quote:
C. Saddam waited until he was completely surrounded before feigning cooperation by destroying some illegal by design Al Samoud II weapons.


Those weapons were not a threat, and were "illegal" by such a small measure that we didn't even see fit to tout them to our ignorant public.

Quote:
D. Since Saddam was an evil tyrant, with such a long history of violations; he presented a perfect opportunity to set an example in the "post 9-11 era" that we are done playing with monsters.


Since America is a warmongering country and the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war there is ample cause to invade the US.

Since Israel has a long history of brutality and illegal occupation Israel should be invaded.

It's easy to make up a casus beli. I happen to agree about Saddam but posit the above examples to show that it's damn easy to call someone a bad guy.

Invading nations must be based on a better criteria.

Quote:
E. A decade long "Dog and Pony show" had already provided him with more than ample opportunity to comply. His removal was WAY overdue.


He had complied. Calling ti a "dog and pony show" does in no way change this.

Quote:
Would you really have preferred that Blix gave him the Green light to continue his evil?


This is laughable Bill, now we invoke "evil". This kind of simplistic thinking has no place in geopolitics. You can't justify invasions with invocations of "bad guy" and "evil".

You seem to want it to work like this:

1) Call them a "bad guy"
2) Call them "evil"
3) Invade

Now while they might be "bad guys" it can't be so simple as simply saying so. That's why there are mechanisms in place like the UN. So that feckless characterizations are not used as justification for military adventurism.

Many people think Bush is a "bad guy".

Quote:
Since you agree he needed removal; shouldn't you be at least as peeved at the UN for their inaction as you are at the US for their actions?


No. I want Bush's removal as well. Should I also be peeved that the UN doesn't authorize an invasion?

Quote:
Had the UN did their job, the US wouldn't have had to, and then wouldn't we both be content? :wink:


This is based on the absurd premises that the UN's job is what you say it is and that the US's job is to topple governments we don't like.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 11:35 am
There are ominous rumblings among the American and European press that the U.N. may have a major public relations crisis re Iraq on its hands in the near future. If the allegations are true, I wonder then how many 'anybody but Bush' people will still think the U.N. should have should have given their approval before we did anything about Iraq?

As far as WMD are concerned, David Kay finally had to admit he was wrong. But he was crystal clear in his testimony that when he and his team went into Iraq, they believed the WMD were there. Virtually every American ally, every member of the previous administration, the current administration, and Congress believed they were there. Even up to late 2003, David Kay was confident they would be found.

"WASHINGTON -- Former international weapons inspector David Kay, now seeking Iraqi weapons of mass destruction for the Pentagon, has privately reported successes that are planned to be revealed to the public in mid-September."

David Kay's testimony also strongly suggested that delay in action against Iraq gave Saddam ample time to move or hide much evidence while he stonewalled the inspectors.

The loyal opposition can legitimately question whether we should have invaded Iraq for whatever reason. Arguments would be much more credible, however, if they were based on thoughtful reason and ideology rather than what appears to be the actual purpose which is to bring down the current administration.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 05:39 pm
Damn craven! I know you don't care for imbedded quotes… but how else could I possibly respond to your grocery list of complaints? LOL I think I'll try to teach you a lesson, Joefromchicago style. Disclaimer: Don't expect me to be half as good as he is. I only said try! :wink:

Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:

I see your point about the ICC, but I don't think you're giving proper blame to the Security Counsel for failing to enforce their own resolutions. Surely they had the legitimate authority (and duty IMO) to implement their own resolutions prior to the US crying foul!


The US is the biggest part of the Security Council, so it's odd to suggest the Security Council didn't act.
Not really. If our "biggest part" provided additional authority like you seem to be implying, we'd have had no trouble at all obtaining "permission", would we? Idea

Craven de Kere wrote:
And furthermore, the resolutions wre complied with for the most part.
"For the most part", is not what the resolutions called for. I recall you admitting in the past that while you think Saddam had reason to violate, he nonetheless had an obligation not to. The fact is; he did violate.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Far more than Israel has complied with the resolutions against them.
I don't recall ever have said otherwise.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Do you fault the Security Council for not upholding Israel to the resolutions they have been in breach of (and in breach for several times longer than Iraq ever was)?
You bet I do. Laws mean nothing without law enforcement. You have provided yet another example of the UN's impotence.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
The US's backing of Saddam while he was at his worst in no way excuses his actions nor erases the memory of same. It is a black eye on the international community as well as the US, IMO, that it took an eye-opening event like 9-11; to open our eyes to the inherent dangers of allowing a regime like that of Saddam's to continue after so many violations had taken place. I further find it despicable that the international community was more concerned with who blew the whistle than why.


I don't think 9/11 opened any eyes in regard to Iraq.
You are certainly free to disagree with this opinion. Did you by any chance hear or read Tony Blair's recent speech? It rang pretty true to me.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I think it just gave political capital for the military adventurism the administration would have wanted anyway.
That's a rather popular opinion around here. Frankly, I don't even care if it is accurate. I had long thought Clinton was sleeping at the wheel and believe if Bush would have announced the intention the day he took office, I would considered it overdue and applauded the decision.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I also do not think the fact that America "blew the whistle" was a facto as much as the fact that many did not believe the whistle, thought it was a lie and said so.
I agree that they pointed out the lies and exaggerations, but I could easily furnish plenty of sources that show most of the world community believing Iraq possessed some WMD. I know you know this, so I won't bother. I don't know why you're pretending you don't. Rolling Eyes

Craven de Kere wrote:
Your comments continue to assume that the world thought invading Iraq was a good thing.
No; I'm continuing to assume that the world thought ending Saddam's oppressive reign was a good thing. This is NOT the same thing nor are all opinions consistent on the two (if memory serves, even your own). Again there are plenty of sources that suggest this… but the opinion is rather subjective anyway.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
If Saddam's regime's demise is considered a good thing by most, than that same "most" should have joined forces to accomplish it.


This is a false premise that once again conflates end to "any means".
Read the sentence again Craven. Your interpretation is way off. Surely Bush was open to hearing other strategies (means) to removing the Tyrant.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Here's an intentionally absurd logical statement to help illustrate it:

"If everyone likes sex, they should have joined us in raping the woman."
You've succeeded in illustrating an absurd Strawman, nothing more. Had the world community united via the UN to bring about the regime change, the action would have been squeaky-clean legal. Further; I'd say a fair amount of the Anti-war crowd would have changed sides… even some of the most dedicated opponents (like Pistoff and Hobit)(don't make me quote you guys). Your Strawman compares a legal police action to a heinous crime. Rolling Eyes Please.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
I've maintained since before the war that most leaders agreed he had to go, but figured why spend the money, the troops and risk the terrorist backlash; if the Americans were going to do it anyway.
They were very clear that their objections were not of this variety.
I see. Are you suggesting that their stated objections are mandatorily genuine? Many people are "very clear" without necessarily being honest.

