1
   

"I support the troops..." ???

 
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2003 03:10 pm
Quote:
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
...

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Resolution 1441 (2002)

Now Frank and others may find room for France and others to dance around the very simple, very straightforward facts in evidence here, but no matter how fast they dance, the facts don't simply go away.

It seems very clear to me, as it should be to everyone who signed this resolution, that it acknowledges that the Gulf War ended in a state of CEASE FIRE, the maintainance of which required very specific actions be taken by Saddam Hussein, actions he has refused for 12 years to take.

It seems equally clear that this resolution reaffirms the language of resolution 687 which "authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area".

And lastly there is simply no denying that resolution 1441 is a "relevant [resolution] subsequent to resolution 660". This means--and if I can read this, surely those who signed it can--that the text of 1441 by referencing 687 and 660 clearly and explicitly authorizes the use of military action in this matter.

(I believe this is the point in our exchange where Frank will tell everyone how I simply refuse to admit when I am wrong.) :wink:
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2003 03:26 pm
[quote="trespassers will

(I believe this is the point in our exchange where Frank will tell everyone how I simply refuse to admit when I am wrong.) :wink:[/quote]

COMMENTS:

Yup!

The Security Council can, and did, include all the "recognizing" and "recalling" they wanted and deemed necessary -- but the plain and simple fact is that France, Russia, and China simply would not sign onto any resolution that contained wording that caused war or invasion to automatically ensue upon non-compliance.

And the same goes for other nations that were part of the Security Council at the time 1441 was passed.

That is history. That is the truth. Those are the facts.

What you, and George Bush and company, are presenting is fanciful reconstruction, wishful thinking, and rationalizations. You are the one who is dancing, Tresspasser, and you are correct. No matter how fast you dance, the facts are not going to change.

Besides which -- it is not up to you or to George Bush to decide if Iraq is complying or has complied with the provisions of 687 or 660. That is for the Security Council to decide -- which is what they would have done if Bush hadn't decided to withdraw the new resolution.

That is also a factor in why I said you were wrong about France's obligations.

You were wrong about France's obligations.

I was correct when I called your error to your attention.

You do have a problem acknowledging when you are wrong.

But, hey, that doesn't make you a bad guy. It just makes you someone who cannot acknowledge when he is wrong.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2003 08:05 pm
Frank Apisa wrote: "Besides which -- it is not up to you or to George Bush to decide if Iraq is complying or has complied with the provisions of 687 or 660. That is for the Security Council to decide..."

That, I believe is the key to most disagreements. While some (UN, weapons inspectors, France, Germany, me, and like-minded people) believe that the resolutions were generally complied with, certainly at least within the past few weeks, others (U.S., GB, Tresspasser and like-minded) will find the compliance to be non-existent or 'half-hearted' (whatever kind of animal that may be). That, in turn, is supposed to be enough to justify an intervention of one country by other individual countries. But if it indeed is enough, all the years i have studied international law were a waste of time, for i haven't encountered such logic anywhere there.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2003 08:20 pm
Frank - You are a laugh! When we're talking about the constitutional requirement to declare war, you argue that the literal, legal interpretation rules, no matter what the courts have decided. Now, you're here on a different issue arguing that the clear and specific legal language doesn't matter since the ruling body refuses to apply it.

Seems your take on legal issues is bound only to your own opinion. You fit reality to your viewpoint.

If your viewpoint requires that anyone and everyone who disagrees with you is always "wrong", then I guess I have no choice but to be wrong, because I have no choice but to disagree with you here.

I am optimistic that perhaps one or two other people will read the source documentation for themselves and reach their own conclusions, though I know many--like you--reached your conclusion long ago and don't really care what the facts are or are not. Your mind is made up and your point of view is proof against reason.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2003 08:26 pm
So, uh, we may conclude you've pretty well got your mind made up there, eh, Tres? Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2003 08:30 pm
timberlandko wrote:
So, uh, we may conclude you've pretty well got your mind made up there, eh, Tres? Twisted Evil

I have formed an opinion based on the available information and facts as I have read them. If you think that opinion is flawed, please point me to evidence you think will change my mind or prove me wrong. I think you, Timber, know well enough that I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong. I just don't define "wrong" as "being in disagreement with Frank Almighty". :wink:

So, Timber, do you have something you think shows I've read this wrong?
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2003 08:33 pm
trespassers will wrote:
Frank - You are a laugh! When we're talking about the constitutional requirement to declare war, you argue that the literal, legal interpretation rules, no matter what the courts have decided. Now, you're here on a different issue arguing that the clear and specific legal language doesn't matter since the ruling body refuses to apply it.

