The Massacre has begun!!

Bi-Polar Bear
Sorry but I am not about to wade through dozens of posts from 2 or more weeks ago to review a dead issue. I would suggest you review some of Folic's posts and judge for yourself where her/his sympathies lie.

0 Replies

No problem au, although I must say that if frolics' alleged pro Saddam pro Al Jezeera leanings were so strong and so patently obvious that you could have given me an example right off the top of your head.

Perhaps, as happens to all of us, myself included with age, your short term memory is going south.

Now, what were we talking about? :wink:

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear
Folic on post after post kept repeating the Al Jazeera line and insisting that everything shown on it was the gospel truth. At the same time said everything reported in the American press was a lie.
You seem to be a day late and a dollar short.

Your allegations can mean two things. Or you watch Al Jazeera and made up your mind about the channel. Or you dont know what you'r talking about. Have you ever watched one single minute to A-J? OK they showed the US Soldiers killed in action. How many dead Iraqi soldiers have we seen on TV lately? OK they showed the POWs. How many Iraqi POWs have we seen on TV. You have double standards.

I'm not saying the American Press lies. I read several American online newspapers. I only said the Centcom lied to us the entire war. Give me one press conference where Brooks or other spokesman didn't lie? If they didn't lie Saddam is a cat with seven lives. Now he has 5 lives because he already is killed twice.

Those embeded journalists are a joke. When it talks like a GI, walks like a GI and is dressed like a GI

It must be a ...

0 Replies

Who is unbiased?

Al Jazeera showed the pictures of the Baghdad residents waving to American soldiers. and the Statue that was brought down. A-J is an independent Arab newschannel, they have no ties to any regime.

I'm not so sure Fox News would show pictures of US soldiers lyched by angry citizens and dragged down the streets of Bagdad.

0 Replies

[quote="nimh"
Since you are deriving the war's legality from the UN resolutions, let us compare those resolutions with national laws. The US has adopted various laws, laws confirmed, in the end, by Supreme Court verdicts. Now someone says that a person should be sentenced to death on the basis of those laws; the person himself disagrees, obviously. The case goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would be the equivalent of the Security Council, then - you can't go up higher for getting your legitimisation. (Both consist of political appointees, anyway Wink

.

[/quote]

"you can't go up higher for getting your legitimization. (Both consist of political appointees, anyway Wink

."

Oh, I disagree. You can always go to the people.

California, had a little problem, a few years back, with a State Supreme Court Justice, implementing her feelings on the "Death Penalty" Chief Justice Rose Bird, along with a couple of other liberal justices, were recalled. The first time in California history, for ever an event like that to occur.

The United Nations has become, irrelevant. Without the United States support (money and troops), where would this League of Nations be. The very idea, that these second and third rate countries, can attempt to foil any attempts by the United States, in it's right to self determination and self preservation, is laughable.

The United States, was the coalition (ooops, sorry about that Brits, but numbers are numbers), in the first Gulf War. It was our troops, planes, and ships, that waged war against Iraq, under the banner of the United Nations approval. It was United States representatives who accepted the surrender treaty signed by Iraq. And it was the United States, that supplied the main force in assuring that Iraq complied.
What happened? The United Nations "Oil for Food." was a joke. Why was Saddam allowed to rebuild his army? Why was he allowed to train thousands of paramilitary terrorists? Why was he allowed to throw the arms inspectors out of the country? How was he able to build such lavish palaces, when the money was suppose to be used for humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people?

Where was the United Nations???

Where is the United Nations, without the United States???

Again, the United Nations, is not the Supreme Court. Any comparisons between the two, is delusional.

PS: Asherman, if your reading this, I commend you, on a very well written and thoughtful reply... ferrous

0 Replies

ferrous wrote:

Again, the United Nations, is not the Supreme Court. Any comparisons between the two, is delusional.

You may think it doesnt function as well as the Supreme Court. Some Americans dont think too highly of the Supreme Court anymore, after 2000. But really, one's estimation of how well either is doing its job is irrelevant in this comparison. The Supreme Court ultimately decides on what is legal or not in America, whether its about abortion rights or the election of Bush Jr as president, and one or the other plaintiff thinking it did a bad job in making its decision doesnt change anything about the verdict. In the same way, you may not like how the UN Security Council defines the meaning of its resolutions, but you cant just go out and decide for yourself what they "really meant".

