The US, UN & Iraq II

THAT, by the way, is not called sovereignty, how did that association came about? If you are part of ICC, or of any international organization, that does not lessen your sovereignty. There is a ton of international relations literature out there. If we want to discuss and throw definitions, we should use them correctly.

0 Replies

Dagmar

Surely you can do something besides criticise others----why don't you give us the benefit of your original thinking or are you merely capable of parroting the thinking of others

0 Replies

oy vey

0 Replies

Yeah, oy vey.

dagmaraka, you've mentioned a familiarity with
International Law previously if I recall. What is going on now indicates to me that the system which grew from Maritime Law is not well suited to the current state of technologic sophistication and financial globalization. In some ways, it may be said that system, and its offspring, The UN, are to blame for today's division and rancor.

0 Replies

surely i can, perception. please do go back and read my posts above and on related threads. share your opinion with me then.

0 Replies

I happen to think Dag shows extremely independent and complex thinking.

No accounting for opinions, I guess.

0 Replies

I value Dag's posts.

0 Replies

Its all just perception, really, isn't it? Twisted Evil

Sorry ... I just couldn't resist that ... no offense meant, perception ...it was too good to pass up. I remember a thread or two where someone has posted "Timmmmmmber!!!!" or the like to indicate a personal perception that the point I was climbing had fallen :wink:

0 Replies

What's anyone's thought on why Saddam hasn't shot off any WMD yet?

--because he's dead or injured?

--or because he didn't have any to begin with?

0 Replies

I

Quote:

In some ways, it may be said that system, and its offspring, The UN, are to blame for today's division and rancor.

Please explain this statement, timber. If not the UN, what global organizatiion would you put forth to peace-keep in the world?

I heard today something I had forgotten....that Iraq did not use chemical and biological weapons in Gulf War I, although it had the capability. Maybe Iraq did not do so this time, for the same reasons, pDiddie, whatever they are?

0 Replies

trespassers will wrote:

Quote:
...the International Criminal Court, which the Bush administration opposes...

We don't oppose it, we simply don't recognize its authority over US citizens and on US soil. (It's called sovereignty.)

and if everybody else didnt either, there would be no ICC.

there's three positions to carve out here, potentially:

1) we oppose the notion of a permanent international institution to judge over war criminals, because out of principle we hold the value of national sovereignty higher than that of international justice;

2) we support the notion of a permanent international institution to judge over war criminals, because we find that if the massacres of the 20th century have taught us anything, it's to no longer allow the principle of "sovereignty" to stand in the way of stopping or punishing acts of genocide;

3) we support the international institution that is to judge over war criminals - as long as we are guaranteed that they will only ever be from other countries.

I support position 2; i disagree with position 1 but have to agree that it is a consistent position to take. position 3, on the other hand, just doesn't make any sense. hypocritical would be a friendly term to label it with, and how do you really imagine to convince any other country to cooperate with a war crimes tribunal if for yourself you demand the opt-out?

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

I heard today something I had forgotten....that Iraq did not use chemical and biological weapons in Gulf War I, although it had the capability. Maybe Iraq did not do so this time, for the same reasons, pDiddie, whatever they are?

well, back then iraq was facing a coalition that officially was only out to liberate kuwait. it knew that to march on to baghdad would be a hefty risk for george bush sr., one he might well decide to forego on in the end - and that it thus stood a fair chance in surviving as a state and a regime.

as soon as it would have fired chemical or biological weapons at the coalition, however, it would have lost this chance immediately, as the coalition would immediately have reacted by marching on to baghdad after all.

this time none of that plays a role. the hussein regime should be pretty clear that it can not win, in the end - there is no chance that the US troops will suddenly back out again. so there is no reason for the hussein regime to avoid provoking anything worse than what is already happening - it is already worst-case scenario for them right now. it can only hope to create a maximum of damage, now that it has nothing to lose.

therefore i think it's fair to propose that should iraq not use any chemical or biological weapons - it is because it never had any, in the first place.

0 Replies

Paul Krugman's opening paragraph in his column today in the NYT is too good to let go by (and I like onions and The Onion):

The Onion describes itself as "America's finest news source," and it's not an idle boast. On Jan. 18, 2001, the satirical weekly bore the headline "Bush: Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over," followed by this mock quotation: "We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."...

0 Replies

Turkey Sends 1,000 Troops Into Northern Iraq to Contain Kurds, Refugees; U.S. Objects to Move
By SELCAN HACAOGLU

Quote:

Turkey sent 1,000 troops into northern Iraq on Friday to bolster its military presence and promised to send more to prevent Iraqi Kurds from creating an independent state.
The United States strongly opposes any unilateral move by Turkey into northern Iraq, fearing it would disrupt the U.S. campaign to oust Saddam Hussein. Iraqi Kurds _ who like Turkey are U.S. allies _ have threatened attacks on any invading Turkish forces.
"We don't see any need for any Turkish incursions into northern Iraq," Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday.
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, however, insisted Turkey was determined to send in a large force.

