The US, UN & Iraq II

timber,

I never put forward the notion that States are the only players. I never put forward the notion that States are the most relevant players. I simply have not made comment on that.

To find a logical flaw in someone's argument it is usually good practice to use something they said, not to invent something.



Any nation can fall under those criteria.



The ideology of terrorism will not be eradicated. Terrorism is the epitome of sanctioning violence irresponsibly. More of the same dish does nothing in and of itself.

Timber,

I'm gonna ask one last time then I will give up.

A) you stated that civilization's existence is at risk. Please validate this wild claim.

B) I did not ask for your take on geopolitical status. I aksed if you have any proof that invading Iraq will decrease the statistical probability of terrorist attacks. I don't mind the status update but it ignored, once again, a simple pointed request for you to validate one of your claims.

Now let's play with the conclusions you draw from your take on geopolitics.

I posit that the "freedoms of civilization" is "preyed" upon by those who arbitrarily determine what terrorism is, and more importantly that borders and flags and thus, sovereignty, need no longer be respected.

I posit that those who take an existing danger, and employ hyperbole to make it justify special circumstances, then take these special circumstances and justify a deviation from international law ("The existing structure of international laws and social mechanisms is incapable of dealing adequately with the threat.") and a breach of sovereignty are no better than any person who wishes to break the law and make up excuses for it.

A) you did nothing to validate the assertion that Iraq poses anything other than a possible threat.

B) You claim international law no longer valid and arbitrarily decide what should be done, what the rules of conduct should be.

C) You render borders and self-determination a thing of the past.

And you still have the gall to say that you are defending civilization's existence? Many persons can make proclamations about what kind of ideologies are "tolerable" and what peoples need to be "eliminated". That is precisely what terrorists do. What makes acting upon such arbitrary determinations illegal is the fact that man has come to recognize that for the purposes of civility one can't be allowed to decide that he no longer has to respect the life of his counterpart. One can't decide that laws no longer need to be respected, that borders are now lines that you can cross at will.

Would you like to live in a society wherin your neighbor can invade your home (your front door is no longer relevant) cause harm to you (laws are no longer applicable he says) and get away with it?

The UN performed it's task. It determined that the US's concerns about Iraq were not supported by evidence at the time. It concluded that the US's proclamations that it would wage war without what they consider sufficient justification it would not be sanctioned. The UN did not "abdicate responsibility". The UN sought to contain persons who think that their opinion about what ideologies need to be destroyed trump international law.

Laws: Morality is defined by individuals, since such determinations do not jive with each other we have what we call laws. Laws are the collective morality. The very principle of law is that one entity's morality is not superior to the laws determined by the whole.

Terrorism is a perfect example. Some idiot thinks their ideological differences make the laws not pertain to them.

You have advocated the dismissal of law and borders when one entity detremines that it is to their interest. This goes against what law represents and can be construed as an advocation of impulsive lawlessness.

I find it ironic that this is done under the hyperbolic banner of saving civilization.

"Let's save civilization by destroying ideologies that we oppose and by rejecting the laws and foundations that civilization consists of"

Once again, rhetoric about how laws no longer apply to you in the world as you see it aside, can you please demonstrate any proof that through this disregard for law the statistical probability of violence is reduced. Just a bare minimum, an attempt, please.

frolic, Jeffery Dahmer was methodical and calculating too.

No one said Saddam is stupid.
No one said Saddam is not a leader.
But yes, Saddam is a madman.

It is reported that Saddam airport has been seized by coalition forces ---- a subway or tunnel system has been discovered under the airport that goes at least as far as the Tigris river.

It probably goes all the way to all his palaces and as far at Tikrit---his home town.

Steve, thank you for the kind comments earlier and the humor, too. I shall wear with pride the badge of MOAA.

Kara

If that article is correct it will be on American TV----until such time I choose to be very skeptical of it's authenticity.

Surely you jest about it being on American TV.

I saw this item on ZDF, german TV. But it was an Isaeli telling it He said an officer had warned him: Dont move because my soldiers are like blood dogs. They are trained to kill, and they will kill u in a second.