Craven de Kere wrote:
It was more along the lines of: "There are many world leaders we may not like but when the criteria for going over and toppling governments is fecklessly invoked world security is undermined."
Paraphrasing your opinion of what the consensus was constitutes no proof that my opinion is wrong or that yours is correct.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Many currently think Bush has got to go, but do not support toppling his government either.
You seem to fancy this irrelevant nonsense. I'm not aware of any organization (outside of this country) with the means or the authority do such a thing. I don't think you could have said that about Saddam.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Bush's announcement that he was going to do it regardless of what the UN said; is , IMO, his biggest failure in diplomacy yet. A better diplomat may well have attracted the cooperation of the international community.

It was just one in a long series. Bush should have muzzled Rumsfeld as the man was intentionally trying to undermine diplomacy at all.
He repeatedly called the UN a "danger" and a "diversion" and made very clear to the world that he thought it shouldn't have ever gone there.
Here we agree, but only in the poor choice of speakers and tactless delivery by same. I don't completely disagree with the assessment of the impotent UN's slow-motion mechanics and the all-bark-no-bite performances that the Saddam's of the world could practically rely on.

Craven de Kere wrote:
The world's rejection of our plan was as much a rejection of the way Rumsfeld and co saw the UN as anything else.
Yep. Wrong guy. Wrong strategy.

Craven de Kere wrote:
The choice presented to the UN was pretty much: "be insignificant".
I don't think you can hold the UN completely blameless. Their repeated failure to enforce their own resolutions was certainly making them appear insignificant in more than a few eyes.

Craven de Kere wrote:
The threat was that if they did not rubber stamp our war they would be rendered insignificant through being circumvented, but to put that threat to them is already to assert their insignificance in our eyes.
Yep. And ultimately they demonstrated once again how insignificant they can be. Unlike you; I will not look past the fact that they let Saddam dictate terms to them, abuse the oil for food program and eventually kick them out of Iraq with hardly a Boo! This "unilateral" or "illegal" (pick your own) action could never have come up if they'd have enforced their own resolutions in the first place. Idea

Craven de Kere wrote:
Yes, clearly saying we'd go to war anyway was a big mistake. It was calculated to try to make them sign on and accept the war but showed a lack of understanding of how geopolitics work.
Total agreement.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I was very surprised that this administration thought that ultimatum would work.
Me too. But after they'd already shot off their mouths to the four corners of the world… what did they have to lose?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
As for future Global Military police work: I think it is unrealistic to expect the country that will no doubt carry the largest portion of the burden of expenses and implementation to accept a voice no larger than that of countries who will carry the least.
And others think it simply unjust for Americans to think they should have more say because we have more money and guns.
If it is our money and our guns to be ordered around, there is no way around it.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
I wouldn't expect the US to sign on the dotted line until such time as the international community agrees to pay a fair share of the costs of implementation.
This is a bid of an ignorant comment. The US is the one who frequently does not pay a fair share of UN dues. Our adventurism doesn't count.
Not every action can or should be labeled as adventurism.

Craven de Kere wrote:
If you are saying, for example, taht you expect everyone to pay a "fair share" of the cost when we decide to invade a nation against the will of the whole world I will have to disagree.
LOL. I'll not defend statements I haven't made. Smile
Craven de Kere wrote:
The notion that the world does not pay a "fair share" is absurd on its face.
Really? Confused

Craven de Kere wrote:
In the first gulf war the wrold paid their share and ours and a bit for profit. YEs, the US came out witha profit from that war.
No, sorry, but you are wrong again. Our allies kicked back 88% of our costs, leaving $7,000,000,000 for the American tax payer to pay. I wouldn't define this as a "profit", but I'll grant you its peanuts compared new our new war. Sad

Craven de Kere wrote:
So I'm not sure what the heck you mean by paying a "fair share". Do you mean things like paying UN dues? Or funding our military acts that they disagree with?
I'm still not defending ridiculous statements that I haven't made. Are you still sick or something? I meant what I said in the first place. We'll likely not take many directions from anyone unless we feel we're being justly compansated.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
American Dollars built this military monster, and I think it's reasonable to expect compensation for its use if you want us to yield control of it.
Nobody expects America to yeild control. They simply expect America to act within the boundaries of international standards.
Earlier in this rant you pointed out that the US is the biggest member of the Security Council. Then you complained that we expect authority commensurate with our contribution. Now you are suggesting that nobody expects the US to yield control. You are all over the place dude. Perhaps you cut my posts into too many pieces to keep track of?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
I think the UN would find the US wide open to acting in a "mercenary for hire" role, so to speak. Of course, ultimately, he who holds the gun will always have the final say.
I disagree. The US fears this more than anything else. The opposition to the ICC is opposition to a global standard of justice.
Not necessarily. Is it possible, just possible, that the US simply doesn't want to ever have to explain to a soldier's mother (not to mention the press) that one of her sons or daughters is being held for trial in another country for doing the work the UN asked him/her to do? This is a tough one for me too. You know how I feel about human rights abuses… but at the same time; when you consider the US does the lion's share of the Ass-kicking, then you have to also consider they'd run the biggest risk of having a soldier wrongfully accused. I'm sure you can imagine the diplomatic nightmare that would be.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Our hawks want to heed no court and also want no court to even exist that might paint one of our military acts in a bad light.
True enough… but didn't the majority of our change requests specify actions with UN Sanction?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Furthermore what we think is reasonable military spending is what the rest of the world together spends. They would be very happy with far less militarism and military strikes. So this will never work.
You are probably right about that but then "they" seem content to watch N Korea starve it's citizens to death by the millions while Kim builds WMDs to threaten his neighbors with, too.

Craven de Kere wrote:
America will want war (while finding reasons to call it justified, of course) more so than all the world put together and we will not mind paying for it as it helps us keep a stranglehold on the globe.
Are you doing everything South-Paw today? Who was it that accused you of being a Centrist anyway?

Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
A. No one knew that we would find no WMD. Most everyone in the world thought we'd at least find Chemical Weapons.


This is misleading. Many strongly doubted the WMDs. Furthermore the overwhelming majority of the world did not think chemical weapons worth invading for unless they were advanced and well weaponized.
All of us have "chemical weapons" in our homes. Most nations did not expect chemical weapons that posed a viable threat to be found but did expect some chemicals here and there. And these have been found, they pose no significant threat and are thusly not being touted by the US.
Tell me if I got this one right: you are being intellectually dishonest. You know damn well that most of the world thought we'd "at least find Chemical Weapons". Hell, with your memory, you could probably source the fact in seconds. Your assertion that "the majority of the world did not think chemical weapons worth invading for" does absolutely nothing to dispute the validity of my claim. Said claim remains a valid, honest answer to Pistoff's questions.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
B. Failure to find WMD in no way excuses Saddam for violating 17 resolutions.

America has no right to determine what is and is not a violation. You can't cite a UN resolution using your own individual interpretation of it.
Yes, I can. The fact that he is so overwhelmingly guilty of violations had to have figured in to Bush's assumption that he could get away with what he's done. As for me, like I said before, I think it was long overdue. Anyway, it is certainly a reasonable answer to list, to answer Pistoff's questions.