IYARBAKIR, Turkey -

Quote:

The Kurdish ethnic group that populates most of southeastern Turkey is boiling with rage at the central government and is likely to rebel if Turkey attempts to assert control over the Kurds of northern Iraq during a US invasion, Kurdish and Turkish leaders and human-rights activists say.
Arrests and torture of Kurds by Turkish forces in Turkey are rising sharply, according to human-rights officials in this city, which has the largest Kurdish population. The 950 arrests on political charges in January and February of this year were twice the number for all of 2002, they say

.

0 Replies

Quote:

trespassers will wrote:
Quote:
...the International Criminal Court, which the Bush administration opposes...

We don't oppose it, we simply don't recognize its authority over US citizens and on US soil. (It's called sovereignty.)

A few shots over Tres' bow for this post. No reason not to add another.

I actually didn't quite believe you'd written this, Tres.

I mean, to make that statement while the US has just begun a war against a sovereign state.

And, where the justification for that action is that the attacked state has not abided by a UN mandate - a mandate which the US clearly feels ought to be recognized and adhered to as it has authority above and beyond sovereignty..

Thus, sovereignty for the US is demanded, but for other states, submission to senior authority is contrarily demanded.

But, of course, the reality is even worse than that. The UN didn't demand this violation of sovereignty - the US did.

America Uberallis.

0 Replies

What's interesting about this war is the extremely heavy reliance on multifaceted psychological warfare and propaganda. Every war uses psy-ops as one of its elements, but seldom I think has it been so integral to the effort. This whole thing about the fate of Saddam is a key point. For the US, if he's dead, great. If the US can get the word out that he might be dead, also great -- since it spreads doubt about the continuance of the regime. If the US can coax Saddam out into the open to prove he's alive, that's still good -- since it gets him out in the open for the US to take another shot at him.

(Who would've ever suspected the Republicans were so good at mindfucking? Rolling Eyes

)

A similar logic applies to all this talk about on-going surrender negotiations with elements of the Iraqi army.

With the media "embedded" so far up the administration's anus it stands to reason that they would make use of the reporters as another instrument in the propoganda toolbox.

0 Replies

Snood wrote: happen to think Dag shows extremely independent and complex thinking.
No accounting for opinions, I guess.

Tartarin wrote:
I value Dag's posts.

Uh Oh Dagmar
You've got two strikes against you. That is if you're trying to separate yourself from the delusional--you are aren't you?

0 Replies

Perc, old chum...I'll do this one last time...

1) I've related, on quite a few previous occassions here that I think there is far more positive about the US than there is negative.

2) I've made the rather innocuous argument that point 1 doesn't give the US carte blanche.

3) I've pointed to the many instances where US has acted in self interest, to the great detriment of others, and suggested this may account for some of the anti-American sentiment which exists.

4) For the reasons I and others have stated god knows how many times, I think this particular administration is the worst example I've ever seen of precisely the sorts of ideas and values which led to the instances in point 3.

5) I'm sorry we Canadians burned down your White House.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

What's interesting about this war is the extremely heavy reliance on multifaceted psychological warfare and propaganda.

In the context of "mindfuck" - to put it coarsely - the link "Saddam has WMD - we must attack or they will explode over US cities" must be the most transparent but also, apparently, the most successful piece of it. A Newsweek commentator was on BBC World earlier tonight, saying, quote (as precise as I could get typing while she spoke):

"Instead, the administration has decided to redirect American anger over 9/11 on to Saddam Hussein. At one point in time 60% of Americans believed Saddam was linked with 9/11. This is an emotional argument. [..] But I don't think in reality there's any indication that Americans will be any safer from the likes of Osama bin Laden after a victory over Saddam Hussein".

PDiddie wrote:

With the media "embedded" so far up the administration's anus it stands to reason that they would make use of the reporters as another instrument in the propoganda toolbox.

I see that danger, although the Newsweek commentator, for one, also proves it may not be as blanket bad as you suggest yet. Still, I was curious. Tonight I've been watching BBC, and they repeated three times this 10+-minute overview on "what the Arab papers say" - the whole gamut from fiercely enthusiastic (Kuwait) to deeply sceptic (everywhere else, it seems). Do you get that on CNN or Fox, at all, this reflection on the voice of the Other, in this conflict?

0 Replies

The Canadians once again show their civility, intelligence, good taste, forbearance, and (in my view) general superiority. Except for the weather and some of the architecture. Maybe the road food.

0 Replies

The US, UN & Iraq II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know