I found a transcript of an interview.

U.S. Military Detains, Beats and Threatens to Kill Four Foreign Journalists in Iraq

Craven

I share your outrage, but it seems you have only recently woken up to the unpalatable fact that international law is made up by the US as it goes along, and interpreted according to the wishes of the US president.

According to a BBC report the US is preparing to use chemical weapons against Baghdad, something else no doubt Fox News will not be broadcasting.

Kara

I read the Arab news story about the journalists beaten by US troops. I also recall Tommy Franks advising non embedded journalists that their safety could not be guaranteed. A few days later coalition forces opened up on a clearly marked ITN camera crew killing Terry Lloyd - others are still missing. I said at the time it sounded more like a threat than a warning. Most non embedded reporters seem to have got the message now and are holed up in a Kuwaiti hotel nicknamed "Groucho on Sea".

some more links
Israeli journalists claim mistreatment by U.S. forces

Canadian Journalists for Free Expression : Journalists Under Attack in Iraq

Are you still 100% confident you get the entire story of the war in Iraq.

Here's another story how some American journalists cover the war.



War Photo Doctored in Field


How do i make 1 photo out of 2?

Tartarin wrote




Well somebody somewhere must want it done. We just have to figure out who where and why.

Heard another of those people unambiguously calling this war illegal - tssk, tssk, those people must be truly anti-American - this one was: Judge Richard Goldstone, Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, former Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Frolic wrote

perception wrote:
Frolic wrote:

Quote:
At the base camp of the Fifth Marine Regiment here, two sharpshooters, Sgt. Eric Schrumpf, 28, and Cpl. Mikael McIntosh, 20, sat on a sand berm and swapped combat tales. The marines said they had little trouble dispatching their foes, most of whom they characterized as ill-trained and cowardly. "We had a great day," Sergeant Schrumpf said. "We killed a lot of people.... We dropped a few civilians," Sergeant Schrumpf said, "but what do you do?" [In one incident], he recalled watching one of the women standing near the Iraqi soldier go down. "I'm sorry," the sergeant said. "But the chick was in the way."

This was also in the same article which you conveniently omitted.

Both marines said they were most frustrated by the practice of some Iraqi soldiers to use unarmed women and children as shields against American bullets. They called the tactic cowardly but agreed that it had been effective. Both Sergeant Schrumpf and Corporal McIntosh said they had declined several times to shoot at Iraqi soldiers out of fear they might hit civilians.

These guys were snipers----the same kind that are on SWAT teams that deal with terrorists----don't be too hard on them---one of them might save your life someday. I won't attempt to defend the mentality of a sniper and yes it does require a certain profile.

You all can take great pride in finding allegations of misconduct---here again you are denying these men the most basic right ---- the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. You can be very proud of your self righteousness.

Steve, I heard about Terry Lloyd yesterday. That was tragic.

The story that frolic posted was very similar to the one I read in Arab News, but the latter spoke of only two journalists and showed a picture of them.

Self-righteousness? Hardly. At least in my case, I am only pointing to what starting and prosecuting a war does to people, especially the soldiers who must actually do the killing. Well-trained soldiers are like attack dogs, killing automatons. We cannot blame them for doing what they were taught to do.

As a country, we must have an army and other forces to defend us if we are attacked. That is a part of our world today and it is a world that we helped create. It is bad enough to need troops to defend us; it is unconscionable to send them out to start a war and then hope that they won't kill civilians by mistake or by instinct.

The new Saddam-
George W Bush, mass murderer, war criminal, child killer.

I'm really not outraged at all. This war doesn't bother me (I'm cold), "might is right" is natural and it doesn't suprise me.

What does bother me is when an attempt is made to rationalize it using falsities. I am more outraged by false statements than by war.

(hmmmm - I DO hope that there is SOME point at which we WOULD begin to blame soldiers and hold them accountable for their actions?

I am aware that this is a side-bar, hence the brackets, and I understand the terrible difficulties of war where combatants may not wear uniforms, but I am a little disturbed by frequent references to troops as "attack dogs" and the like. They aren't. They are humans.)