Craven de Kere wrote:
You can't use the UN as a means to make legitimate your act while flouting the UN itself.

IF you want to ignore the UN's wishes, you can't just arbitrarily decide to interpret their resolutiont to your whim AND invoke the UN to justify the act that is trying to circumvent them.
ALL of the evidence would appear to be to the contrary now wouldn't it?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
C. Saddam waited until he was completely surrounded before feigning cooperation by destroying some illegal by design Al Samoud II weapons.


Those weapons were not a threat, and were "illegal" by such a small measure that we didn't even see fit to tout them to our ignorant public.
Then just how did I learn of the fact that they were designed and built with an illegal engine diameter size? Have you mistaken me for an insider? Shocked Or an expert? Laughing Anywhy, the operative words in the sentence were "feigning cooperation". At the same time he was doing this, he was also secretly trying to purchase 2-stage Rodong ICBM technology from N. Korea… and may have succeeded if we'd of packed up our tents. Another valid answer to Pistoff's questions.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
D. Since Saddam was an evil tyrant, with such a long history of violations; he presented a perfect opportunity to set an example in the "post 9-11 era" that we are done playing with monsters.


Since America is a warmongering country and the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war there is ample cause to invade the US.
As if anyone is capable. This tired comparison couldn't be less valid or more preposterous. It also does nothing to invalidate my answer to Pistoff's question.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Since Israel has a long history of brutality and illegal occupation Israel should be invaded.
Perhaps… but I'm not sure how this figures into the current equation. I believe Israel was the recipient of suicide bombs, not the $25,000 reward paid to the families of the terrorists by Saddam. Idea

Craven de Kere wrote:
It's easy to make up a casus beli. I happen to agree about Saddam but posit the above examples to show that it's damn easy to call someone a bad guy.
Interesting technique, but the answers remain probable reasoning in answer to Pistoff's questions.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Invading nations must be based on a better criteria.
Again, I'll point out that all of the available evidence seems to point to the contrary.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
E. A decade long "Dog and Pony show" had already provided him with more than ample opportunity to comply. His removal was WAY overdue.
He had complied. Calling ti a "dog and pony show" does in no way change this.
Shocked Surely you jest. Laughing Or you must be running a fever of 103… CHECK IT RIGHT NOW!… I'll wait... I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they thought he complied before. And that "anyone" list includes YOU Craven. When you come out of your delirium I'll be happy to provide you as many sources as you wish. (like you haven't already read hundreds if not thousands of them Rolling Eyes ).

That makes 5 for 5 answers to Pistoff's questions that you've done nothing to disprove. Which is pretty scary since they are rather subjective in the first place. What's motivating you here boss? Confused

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Would you really have preferred that Blix gave him the Green light to continue his evil?
This is laughable Bill, now we invoke "evil".
This kind of simplistic thinking has no place in geopolitics. You can't justify invasions with invocations of "bad guy" and "evil".
Actually your response is what's laughable Craven. Do I now, or have I ever struck you as someone trying to justify a war with invocations of "bad guy" and "evil"? Could you not accurately fill a page with my personal reasons for backing this war? I'd bet you could and be spot on about it too. Considering there have been no WMDs found; I'd wager even money a green light is precisely what Saddam would have got. Disagree all you want with my politics, but you know damn well WMDs were not my primary concern. My question was an honest one, to someone who's been honest about whether or not they think Saddam's demise is a good thing, despite his opposition to the war. Something you didn't seem to have any trouble doing before today. Rolling Eyes

Craven de Kere wrote:
You seem to want it to work like this:

1) Call them a "bad guy"
2) Call them "evil"
3) Invade
this has gone well beyond silly Craven. Confused Do you dispute items 1) and 2)? Would you like a link for that too? LOL Or perhaps you seriously think that's the way I "want it to work".

Craven de Kere wrote:
Now while they might be "bad guys" it can't be so simple as simply saying so. That's why there are mechanisms in place like the UN. So that feckless characterizations are not used as justification for military adventurism.
Shocked Good god man; are you really going to try to contend that Saddam only "might be a bad guy" now? Who do you think you are, Joefromchicago? :wink:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Many people think Bush is a "bad guy".
I think I got, and answered, that at least a couple of times already in this grocery list.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Since you agree he needed removal; shouldn't you be at least as peeved at the UN for their inaction as you are at the US for their actions?
No. I want Bush's removal as well. Should I also be peeved that the UN doesn't authorize an invasion?
Again? Rolling Eyes Did you miss the part where the person I asked this question to (a person I used to consider a little further to the left, and frankly a little more bonkers than you) answered in the affirmative? (no offense Pist) It seemed logical since the UN had gone to the trouble of passing all those resolutions and stuff.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Had the UN did their job, the US wouldn't have had to, and then wouldn't we both be content? :wink:
This is based on the absurd premises that the UN's job is what you say it is and that the US's job is to topple governments we don't like.
No Craven, finally. This is based on the absurd premise that the UN might actually follow through on one of its resolutions. But no. Not even with the US buckling under the weight of trying to push that elephant up the stairs would they lift one finger to enforce their own resolutions. In an honest attempt to avoid Ad Hominem;… Honestly Craven, are you still sick? :wink:
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 06:06 pm
Still
Fair counters but in my view it still gets back to "Ends justify the means".. Hans Blix and his team would have found the same ass did David Kay. The fact is the Bushco was deterimed to invade Iraq no matter what, in my view even if the majority of Americans opposed such invasion. Therefore, I still strongly believe that the invasion was illegal as is the Occupation.

Pre-emptive invasions open the door to any nation to invade others on assumptions not hard facts. This is what happened with Iraq. Bushco will most likely not be sanctioned for this illegal invasion and Occupation but in view they should be charged with war crimes.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 06:26 pm
Re: Still
pistoff wrote:
Fair counters but in my view it still gets back to "Ends justify the means".. Hans Blix and his team would have found the same ass did David Kay. The fact is the Bushco was deterimed to invade Iraq no matter what, in my view even if the majority of Americans opposed such invasion. Therefore, I still strongly believe that the invasion was illegal as is the Occupation.

Pre-emptive invasions open the door to any nation to invade others on assumptions not hard facts. This is what happened with Iraq. Bushco will most likely not be sanctioned for this illegal invasion and Occupation but in view they should be charged with war crimes.
Thanks Pistoff, that was a lot of work. Shocked I've just about succeeded at becoming worthless, so I poked at it all day while playing poker online.

I don't think I'll be swaying you much on your remaining reservations. Probably best to not try. :wink:

Foxfyre: Could you by any chance link that story? I suspect you may have fallen into the same trap I did with the opening post of this thread.
Why would they be planning on revealing something to the public in mid-September?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 01:45 am
Bill this is the fifth time I'll try to respond to this, I get interrupted or something breaks every single time.

So here's tempting fate yet again.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Damn craven! I know you don't care for imbedded quotes… but how else could I possibly respond to your grocery list of complaints?