Asherman based the legality of the US fighting this war on its supposed implementation of UN resolutions. He thus derived the legality of this war from UN "legislation" - but ignores the fact that the UN "judges" (those who devised and authorized the resolutions in question) have in majority, and explicitly, said their resolutions don't authorize this war. Its like saying your act is legal because you've based it on Supreme Court verdicts, when the majority of SC Justices have told you that's not what they meant, and you only have the minority opinion to cite. Its a bogus argument, and thus mere rhetorics, repeated over and again by the Bush people, and I'm fed up with it.

The only part of your post that actually reacts to the parallel is where you write:

ferrous wrote:

"you can't go up higher for getting your legitimization"

Oh, I disagree. You can always go to the people.

California, had a little problem, a few years back, with a State Supreme Court Justice, implementing her feelings on the "Death Penalty". Chief Justice Rose Bird, along with a couple of other liberal justices, were recalled.

Now there's an option. You can call the authority of the institution itself in question, and have "the people" recall the judges. Pity "the people" in this case would be "the people of the United Nations". No way for them yet to do the same with those on the Security Council. In this case, considering world public opinion on the matter, it is highly doubtful that "the people" would have ruled any more in favour of the US case. Most likely, they would've recalled the US and GB representatives.

In this case, the minority on the SC has rejected the authority of the SC majority to define what SC resolutions mean. Instead, it has granted itself the authority to define what the resolutions "really meant", and act on it. The only "people" authorising it to do so are the people of two countries: the US and the UK. Is that authorisation enough? Only if you reason in the mode you do:

ferrous wrote:

Without the United States support (money and troops), where would this League of Nations be. [..] Where is the United Nations, without the United States???

But that's just "might makes right" Nothing to do with justice or legitimacy.

Finally, on some other points:

ferrous wrote:

Why was Saddam allowed to rebuild his army?

He wasnt allowed to "rebuild his army". The only thing Iraq was accused of was not completing the "unbuilding" of its army that the UN had demanded. The US government itself was proudly claiming Iraqi disarmament had already progressed to 80%, a few years ago.

ferrous wrote:

Why was he allowed to train thousands of paramilitary terrorists?

If you are referring to the Fedayeen Saddam - such militias, alas, are every nation's prerogative. 'S far as I know nothing was said about them in any UN resolution or in the treaty Iraq signed. If you are referring to the supposed Al-Qaeda link: never proven.

0 Replies

The UN did not pass any resolutions prohibiting military action to enforce their earlier resolutions authorizing it. Though the members of the Security Council argued long and hard for delay (to give Dr. Blix more time to disarm Saddam), they never said force would not, should not, could not be used. The question was one of timing; now, or during the heat of summer?

The Supreme Court analogy isn't very good in my opinion. The Security Council functions more like a legislative branch than the Supreme Court under the U.S. Constitution. Once the UN passed resolutions threatening "dire consequences" if Saddam failed to meet certain standards, the only way back would have been to pass a resolution withdrawing the threat. France, Russia, and China, weren't in any position to benefit from the use of force, quite the contrary. Their national agendas weren't driven by anything other than self interest, but their actions seriously brought the UN's credibility into question. If military force had not been used, then all UN resolutions would have been a dead letter. The coalitions willingness to act, and their resolve in spite of the vocal opposition, may well have given the UN a second chance to be relevant in the 21st century.

If the DPRK, and other state sponsors of international terrorism, now understand that an irresistible military force exists that will act against them in appropriate circumstances, perhaps they will be less willing to foment murder. The DPRK's nuclear adventurism is going to be brought before the Security Council sooner, or later. When that happens the Security Council will have the opportunity to show the resolve of the American and British leadership. If they fail that test, the United States and Britain may take action on their own. The authorization already exists, in the resolutions re. the North Korean invasion of South Korea, and the cease fire agreements that are now 50 years old.