Which constitution is in question? I do not know of any single one that would openly require a country to declare war. If wars do get mentioned in constitutions at all, it is the prohibition to enter into any but a defensive war. Certainly the U.S. Constitution does not justify the US intervention into Iraq on ANY legal grounds, court or no court decisions included. Neither does it non-justify it. It is simply not talked about.
The second is the same old thing restated from previous posts restated. The ruling body (UNB), in my opinion, does not refuse to apply the legal language. That is only how the U.S. officially interprets it and I consider this point of view to be wrong. But both views were stated several times before on this thread and therefore their constant reappearance is becoming tiresome and well, boring.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2003 08:33 pm
heavy sigh
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2003 08:43 pm
trespassers will wrote:
It seems equally clear that this resolution reaffirms the language of resolution 687 which "authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area".

And lastly there is simply no denying that resolution 1441 is a "relevant [resolution] subsequent to resolution 660". This means--and if I can read this, surely those who signed it can--that the text of 1441 by referencing 687 and 660 clearly and explicitly authorizes the use of military action in this matter.


Thanks for posting [an extract from] the exact text here, that is very clarifying.

You call a number of things "clear" from this text. One thing that is not clear to me from this text is whether the resolution "authorized Member States" individually, or collectively, to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660".

What if the Member States disagree amongst each other what the "necessary means" are? Does it say anything about the right of one state to declare that to "uphold and implement" the resolution, it is now necessary to resort to the means of war, and act on that, even when the other Member States are in explicit disagreement about that conclusion?

Who does 1441 "explicitly authorize the use of military action in this matter" - "the Member States", surely, not any one Member State that ran out of patience?

"The Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution" - but at this moment, a majority in the Council does feel that Iraq is sufficiently accepting the provisions of that resolution to warrant the process of implementing it more time. So how can the US glean from this resolution that it has the right to end the ceasefire by itself?

Looking forward to your answers, Tres.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2003 10:11 am
Obviously Tresspasser is grasping for straws. He will do anything not to acknowledge that he is wrong.

Tresspasser wrote:

"When we're talking about the constitutional requirement to declare war, you argue that the literal, legal interpretation rules, no matter what the courts have decided. Now, you're here on a different issue arguing that the clear and specific legal language doesn't matter since the ruling body refuses to apply it."

COMMENT:

Helloooo!!! Earth calling Tresspasser.

Where is the "clear and specific language" in any United Nations resolution that clearly and specifically says that the United States will unilaterally determine if requirements in UN resolution are being met -- and that clearly and specifically says that the United States may decide not only if the provisions are being met -- but what must be done if they are not?

The constitution clearly and specifically states that the power to declare war resides with the congress - not the president.

The various United Nations resolutions concerning Iraq DO NOT clearly and specifically state that the United States will determine if compliance is occurring -- and what must be done if compliance in fact is not occurring.

Your argument is absurd, Tresspasser.

You would do better to simply not answer than to answer in absurdities.

I have been consistent.

Sorry you are not up to the task of understanding that -- but that seems to go hand in hand with the fact that you are not up to the task of acknowledging when you are wrong.

BTW -- as others have already pointed out, you are in no position to be pointing your finger and talking about anyone already having "…made up his/her mind."

Your mind is not only made up, it is frozen shut.


Although I don't mind when you do things like that, Tresspasser. As I mentioned earlier, in times like these, a laugh is a laugh no matter how it comes your way.

I am truly thankful for the ones you are providing.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2003 11:27 pm
More indications on the legality of the war:

"In the UK, a senior legal adviser to the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has quit the Foreign Office [..] Elizabeth Wilmhurst, 54, deputy legal adviser, is understood to be unhappy with the government's official line that it has sufficient basis for war under UN resolutions. Ms Wilmhurst has been a legal adviser at the Foreign Office for 30 years, and deputy legal officer since 1997. [..]