I have no problem with quotes, I don't like when they are nested (one inside of each other and so on) but 'sno biggie.

Quote:
Not really. If our "biggest part" provided additional authority like you seem to be implying, we'd have had no trouble at all obtaining "permission", would we? Idea


My point was that we are part of the UN. A big part of "the UN does nothing" arguments are posed by separating the US from the UN and trying to portray it as the US doing something and the UN nothing.

When the act is part of the UN it's an inaccurate characterization. But this is a red herring, as in this case it was not a UN sanctioned invasion.

Quote:
"For the most part", is not what the resolutions called for. I recall you admitting in the past that while you think Saddam had reason to violate, he nonetheless had an obligation not to. The fact is; he did violate.


Sounds like you want UN resolutions to be binding. So do I but more on this later.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Do you fault the Security Council for not upholding Israel to the resolutions they have been in breach of (and in breach for several times longer than Iraq ever was)?
You bet I do. Laws mean nothing without law enforcement. You have provided yet another example of the UN's impotence.


Bill, what "law"? I wish UN resolutions were binding law, and frankly it is on this basis that I opposed the war.

You can't have it both ways Bill. The UN can't be the ultimate authority when you are finding fault with Iraq but not worth heeding when you speak of US circumvention.

Either the UN is the authority or not. If you want the UN resolutions to be binding you need for the world's superpower to respect it as well.

Otherwise, it will be the voluntary organization that it is.

Let's say I agree that the UN resolutions need backing up, but that I fault the US for undermining any attempt to make an authoritative world court and that I fault other SC members to lesser degrees.

Ultimately, if you want the UN's resolutions to carry weight, you need to be critical of all disregard of them. Both by the US and the nations whose compliance you'd like to see.

Anything less will be the status quo.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
I think it just gave political capital for the military adventurism the administration would have wanted anyway.
That's a rather popular opinion around here. Frankly, I don't even care if it is accurate. I had long thought Clinton was sleeping at the wheel and believe if Bush would have announced the intention the day he took office, I would considered it overdue and applauded the decision.


Bill, you tend toward favoring military resultion at a far far far greater rate than the average person so this really doesn't surprise me.

I'd like to preempt any feelings of a bloodlust accusation because I know that your support for wars is usually based on your perception that it would minimize bloodshed.

Quote:
I agree that they pointed out the lies and exaggerations, but I could easily furnish plenty of sources that show most of the world community believing Iraq possessed some WMD. I know you know this, so I won't bother. I don't know why you're pretending you don't. Rolling Eyes


I'm not. But I see that as irrelevant. To not hedge their bets and at least suspect that Iraq had weapons in the face of our obstensible certainty would have been risky and many did in fact express opinions that Iraq might have low level WMDs.

Thing is, many doubted very strongly that any of their possible stockpiles posed a danger and their choice of action was to find out, and not pre-empt a threat they did not believe in.

Note: threat and WMD are not being used interchangably. I had a student once who had naturally occuring anthrax on his farm. By definition there were WMD on his farm but he posed no threat (cept when he was pissed that his prize herd was dying).

So yes, many nations expressed doubts and suspicions but very few signed on to the notion that it posed a threat and fewer still thought it was a threat that required interription of the inspections and immediate war.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Your comments continue to assume that the world thought invading Iraq was a good thing.
No; I'm continuing to assume that the world thought ending Saddam's oppressive reign was a good thing. This is NOT the same thing nor are all opinions consistent on the two (if memory serves, even your own).


Fair enough, I'll remind you of this in a bit.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
If Saddam's regime's demise is considered a good thing by most, than that same "most" should have joined forces to accomplish it.


This is a false premise that once again conflates end to "any means".
Read the sentence again Craven. Your interpretation is way off. Surely Bush was open to hearing other strategies (means) to removing the Tyrant.


No he wasn't. He had troops committed and openly declared that the war was a fait accompli.

At the time Bush started banging the war drums the result was largely a foregone conclusion.

He kept saying to the public that he hadn't decided yet but I think there is a lot of evidence to point to that not being true. Persons have related accounts that contradict this. The inspections and other options proposed were decried as being a dangerous distraction.

Whether or not Bush would have been open to other options we really can't say. But one thing pretty clear is that when he started making the case for war it was less to convince than to inform.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Here's an intentionally absurd logical statement to help illustrate it:

"If everyone likes sex, they should have joined us in raping the woman."
You've succeeded in illustrating an absurd Strawman, nothing more.


It's not a straw man Bill. You conflated agreeing with the end to agreeing with the means. Earlier you called me on a similar point (the one I said I'd remind you of here).

Quote:
Had the world community united via the UN to bring about the regime change, the action would have been squeaky-clean legal.


From whence do you derive your repeated comments about international law?

The UN charter has only one clause that would cover this. It basically goes on and on about how this type of invasion is forbidden and then has an exception clause for self defense.

So to summarize (I'll not fill up this thread with ramblings of the charter but you can look it up if you doubt my recollection of it. I memorized it a few years ago):

1) This type of invasion is declared forbidden in several ways.
2) The forbiddance of the military conflict resolutions is then excepted for the purpose of self-defense.

This is why the WMD case and "imminent" threat was touted as loudly as it was false. It was the only basis within the UN charter for action. The ICC was created to tackle the problem of humanitarian crises and is the sort of thing that can help tackle Saddam's type of regime but international law is very weak in this regard (beyond its weakness in every regard due to lacking definition of both the legal code and jurisdiction).

But in a way, you do have a point. If the security council sanctions it then it does become a sanctioned act.

But there are two problems to this approach.

1) If courts were to declare murder legal then OJ would not have commited a crime.

2) This again assumes the authority of the UN. I happen to prefer this but must once again note that US undermining of UN decisions, resolutions and constructs (ICC) is what prevents the resolutions from carrying more weight.

I too, would like to see the resolutions carry weight. But for this to happen superpowers and rogues alike must operate within its parameters.

Iraq can't be wrong for ignoring the UN while the US is right without differentiating factors. Said factors exist and make a stronger moral case for US invasion than for Iraqi invasions. But in making this case you can't then rely on UN as an authority without the context of the US circumventing it as well.

Basically what I'm saying is that you need to make the argument based on the differentiating factors (e.g. Iraq's human right's abuse vs the comparative lack on the US end).

Making this case will lead you to the ICC. It was created to enforce cross-border jurisdiction for human rights. Before the ICC this was a legal void.

Because we don't want ICC jurisdiction over us, we undermine it. So humanitarian casus beli couldn't really be used. So we stuck with WMDs as it's the only angle with existing UN ground to stand on.

This is why I opposed the way this war was prosecuted. I see this as an impediment to establishing the means to more effectively deal with such cases in the future.

The US has a laudible tendency to highlight and wish to correct human rights abuse. But at the same time is unwilling to allow for mechanisms to have the authority to address them and prefers to maintain the status quo in which the most power equals the authority.

It's convenient for us now, because we have the power but it inhibits global progress toward rule of law.

