PDA

View Full Version : Yo Saddam, time to die.


cr2sh
Jan 29, 2003, 10:05 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2708023.stm



The heads of eight European countries have called for a unified front against Iraq, lending much needed diplomatic support to US President George Bush as he builds his case against Saddam Hussein.

In a joint letter to various newspapers, the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic warned that the credibility of the United Nations would be on the line if it failed to ensure that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein complied with its resolution on disarmament.
The statement is being seen as a calculated rebuff to France and Germany, the European heavyweights which sit on the United Nations Security Council and which have expressed serious reservations about war.

The Bush administration has in the last few days made clear that it is prepared to go to war without the backing of the UN if need be, declaring it would lead instead a "coalition of the willing".

The BBC's Ian Pannell in Washington says this letter gives that claim some substance. The timing of this declaration of support, he says, could not have come at a better time for the administration.

Clear threat

The Europeans' letter was published a day before UK Prime Minister Tony Blair meets Mr Bush for talks focussing on how to deal with Iraq, a session which some analysts have already dubbed a council of war.

Europeans, the letter said, agreed that Saddam was a "clear threat to world security".

They declared that the world should ensure that the Iraqi regime is disarmed.

"The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity."

'Old Europe' rift

Their strong support for the US and a "transatlantic relationship" is in sharp contrast to open differences between Washington and France and Germany.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently derided France and Germany as the "old Europe" after their leaders said they would work together to avoid war in Iraq.

Mr Rumsfeld said France and Germany had been "a problem" but he predicted that other European countries - particularly those in the formerly communist central and eastern Europe - would back the US.

However, while Thursday's letter indicates there is support for the US from the new Nato members of the former eastern bloc, divisions within the Security Council - which may still be asked to approve a war - remain strong.

Russia - a permanent council member with power of veto - demanded that Washington provide "undeniable proof" that Iraq had banned weapons of mass destruction.

France - another permanent member - said during a debate on a report by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix that there should be more time to verify or find fault with Iraq's claims it has disarmed.

Mr Blix told the Council earlier this week that Iraq had been complying with UN resolutions only reluctantly and may still have biological weapons.

Eleven of the 15 members agreed there should be further scrutiny of the situation before any military campaign is launched.


We'll see how France and Germany respond...
thoughts?

job
Jan 29, 2003, 10:50 PM
Oh guess what.

Germany and France screwed the rest of the EU. They have agreed to split the "presidency" of the EU between themselves instead of rotating it on a set basis. They pissed off the rest of the EU in this power grab.


Deep divisions on power may stall European constitution
By Thomas Fuller (International Herald Tribune)
Wednesday, January 22, 2003


BRUSSELS: Europe's constitutional convention closed two days of acrimonious debate Tuesday deadlocked on the issue of who will hold power in the expanded European Union.

Lacking any clear consensus, Guiliano Amato, the vice president of the convention, suggested that the current deadline of June to produce a draft constitution may be pushed back.

"It's taking more time than expected," he said after the session ended.

Deep divisions persisted over a proposal by France and Germany to put in place two presidents at the head of the Union.

Responding to harsh criticism, Dominique de Villepin, France's foreign minister, defended the proposal on the convention floor, saying there would be no "rivalry" between two presidents leading the Union.

"The time has come for each of us, on the basis of our distinct sensitivities, to move toward each other - as France and Germany have done," he told the 105 delegates.

Peter Hain, the British government's representative, said he agreed "word for word" with de Villepin.

But most delegates were deeply critical of the proposal.

Lamberto Dini, a former Italian foreign minister and one of Italy's delegates to the convention, said in an interview that the Franco-German proposal represented "a Gaullist vision of Europe made by states and not the construction of a federal Europe."

"They have tarnished their own image and their own union by putting up a proposal that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the convention," Dini said.

Of the idea of having two presidents Dini added: "Inevitably there would be a clash."

In stark contrast to France, Germany offered only a tepid defense of the proposal, which both countries announced in Paris last week.

Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, said he recognized concerns about two presidents "falling over each other." But Fischer, who is known to have been disappointed by the deal, did not say how this conflict might be addressed.

He called the Franco-German proposal a "compromise solution."

"Nothing is ideal in this world," he said.

The failure to reach a consensus means that Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the president of the convention, will write draft articles on power sharing in Brussels without any clear direction from the delegates.

The convention is scheduled to reconvene in February, but power sharing is not officially on the agenda.