Concern about the legal advice was expressed this week by two former Foreign Office legal advisers. In a letter to the Times, Sir Franklin Berman, legal adviser from 1991-99, and Sir Arthur Watts, legal adviser from 1987-91, expressed regret that the search for a second resolution had been abandoned. They said the onus was on the government to account "for their actions to the international community in whose name they claim to act"."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,919611,00.html
0 Replies
 
CodeBorg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 08:28 am
Re: "I support the troops..." ???
trespassers will wrote:
Now that it seems clear that the war is absolutely going to happen, do you want our troops to WIN?

In sports, everyone who gives it their best effort is a winner! Sport offers many great metaphors for life, some of which even apply well to war, ... but I'm afraid this one gets horribly reversed.

In war there are no winners. It is not possible to justify such embarassing lack of diplomacy, terrifying result, and tragic loss.

But if it were possible, then YES I want our troops to gain yardage, score well, and "WIN". Rah, rah, we're number one! We take home the oil!

Let's pray we can end this deadly game soon.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 07:49 pm
A poem we all can appreciate....

I Got Your Back

I am a small and precious child,
my dad's been sent to fight...
The only place I'll see his face,
is in my dreams at night.
He will be gone too many days
For my young mind to keep track.
I may be sad, but I am proud.
My daddy's got your back.


I am a caring mother.
My son has gone to war...
My mind is filled with worries
that I have never known before
Everyday I try to keep
my thoughts from turning black.
I may be scared, but I am proud.
My son has got your back.


I am a strong and loving wife,
with a husband soon to go.
There are times I'm terrified
in a way most never know.
I bite my lip, and force a smile
as I watch my husband pack...
My heart may break, but I am proud.
My husbands got your back...


I am a soldier...
Serving Proudly, standing tall.
I fight for freedom, yours and mine
by answering this call.
I do my job while knowing,
the thanks it sometimes lacks.
Say a prayer that I'll come home.
It's me who's got your back.


This poem was sent out by one of our unnamed military chaplains. It describes perfectly what many around us are feeling.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 08:45 pm
Borg,

Quote:
In war there are no winners.


A nice sentiment, but wrong. Most wars do have winners, and losers. Sometimes the bad guys win, and sometimes they are defeated. Who are most often the bad guys? Hitler and Stalin are perhaps the two most infamous victors in modern times. For a time they demonstrated the cost of losing to totalitarian states in the grip of mad men. Those defeated by Hitler and Stalin were enslaved and murdered. They both intended to rule the World, to impose their evil notions over all mankind. They had no mercy, no conscience, and no guilt about telling the greatest lies. They converted their countries economies into nothing more than a war-making machine to enforce their power at home and extend their rule throughout the world.

Hitler and Stalin had at their disposal modern technology, communications and transportation networks, but they were not the first "bad guys" in history. The Turks have the dishonor of conducting the first modern holocaust against the armaneans at the beginning of the last century. Napoleon "invented" the idea of "total war" that involves every citizen and resource available to a nation, and the British out did him at it. During the Reformation the winners of wars slaughtered the defeated in the name of God. In ancient times defeat almost always meant that the victor killed all the males above the age of 10, enslaved the children and raped the women before either killing them or enslaving them. The defeated provided the muscle power to mine the metals on which empires were built. Captured POWs pulled the oars of war galleys until they died. Captured cities were utterly destroyed and the fields salted so that they could not be planted again. We know of the military victories, because those nations tended to survive long enough to generate historical records. We don't know much about those countless communities that were defeated and vanished into darkness leaving little, or no record that they ever existed. War does have winners and losers.

European civilization has an impressive string of victories. Many were not pretty, much less politically correct by modern standards, but they were never-the-less victories. Merchantilism and now obsolete economic theories drove European nations to colonize the Americas, Africa, and many parts of Asia. The old style colonialism is gone now, but a new form of "colonialism" is complained of by emerging communities set adrift in the post Cold War. The new "colonialism" is not intended to exercise political, or even economic control over third world states. It is, instead, the by-product of our success in providing individuals with what they most want and desire.