I keep asking you what legal ground you are walking on when you say "legal" and "illegal" and if you try to answer it you'll see what I mean.

Where is "international law" defined?

Who rules on it?

You'll see the void, and hopefully also see that the powers that be are the ones suppressing the creation of international rule of law.

Quote:
Further; I'd say a fair amount of the Anti-war crowd would have changed sides… even some of the most dedicated opponents (like Pistoff and Hobit)(don't make me quote you guys).


I would have supported it. It wouldn't have been switching sides because this was my position long before this site. Over on the Realm I said that I did not believe Iraq was a threat but that if the US could convince the world I'd be happy.

I'd have been happy because it would have addressed the humanitarian argument without undermining the evolving entities that will one day bring us rule of law.

Quote:
Your Strawman compares a legal police action to a heinous crime. Rolling Eyes Please.


Bill, it was an illustration of the fallacy of conflating means and the end. It was not a comparison of the morality of the means.

As such it was neither a straw man or inappropriate. It was an intentionally unacceptable example because this is an easier way to illustrate the fallacy.

Quote:
I see. Are you suggesting that their stated objections are mandatorily genuine?


Nope, I'm saying that the contention that they did not wish to spend the money is very unconvincing. These things can be done at a profit.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
It was more along the lines of: "There are many world leaders we may not like but when the criteria for going over and toppling governments is fecklessly invoked world security is undermined."
Paraphrasing your opinion of what the consensus was constitutes no proof that my opinion is wrong or that yours is correct.


Indeed, but if you wish I can quote them directly saying exactly that. Now whether or not they were lying neither of us can proove. But the paraphrasing above was done with specific quotes in mind. The verbatim quotes more clearly make the case I'd alleged than my paraphrasing.

BTW, this reminds me of an old satire I wrote immediately after reading the quotes I have in mind. I'll post it in the waggery forum.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Many currently think Bush has got to go, but do not support toppling his government either.
You seem to fancy this irrelevant nonsense. I'm not aware of any organization (outside of this country) with the means or the authority do such a thing. I don't think you could have said that about Saddam.


Means and authority are not what I said. I responded to your comments about wishing regime change by saying many wish for US regime change.

The very point is that nations do not have the authority to do so in the status quo. Means is just another way of saying that might makes right.

This is the conflict that Iraq represented to me. Allowing a nation with the means to have the authority undermines the evolution toward international law.

If might makes right then Iraq was right to invade Kuwait up until the point that the coalition was assembled.

I think we both agree that means can't serve as moral justification. Otherwise we'd be robbing candy from babies left and right.

Quote:
Here we agree, but only in the poor choice of speakers and tactless delivery by same. I don't completely disagree with the assessment of the impotent UN's slow-motion mechanics and the all-bark-no-bite performances that the Saddam's of the world could practically rely on.


And again I will say that if you want the UN to have authority and carry weight with binding resolutions you need to address all incidences of disregarding the UN and also have to consider that to create such a transcendent entity it is unrealistic to expect them to see the moral black and whites the same way as Americans do.

In other words, you can't fault them for not being authoritative in the same breath as defending an undermining of their authority. It's a contradiction.

Furthermore, to achieve this authority I suspect you will need to be more accepting of conflicts of perspectives such as the war in Iraq.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
The choice presented to the UN was pretty much: "be insignificant".
I don't think you can hold the UN completely blameless. Their repeated failure to enforce their own resolutions was certainly making them appear insignificant in more than a few eyes.


Again, if you want them to be a binding authority you can't defend disregarding them.

Quote:
Yep. And ultimately they demonstrated once again how insignificant they can be. Unlike you; I will not look past the fact that they let Saddam dictate terms to them, abuse the oil for food program and eventually kick them out of Iraq with hardly a Boo!


Bill, unlike you I'll not create such a false characterization and claim others are blind to it.

A better case can be made througout history of Saddam "dictating" terms to the US than to the UN.

Quote:
This "unilateral" or "illegal" (pick your own) action could never have come up if they'd have enforced their own resolutions in the first place. Idea


The day nations such as the US treat the UN as authoritative is the day it will be authoritative.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
And others think it simply unjust for Americans to think they should have more say because we have more money and guns.
If it is our money and our guns to be ordered around, there is no way around it.


Well Bill, there is a contradiction here. If this is your reasoning then other nations such as Iraq should also not have their guns ordered around.

We obviously can't allow for that so you will compare the two on moral terms. And on those terms we will, in large part, agree.

Thing is, the US is not inherently good. As far as superpowers go I like our record but inherent benevolence can't be assumed. For this reason structures need to be put in place to create international rule of law.

A vigilante, no matter how morally justified undermines rule of law.

This is the big conflict. That even with good intentions and moral justification we need rule of law. Otherwise it's just individually determined morality i.e. might makes right.

Quote:
Not every action can or should be labeled as adventurism.


Indeed. For example, when we went to war against Iraq for invading Kuwait it wasn't seen as adventurism. And because of this, the world paid to the tune of US profit.

When the world agrees they generally pay. The difference in the commitment between the two wars is a good indication of what is and is not considered vigilante adventurism by the global community.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
The notion that the world does not pay a "fair share" is absurd on its face.
Really? Confused


Yes. We can discuss this. I actually owe it to Sofia for promising to do so months ago. When you defend your allegation I'll respond to it.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
In the first gulf war the wrold paid their share and ours and a bit for profit. YEs, the US came out witha profit from that war.
No, sorry, but you are wrong again. Our allies kicked back 88% of our costs, leaving $7,000,000,000 for the American tax payer to pay. I wouldn't define this as a "profit", but I'll grant you its peanuts compared new our new war. Sad


Bill, depending on how you count it, it was either almost breaking even or a profit. Because of the complex way in which it was funded it falls into accounting grey ground. It was funded from multiple sources, and over time.

Since accounting for the exact cost is already not straightforward I'm simply going to have to cede that yes, some count it as almost breaking even and that others count it as having been a profit.

I've studied both in minute detail and prefer the position that it was profitable. Since I do not wish to go over such tedium again I'll leave it by simply saying that you have no more basis for saying I am wrong than I would in saying that you are.

The war was either a small cost or a small profit depending on the methods you use for accounting.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
So I'm not sure what the heck you mean by paying a "fair share". Do you mean things like paying UN dues? Or funding our military acts that they disagree with?
I'm still not defending ridiculous statements that I haven't made. Are you still sick or something?


Twas a question Bill. And I'll repeat it.

When you say that you want others to pay a "fair share" what are you talking about?

Do you calculate this based on GNP or are you saying that it should not be proportionate to wealth and constructing a "fair share" that simply can't be paid.

Are you considering UN dues and negligence in that regard?

Are you considering the way those dues are calculated or are you suggesting a "flat fair share"?

These are all legitimate questions Bill. "Fair share" is unclear it can be said to be many things including the impossible (which is kinda unfair).

Quote:
Earlier in this rant you pointed out that the US is the biggest member of the Security Council.