Ferrous,

Thank you for your kind words. Though those who are against the war, against the current administration, and/or against America are very vocal at the moment, many more quietly understand the necessity for this war, support the administration, and are offended by anti-American sentiment. In these threads we have all sorts from every part of the spectrum. Some I agree with most of the time, others in my estimation would like to see the United States crushed, humiliated, and defeated. I'm sorry that I haven't the eloquence, or the ability to more effectively argue for what I believe is in the best interests of the world, and the United States.

If you post opinions here that don't agree with the most vocal contributors, my advice is to grow a thick skin.

0 Replies

"to see the US crushed, humilitated and defeated"....good grief. Thought I confess this I do want to see regarding Rupert Murdoch and anyone who's responsible for the World Federation of Wrestling.

Asherman...with this supposition about anyone here, you are ten miles out in left field and wearing a glove with a great huge hole in it. Arguments and claims of subtlety and sophistication abound in these threads, and nothing has been said by folks from outside the border than have been echoed by Americans like yourself. If you set up your thinking on such an extreme black and white framework, you'll continue to miss getting outs, and the 'other side' will get to continue flirting with the cute cheerleaders.

0 Replies

The United States has moved a WMD to the Persian Gulf region.

A single, 21,000-pound MOAB bomb has been moved to an undisclosed forward base. The bomb, nicknamed the "mother of all bombs," is officially known as the Massive Ordnance Air Blast.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

The UN did not pass any resolutions prohibiting military action to enforce their earlier resolutions authorizing it.

The earlier UN resolutions did not authorize this military action, that's the point. The US government interprets the earlier UN resolutions on Iraq to authorize this military action, but the majority of the members of the UN Security Council have explicitly disagreed. According to the majority opinion of the body that devised and adopted the resolutions in question, the US would have had to seek a new resolution to legitimise this military action. The US did not seek such a resolution because it knew that not one of the members except for Britain would endorse it.

This is not just the France-and-Russia thing that you make it out to be. You write:

Asherman wrote:

France, Russia, and China, weren't in any position to benefit from the use of force, quite the contrary. Their national agendas weren't driven by anything other than self interest

But it wasnt just those countries; Germany and even current Security Council members as far afield as Chile, Guinea, Angola and Mexico made clear they would not endorse a resolution that formulated this military action as the justified implementation of earlier resolutions - because not one of these countries thought it was. Only Britain and the US.

You contend that, concerning the interpretation of of what action resolution 1441 justified, all those 9 or so countries represented mere expressions of disingenious national self-interest, whereas the two remaining countries voicing the Bush interpretation represented the universal, selfless 'true' interpretation? Doesn't that sound like a rather bizarre inversion?

Asherman wrote:

the members of the Security Council [..] never said force would not, should not, could not be used.

No - but neither had it formulated, not in resolution 1441 either, when and how force would or should be used. That's why a new resolution would have been necessary.

This has been discussed on A2K before, of course. Tress, for example, made the same case that this war was a legal action, authorized by the existing resolution 1441. He even cited it, which I much appreciated. For this is what he cited:

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)

And he concluded:

trespassers will wrote:

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.

As I then already pointed out (to which he unsurprisingly never answered):

nimh wrote:

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?

It can, I submit, only because it really wants to - but that, as most interpretations of 1441 around the world show, does not a legal foundation make.

If a UN resolution is henceforth to mean whatever the best armed SC member deems it to mean then all UN resolutions will truly be a dead letter.

0 Replies

U cant say the UN is irrelevant and at the same time say the war is just because resolution 1441 says so(Which is diputed by a lot of academics) If the only goal of the UN should be delivering Aid, you cant justify a war by refering to the same UN.

Rummy and Doubya may think so, but the world is not stupid.

0 Replies

deleted. double posting.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

There is, even in the US, but certainly abroad, an enormous amount of discontent and dissatisfaction with coverage of this war by the main US media.

Can you offer us any evidence that this is anything but your personal opinion? (And for the record, I am not claiming it is only your opinion, rather I am attempting to determine whether it is anything more than that.)