We are politically free to disagree with our government. We eat well, perhaps too much. We have all the trappings of wealth; fancy automobiles, snappy cloths, mansions to live in, leisure to travel to exotic locations where every whim is catered to. Our streets seem to be paved with gold. Of course, that isn't true, but it is the image of Western Civilization that is portrayed in the media and everyone loves a good Hollywood thriller. The world loves our entertainment, and they have even more trouble understanding the difference between fact and fiction than many of those who have lived all their lives in the West.

Western Civilization continues to expand and capture the hearts and dreams of the world's downtrodden. The contrast with their own lives is obvious. Their leaders, both secular and religious, prey upon those unfulfilled aspirations to enhance their own positions of power. They do it with hate, and promises that the "Chosen" will with the help of their God/Dictator defeat the infidels and secure all the blessings of the world for their own people. In the meantime, sacrifices must be made to support the leadership. Victory is promised to the faithful, and they really do intend to defeat Western Civilization if they can. That they are unlikely to ever be totally victorious over Western arms is remote, so they must pursue other strategies. Propaganda is one of those tools, and they have shown themselves capable of using it on their own People and on the Western masses.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2003 01:42 pm
You write well, Asherman, and with depth.

Yes, in a war there are winners and losers. It's naive to not think so.

If things go smoothly according to the US government goals:

Sadam will lose: a good thing to the world, one less cruel tyrant.

Bush will win: a new international order, in which an unchecked world superpower looks for it's own security, prosperity and interests regardless of international law, gains momentum.
Some Americans may legitimately consider it a good thing. For the rest of the world, it does not seem like it: at least, it's not the best possible scenario.

The Iraqi people will win some, lose some: they will win individual freedom and, most likely, the security of not being ruled by a bloodthirsty police State; they will lose the capacity of creating an autonomous State, as Iraq will become an American protectorate; they will lose national pride; they will most probably lose long standing peace, as the region becomes the center of American Mideast activity; they will lose many more lives and they will lose dreams as they adjust to the new situation.
Certainly not mass massacres or the galleys, but I'm certain the majority of them will not feel "liberated". And I don't know, in the balance, what do they value more.

The rest of the world will win some, lose some: will win an economic recovery (if the war is swift), will lose as tensions grow in the Middle East, will lose capability of multilateral decision taking. Every American will account for more; every other national will account for less.
It will not win more global security.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2003 04:14 pm
fbaezer
I should remind you that the same could have been said about the US and Europe after WW2. But instead you had the Marshal plan and the rebuilding of Europe with American aid.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2003 06:01 pm
au,
WWII had 2 1/2 victors.

The US and the Soviet Union won outright. So the world became bipolar.
Great Britain was the half victor, and the free world ows a lot to the Brits capability of standing alone, when the US was debating from its isolationism and Stalin was patiently waiting for the Nazis to invade.

The Marshall Plan was a great idea, both politically and economically.
Economically, The US got rid of their excess dollars in a mutually benefical way. In exchange, and against Britain's objections, they got the Bretton Woods system, with fixed the price of gold in dollar terms, and allowed the US to have deficits for many years.
Politically, it was an appropriate response to the Soviet threat (remember that the Communist parties in Italy, France and Greece were very strong). I am not sure if this political element would have been taken into account without a strong Soviet Union.

This war, instead, calls for unipolarity (and I doubt Great Britain will have a true say against that).

Sincerely, au, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.
Only I don't see in President Bush the moral spine present in Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Harry Truman.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2003 06:40 pm
fbaezer
I disagree. I believe the war had not 21/2 victors but three and possibly 31/2 victors. You should not forget were it not for Briton holding out against all odds and alone there might have been no victory. My hat is off to them.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2003 07:14 pm
I wrote:
"...the free world ows a lot to the Brits capability of standing alone, when the US was debating from its isolationism and Stalin was patiently waiting for the Nazis to invade".

So, there's no disagreement on that.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 01:51 pm
Quote:
an unchecked world superpower

I don't think there is any question whether or not the US is the lone superpower today, but to write that our power is unchecked is to lack perspective on what truly unchecked power is, how it behaves, and what it has wrought throughout history.

Unchecked power doesn't attempt to find consensus, it acts. The US tried to find consensus within the UN, but failing that, did exactly what I would wish them to do: acted as they believed to be in the best interests of the US.

Our power is not unchecked, but neither is it subordinated to the will of others.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/31/2024 at 08:14:51