This was a resonse to your crediting the US inordinately then suddenly divorcing it when it comes to blame.

e.g.

"Honey your son peed on the carpet again."

"Ahhh my boy is becoming a man."

I can expound if you like, the point was simply the diconnect between taking credit vs taking blame within the UN.

Quote:
Then you complained that we expect authority commensurate with our contribution.


Bull. To make this claim one has to accept your notions of "commensurate with our contribution".

This is why I asked you what "fair share" means to you. I suspect it is wholly dissimilar to what I would call fair share Bill.

I have no problem with the US having "authority commensurate with our contribution".

Where we part company is in precisely what is "commensurate with our contribution" Bill. And with what consitutes the basis of a just system for conflict resolution.

For example, do you think rich Americans receive legal treatment "commensurate with their contribution" yo American society Bill?


Quote:
You are all over the place dude. Perhaps you cut my posts into too many pieces to keep track of?


Rolling Eyes Bill, the methods you use to reach this conclusion should shame you. it relies on using your own interpretations of what is "fair" and holding my position to that to look for inconsistency.

I'll spare you the trouble Bill. There is significant inconsistency between my position and yours.

Quote:
Is it possible, just possible, that the US simply doesn't want to ever have to explain to a soldier's mother (not to mention the press) that one of her sons or daughters is being held for trial in another country for doing the work the UN asked him/her to do?


It's possible. Anything is possible. But this scenario would contradict its stated intent.

I suspect you have not read a single document from the ICC. I've read each one that I am aware of and would be happy to debate the probability of such prosecution.

Quote:
This is a tough one for me too. You know how I feel about human rights abuses… but at the same time; when you consider the US does the lion's share of the Ass-kicking, then you have to also consider they'd run the biggest risk of having a soldier wrongfully accused. I'm sure you can imagine the diplomatic nightmare that would be.


I understand how that scenario would be unacceptable. I happen to think it is incompatible with the ICC's stated purpose and the ICC negotiations went out of their way to make this clear.

Thing is, the scenario does not require US validation of the ICC. With or without the US said possibility exists and our overwhelming power to deny such an occurance prevents it anyway.

My position is to place more trust, given that it's a scenario against the stated purpose of the ICC and given that there are criteria within the ICC to preclude it and given that the US power could simply deny the authority in that worst case scenario.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Our hawks want to heed no court and also want no court to even exist that might paint one of our military acts in a bad light.
True enough… but didn't the majority of our change requests specify actions with UN Sanction?


No. The majority of the exemption deals we sought dealt with UN sanctioned peace-keeping. This has more to do with a way to pressure UN nations than the inherent mechanism of the ICC.

We rejected the ICC and used the threat to terminate existing UN missions as a way to negotiate exemptions and to thereby undermine the ICC's attempt at jurisdiction.

Quote:
You are probably right about that but then "they" seem content to watch N Korea starve it's citizens to death by the millions while Kim builds WMDs to threaten his neighbors with, too.


Bill, this is a misleading statement.

It assumes that our position does not contribute to the deaths. It assumes that everyone agrees with you in that the alternatives you suggest would prevent loss of life.

I for one, strongly disagree and think it would be as fair to characterize you as being callous to bloodshed as it is for you to imply that others are content to witness loss of life.

The disagreement is about what methods would save more lives, and your attempt to portray your solution as a moral absolute is something you reject when applied to you.

I think your preferred solution for NK is one that would cause more death. I recognize that this is subjective and therefore do not portray you as bloodthirsty.

I would that you'd afford the same when you know that it is a subjective matter and that neither side can claim certainty that their preferred policy is a moral absolute.

Quote:
Are you doing everything South-Paw today? Who was it that accused you of being a Centrist anyway?


I am most certainly not a centrist. People tend to say this about me because I tend to argue against liberal positions as well as conservative ones but I am not a centrist.

My politics are a bit complex but I don't consider it "centrist" despite that some do.

Quote:
Tell me if I got this one right: you are being intellectually dishonest. You know damn well that most of the world thought we'd "at least find Chemical Weapons". Hell, with your memory, you could probably source the fact in seconds. Your assertion that "the majority of the world did not think chemical weapons worth invading for" does absolutely nothing to dispute the validity of my claim. Said claim remains a valid, honest answer to Pistoff's questions.


Bill, I offer a parable:

Main issue: killing John

Argument in favor: John is ugly

While person A and person B can both agree on John's inherent ugliness they differ on the main issue.

So yes, whether or not the world thought low levels of chemical weapons that were not weaponized were a valid casus beli is a valid question.

Furthermore, no I do not agree that most nations supported the chem weapon discovery position. So please cite nations doing so.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
You can't cite a UN resolution using your own individual interpretation of it.
Yes, I can.


Then I reserve the right to interpret laws how I wish. I've long wanted to shoot my neighbour in the buttocks so this is convenient for me.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
You can't use the UN as a means to make legitimate your act while flouting the UN itself.

IF you want to ignore the UN's wishes, you can't just arbitrarily decide to interpret their resolutiont to your whim AND invoke the UN to justify the act that is trying to circumvent them.
ALL of the evidence would appear to be to the contrary now wouldn't it?


I am unclear on your meaning but fear the accusation of a straw man enough to forego perceived liberties of interpretation.

So I ask for clarification.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:

Those weapons were not a threat, and were "illegal" by such a small measure that we didn't even see fit to tout them to our ignorant public.
Then just how did I learn of the fact that they were designed and built with an illegal engine diameter size? Have you mistaken me for an insider? Shocked Or an expert? Laughing


We have definitional incompatibility as to what consitutes "touting".

I used it to say that the US did not press for the missles to be a trigger. In other words we saw it as insignificant enough that we did not want to "tout" it for use as the trigger for "material breach".

I did not mean that we did not make Bill aware of it. My point was that we did not push to have it considered a "material breach" of the UN resolution.

Quote:
At the same time he was doing this, he was also secretly trying to purchase 2-stage Rodong ICBM technology from N. Korea…


You forgot yellowcake. "He was also secretly trying to purchase yellowcake".

"He was also trying to use aluminim tubes for centrifuges."

If you have something solid I'd like to see it. Other "evidence" has since been shown to be less solid than many thought.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
D. Since Saddam was an evil tyrant, with such a long history of violations; he presented a perfect opportunity to set an example in the "post 9-11 era" that we are done playing with monsters.


Since America is a warmongering country and the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war there is ample cause to invade the US.
As if anyone is capable. This tired comparison couldn't be less valid or more preposterous.


Bill, you are back to "might makes right". Our ability to fend off any attempt to bring "justice" to us can't be held to be indicative of "justice" without also validating the others who would excersise their might.

If your point is that the US can fend off any attempt I agree. My point is that you seem to want a mechanism to enforce international rule of law but at the same time refuse to consider that a vigilante with the ability and will to supercede it undermines rule of law. Benevolent though they may be.

If the power of the US is the criteria, then it is not rule of law. It's counting on a benevolent rule of might.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Since Israel has a long history of brutality and illegal occupation Israel should be invaded.
Perhaps… but I'm not sure how this figures into the current equation.