0 Replies

Tress

Is media war coverage biased?

0 Replies

We live in a world where everyone has their own news sources. We have CNN for mainstream American news junkies, Al Jazeera for the Arab audience, BBC to xenophiles, numerous "ethnic media" outlets for different races in this country and FOX News for angry white people. Everyone with any opinion has their own 'unbiased' news source to feed them soothing messages. Meanwhile there is a whole world of things happening that we don't see and really have no hope of understanding.

0 Replies

trespassers will wrote:

blatham wrote:
There is, even in the US, but certainly abroad, an enormous amount of discontent and dissatisfaction with coverage of this war by the main US media.

Can you offer us any evidence that this is anything but your personal opinion? (And for the record, I am not claiming it is only your opinion, rather I am attempting to determine whether it is anything more than that.)

All depends on how to operationalise the word "enormous" ... There seem to be a lot of Americans on this board who are pretty disgruntled about it. I'm sure I could point you to a dozen or so websites where people are analysing the limitations to US media news coverage, why its imperfect, say, or where they are trying to provide alternatives, etc.

If you mean whether any of that would translate into any pollable double-digit sized figures on infuriated media users, nah, probably not. Thats the fear those who do complain have, in fact - that most people are not likely to go hunting for alternative news sources on the web, and will just believe what the, y'know, CNN/MSNBC/ABC format puts out. Why not, if following the news is not your first priority in life? I'm sure most people are not concerned too much, but an increasing kind of enough people are, to perhaps warrant the use of the word "enormous" ...

0 Replies

Thanks frolic and nimh for the responses. I think (?) we all agree that the coverage has touched all the bases, though individuals certainly could argue that they have seen too much of X or not enough of Y.

However, I doubt anyone can find support for blatham's claim that the number of people who are unhappy with the coverage is "enormous". I would bet that the group who feel "discontent and dissatisfaction with coverage of this war by the main US media" is in fact quite small.

Of course, I am happy to qualify that as my opinion. Very Happy

0 Replies

tres

I'm afraid you'll have to do your own work here. Just guessing at the number of relevant articles from European, Brit, Canadian, and American press which have been linked or quoted JUST on threads where you've been active will be several dozens. Of course, you'd have to actually read them.

How many foreign papers to you read per week? How many different American papers? When's the last time you checked the LA Times, the Boston Globe, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution? How often do you attend to BBC coverage or CBC coverage?

Another simpler option for you might be to query the members here who hail from outside the US, as there are quite a few of them. Just ask a polling question such as "In your opinion, is mainstream US media coverage of the Iraq war mainly balanced, or does it show an unsatisfactory balance.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

If the DPRK, and other state sponsors of international terrorism, now understand that an irresistible military force exists that will act against them in appropriate circumstances, perhaps they will be less willing to foment murder.

The DPRK seems to have drawn quite a different conclusion - one I'd already predicted it would make, when I quipped earlier on that the US would attack Iraq and not North-Korea because they know for sure the DPRK does have WMD.

See this report from Yahoo News:

Quote:

North Korea came close Thursday to admitting that it possessed nuclear weapons when it said allowing nuclear inspections would entail disarmament.

"The US demand for the DPRK's (North Korea's) scrapping of its 'nuclear weapons programme before dialogue' would lead to inspection and the resultant disarmament spark a war," Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said.

KCNA said North Korea had learned from the war in Iraq (news - web sites) that it was a fatal mistake to bow to inspections as Baghdad had learned to its cost.

"The only way of averting a war is to increase one's own just self-defensive means," KCNA said.

"The Iraqi war launched by the US preemptive attack clearly proves that a war can be prevented and the security of the country and the nation can be ensured only when one has physical deterrent force, a military deterrent force strong enough to decisively repel any attack of the enemy with any types of sophisticated weapons."

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

tres

I'm afraid you'll have to do your own work here.

blatham - It is not my job to support the statements of others, nor is it your job to tell me what my job is. Do us both a favor, and comment on others for a while, I'm a bit tired of your superior attitude and snide, underhanded insults.

I'm asking nicely. Very Happy

0 Replies

The Massacre has begun!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know