It figures into the equation because a casus beli of this nature ("they be bad") is facile and should be submitted to more rigorous criteria.

It's kinda like the difference between a lynching and a court sanctioned execution.

I agree that Saddam was bad. You do as well.

But I hope you can also appreciate my desire for safeguards in place to codify the criteria for this and improve rule of law.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
It's easy to make up a casus beli. I happen to agree about Saddam but posit the above examples to show that it's damn easy to call someone a bad guy.
Interesting technique, but the answers remain probable reasoning in answer to Pistoff's questions.


By now I do not remember Pistoff's questions and I usually skip past them (they tend to be a bit more partisan than I will usually read).

So please consider my comments apart from teh context of Pistoff, whose politics are sufficiently different from mine to preclude my desire to defend them.

My point (as opposed to his) is that even if we come to an agreement on the moral evaluation of Saddam, I prefer more structured mechanisms because moral judgement is often passed fecklessly.

Verily the very men we consider "bad" usually have some convuluted moral reasoning of their own.

Individually defined morality is not civilization. And I desire more effective mechanisms to bring international rule of law up to the standards that national rule of law is at.

Vigilantes are something I perceive as an impediment.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Invading nations must be based on a better criteria.
Again, I'll point out that all of the available evidence seems to point to the contrary.


Please elaborate. The evidence points against collelctivly defined morality? Or are we again talking about vastly different things?

Quote:
Shocked Surely you jest. Laughing Or you must be running a fever of 103… CHECK IT RIGHT NOW!… I'll wait... I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they thought he complied before. And that "anyone" list includes YOU Craven. When you come out of your delirium I'll be happy to provide you as many sources as you wish. (like you haven't already read hundreds if not thousands of them Rolling Eyes ).


No, I do not jest. But I am at the wrong end of a LONG post and will respond to this later if you remain enthusiastic about picking it up.

Note: I predict that it will come down to disagreement along the lines of "he disarmed vs he was not cooperative".

Quote:
That makes 5 for 5 answers to Pistoff's questions that you've done nothing to disprove. Which is pretty scary since they are rather subjective in the first place. What's motivating you here boss? Confused


Bill, like I said, I am not addressing Pistoff's questions. I also do not see what relevance my motivation has. Perhaps you can explain.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Would you really have preferred that Blix gave him the Green light to continue his evil?
This is laughable Bill, now we invoke "evil".
This kind of simplistic thinking has no place in geopolitics. You can't justify invasions with invocations of "bad guy" and "evil".
Actually your response is what's laughable Craven. Do I now, or have I ever struck you as someone trying to justify a war with invocations of "bad guy" and "evil"?


Yes, in your quote above you just invoked "evil". I made it bold so as to be more visible this time around.


Quote:
Could you not accurately fill a page with my personal reasons for backing this war? I'd bet you could and be spot on about it too. Considering there have been no WMDs found; I'd wager even money a green light is precisely what Saddam would have got. Disagree all you want with my politics, but you know damn well WMDs were not my primary concern.


Yes, I know this, but am having trouble attaching it to anything I have disputed about you.


Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
You seem to want it to work like this:

1) Call them a "bad guy"
2) Call them "evil"
3) Invade
this has gone well beyond silly Craven. Confused Do you dispute items 1) and 2)? Would you like a link for that too? LOL Or perhaps you seriously think that's the way I "want it to work".


No Bill, I've long said I do not dispute that Saddam was "bad". I've also long maintained that I'd like rule of law in between 2 and 3.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Now while they might be "bad guys" it can't be so simple as simply saying so. That's why there are mechanisms in place like the UN. So that feckless characterizations are not used as justification for military adventurism.
Shocked Good god man; are you really going to try to contend that Saddam only "might be a bad guy" now? Who do you think you are, Joefromchicago? :wink:


Bill, I know you are familiar with the notion of justice. You also know I do not disagree that Saddam was "bad".

This leaves the bold part. I wish for more effective mechanisms to deal with it.

I wish for rule of law between 2 and 3.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Many people think Bush is a "bad guy".
I think I got, and answered, that at least a couple of times already in this grocery list.


I missed it. You repeatedly said the US is too powerful to be challenged but that's not the point. the point is that individuals define "bad" all the time and mechanisms are put in place for rule of law to exist.


Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Since you agree he needed removal; shouldn't you be at least as peeved at the UN for their inaction as you are at the US for their actions?
No. I want Bush's removal as well. Should I also be peeved that the UN doesn't authorize an invasion?
Again? Rolling Eyes Did you miss the part where the person I asked this question to (a person I used to consider a little further to the left, and frankly a little more bonkers than you) answered in the affirmative?


Bill, feel free to consider me as left/right as you wish. It's irrelevant to the point.

The point is that toppling governments should be done with better criteria than desire.

I wish for this administration to be toppled. But I recognize that my wish can't serve as justification for all means.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Had the UN did their job, the US wouldn't have had to, and then wouldn't we both be content? :wink:
This is based on the absurd premises that the UN's job is what you say it is and that the US's job is to topple governments we don't like.
No Craven, finally. This is based on the absurd premise that the UN might actually follow through on one of its resolutions. But no. Not even with the US buckling under the weight of trying to push that elephant up the stairs would they lift one finger to enforce their own resolutions. In an honest attempt to avoid Ad Hominem;… Honestly Craven, are you still sick? :wink:


Bill, I'm starting to see this as an exercise in futility. Yes, your oft repeated ad hominem about whether I am sick is getting to me.

I have a cold Bill, and a severe one affecting my lungs. But that is descriptive of me, and you do yourself no boon to argue against my positions with the repeated inference that my cold renders them invalid.

I will repeat that I think the UN did their job by denying the US a rubber stamp.

I think the ineffectiveness you perceive in the UN is largely due to the fact that many wish for it to serve as a rubber stamp and undermine attempts to make it authoritative.

I'll say it again Bill. You can't have it both ways. If you want UN authority it needs to apply to both Iraq and the US.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 01:47 am
That post took more than half the page. Shocked
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 01:50 am
Tis a good thing that it takes me relatively little time then.

But you're wrong (by a lot) about more than half the page. ;-)
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 01:57 am
Well piss in my cornflakes why don't ya!

My scrollbar shows a sizeable part of the page, which appears to be more than half.

Sue me.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 01:59 am
Fine, I will sue you for all the cornflakes you've g o...... nemind.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2004 12:52 am
That was one hell of a post Craven! I'll not question your stamina again.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Bill this is the fifth time I'll try to respond to this, I get interrupted or something breaks every single time.
You must type like Forest Gump runs! It now takes up 17 pages in MS Word in 12pt text (my preferred reading size). I apologize for offending you with my repeated suggestion that you were sick. I had thought I detected exhaustion, as your points seemed to become less focused and defensible. I honestly thought I was offering as much "excuse", as "insult". Again, I apologize.

Rather than debating the same issues on multiple fronts, I'll attempt to define our core differences, and address them. If I inadvertently skip over something important or you feel I am evading a specific question; please point it out and I will address it as best I can.

So, we agree on this much:
We agree Saddam was an "evil" "bad guy".
We agree his removal from power was a good thing (not the means).
If the UN had backed the Regime change, we'd both have been glad they had.
I agree that we can both quote sources stating Gulf war was a relatively slight profit or loss, so it's not worth debating.

Another reason for ignoring part of our exchange:
Craven de Kere wrote:
By now I do not remember Pistoff's questions and I usually skip past them (they tend to be a bit more partisan than I will usually read). So please consider my comments apart from teh context of Pistoff, whose politics are sufficiently different from mine to preclude my desire to defend them…
… Bill, like I said, I am not addressing Pistoff's questions. I also do not see what relevance my motivation has. Perhaps you can explain.
No problem. Some of my disputed statements were direct answers to his questions, so absent that consideration and context, there's no point in continuing to debate them. I will be addressing the parts I consider not related to "answers to his questions".

Main points of contention in bold for emphasis:

Fair share: I have long been under the impression that the US carries a disproportionately large share of the Cost of operating the UN and carrying out its functions. I do not have facts to prove it at this time. You've left me with the impression that you can prove the opposite is true. While I frequently disagree with your opinions, I have little doubt you'll deliver accurate facts. Translation: your willing pupil is ready to be taught.

International Law: This is a relatively new concept that is still in its infancy. Hopefully, it will one day replace the "Natural Law of Might Makes Right" (I'll cover this in greater detail in a minute). You have far more faith in the UN than I do. You seem to think the successes of the UN are despite the US and the failures can be attributed to the US. You've repeatedly told me that I can't have it both ways in regard to the "Saddam's of the world" being obligated to recognize the "International Authority" while the US does not. I disagree. I think the world is slowly making a transition from the "Natural Law of Might Makes Right" that has always existed, to an International Authority; to be recognized by all. Until such time as the "Mightiest of the Mighty" is satisfied with the performance (or is obligated by a "mightier force") of the International Authority, we will continue to retain and enforce our will over the likes of Saddam. You can describe this as a desire for a "rubber stamp" if you wish, but I think that's a bit too simplistic. I admire your sense of fair play, but think it is naïve to expect the US to yield the inherent authority that stems from being the mightiest until such time as we are satisfied with the alternative. Had the "International Authority" enforced it's own resolutions; there would have been no overstepping by the "natural authority". Despite the obvious hypocrisy of stating Saddam's violations of UN sanctions as justification for our disregard for the UN's opinion; I still think this is a natural, logical chain of events. Do you think the US would have invaded Iraq if Saddam had followed the UN's sanctions from the beginning? Like it or not; until such time as there does exist a true "International Authority" recognized and obeyed by all countries (including ours), he who holds the gun will continue to make the rules. And do realize that if the US remains the mightiest, they'll likely be the last to yield to another authority.

Vigilantism:
Craven de Kere wrote:
A vigilante, no matter how morally justified undermines rule of law.
This is, of course, true. You've illustrated this point repeatedly and correctly. I can absolutely appreciate your "desire for safeguards in place to codify the criteria for this and improve rule of law". My problem with your viewpoint is: You seem to think that this fact alone makes vigilantism an invariably "bad thing". Absent from this rational is the true meaning of the word:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary wrote:
Main Entry: vig·i·lan·te
Pronunciation: "vi-j&-'lan-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law appear inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice


I'm not suggesting you don't understand this. I'm suggesting your belief that establishing International precedence, too often supercedes the importance of the application of "some form of justice". In the case of Iraq; you agree that Saddam was a terrible tyrant whose actions gave cause for his removal. This however, is overshadowed by your belief that: International Standards must be recognized and observed by all of the nations of the world. I would tend to agree, but reverse the order of importance.

In the absence of a recognized, obeyed and enforced International Law Enforcement Agency; the unmatched ability of the US to help, IMO, will continue to carry with it the responsibility to do so. (I'll appreciate it if you continue to not mistake my motivations with that of my governments, like you have in the past. We are talking about justification, not necessarily motive).

This brings us to our next sticking point:
Might makes Right: Like you, on its face, I deny this is a valid principle. In certain situations I will, and have, placed myself in harms way to defend against it. However, it is a "natural law" that must be observed in certain instances. If the jolly green giant trespasses on my property, I would be ill-advised to try to defend my property rights. Likewise, when an infinitely superior force threatens to remove a "Saddam" from power if he … , he is ill-advised to try and defy it. You have incorrectly assumed that our application of this principle clears the way for tyrants like Saddam to follow (like in Kuwait for example).This is untrue because our superior might effectively nullifies his "might" advantage over Kuwait (as was witnessed a decade ago). Regardless of how big our share of blame is for the absence of an Enforceable International Law, the Natural Law of Might Makes Right continues to demand recognition. You illustrated your understanding of this fundamental reality with this statement:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Thing is, the scenario does not require US validation of the ICC. With or without the US said possibility exists and our overwhelming power to deny such an occurance prevents it anyway.

My position is to place more trust, given that it's a scenario against the stated purpose of the ICC and given that there are criteria within the ICC to preclude it and given that the US power could simply deny the authority in that worst case scenario.


Again, until such time as all of the countries of the world (including ours) establish, recognize and obey the international community's authority, there will continue to be instances that call for the invocation of "Might Makes Right".
Example: Man believes he has a right to slap his wife around… Not in front of me. If possible, my might will make my brand of right the right in this situation.

The above should also explain what I meant by "Yes I can" in answering your claim "You can't cite a UN resolution using your own individual interpretation of it." and what I meant by "all evidence to the contrary"… and why I consider it false to assume other countries can follow a precedent set by our actions. There is only one Alpha.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Furthermore, no I do not agree that most nations supported the chem weapon discovery position. So please cite nations doing so.
While I can present lists of Nations whose intelligence agreed with ours, you can question the integrity of such lists. I see little value in an exchange of partisan press releases. Aside from showcasing your enormous talent for debate, it would accomplish nothing.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I think we both agree that means can't serve as moral justification. Otherwise we'd be robbing candy from babies left and right.
Love the way you put that. But, I think you should understand by now why I believe Means can serve as moral justification. (Ability comes with Responsibility).

Craven de Kere wrote:
I'll say it again Bill. You can't have it both ways. If you want UN authority it needs to apply to both Iraq and the US.
I agree with this… but the UN needs to grow some teeth first. I do not believe that Bush would have attacked Iraq if Saddam hadn't already violtated so many UN resolutions (and got away with it). Without that justification (doesn't matter if you see it as that; Bush did), Bush probably stays home. Hence, if the UN wants to be in charge of the police work, then they damn well better lead the way. Personally, I don't see it happening anytime soon. I'd like to see a new International body formed.

My Rodong ICBM Link has gone into the archives, but the beginning of the story can be read here.. Perhaps you know a way around this?

Again, if I missed anything you think is important, point it out and I'll address it.
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 12:29:55