Giscard opened the session Monday by suggesting that he favors having two presidents oversee the Union, one who would head the European Council, which represents the EU's national governments, and one at the European Commission, the Union's executive arm in Brussels.

It was unclear if he had changed his stand after hearing the protests by about 50 speakers Monday and Tuesday. He made a short statement but did not take questions from reporters after the session was finished.

Delegates say the sharp reaction to the French-German plan showed the limited power of big countries to control the agenda at the convention.

Unlike other EU institutions, each EU country is represented by the same number of delegates - in this case three - including the countries that have applied to join the EU. There are also 16 members of the European Parliament and two representatives of the European Commission - giving weight to those who prefer greater European integration.

"The convention has a dynamic of its own," said Gijs de Vries, the Dutch government's delegate. "It's a much more open process. It is not under the control of any national government."

De Vries criticized the French-German proposal, saying it would result in competing centers of power.

"Europe does not lack presidents," he said. "It lacks decision-making capacity."

Other delegates cautioned that if the convention becomes too ambitious and results in a system that takes too much power away from national governments, the draft constitution would be opposed by the Union's largest countries, who today hold greater sway over decision making.

Ana Palacio, a vice president of the convention from Spain, said delegates had to be "realistic" and should bear in mind "what will be accepted" by national governments, which must ratify the final document.

As a way of reminding delegates of the power of large countries in Europe, Giscard said Monday that six of the 25 members of the European Union next year will make up 74 percent of the population.

vniow
Jan 29, 2003, 10:53 PM
http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=84202&owner==(International%20Herald%20Tribune)&date=20030123133057


bah, never mind, hitman edited his post.

Thanatoast
Jan 29, 2003, 11:07 PM
now some honest debate can begin at the un. see, the democratic process works after all.

job
Jan 29, 2003, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
now some honest debate can begin at the un. see, the democratic process works after all.

We never said it didn't. :p

iGav
Jan 30, 2003, 07:27 AM
No one takes France entirely f-in seriously to say the f-in least.... I'm not surprised there... :rolleyes:

Skandranon
Jan 30, 2003, 12:38 PM
What a great title for a thread.

:cool:

markomarko
Jan 30, 2003, 01:56 PM
1) So what happens after Saddam?

I have yet to see anyone who supports this war explain that to me.

2) How does Iraq pose a threat to the US?

No one has explained that.

3) Who has evidence that Al Qaeda is linked to Iraq in any meaningful way?

No one has provided any evidence. Bush has promised that he has it. For some reason I guess he wants to keep it secret.


Pardon my cynicism, but I have yet to see a justification for war.

markomarko
Jan 30, 2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by iGAV
No one takes France entirely f-in seriously to say the f-in least.... I'm not surprised there... :rolleyes:


And no one misunderestimates George W. Bush ... :rolleyes:

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/images/euro******s.jpg

pdham
Jan 30, 2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by markomarko
1) So what happens after Saddam?

I have yet to see anyone who supports this war explain that to me.

2) How does Iraq pose a threat to the US?

No one has explained that.

3) Who has evidence that Al Qaeda is linked to Iraq in any meaningful way?

No one has provided any evidence. Bush has promised that he has it. For some reason I guess he wants to keep it secret.


Pardon my cynicism, but I have yet to see a justification for war.


You are 100% correct. Their has been no justification for war. If (When) Pres. Bush attacks Iraq it will be setting a new standard of preemptive strike without concrete evidence. This standard is tremendously more dangerous then the "proposed" threat of Iraq

Paul

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 30, 2003, 04:26 PM
there would be no France if not for the U.S.==there would be no Germany if not for the U.S. Screw both those bastards that are selling things to Saddam under our noses.They like allways are looking out for their own interests.

G4scott
Jan 30, 2003, 04:40 PM
Believe it or not, there IS justification for military action. Saddam has clearly violated UN resolutions on disarmament. We know he is perfectly willing to kill his own people, and is a power thirsty bastard.

If a you think that a crazy man with tons of power and biological weapons should be allowed to do whatever he wants to his own people and his neighbors, then you must be smoking some pretty strong *****.

Saddam might not have the capability to attack the US, but he can attack US interests, and US forces in the area. War against Iraq will be protecting us and the rest of the world from saddam and his followers in the future, when they could possibly posses long range missiles and nuclear weapons.

Do we have to wait for somebody to attack us to put down a tyrant?

The US is not attacking anybody without evidence of wrongdoing.

jayscheuerle
Jan 30, 2003, 04:43 PM
Let's say Saddam uses some God-awful biological or nuclear weapon, even manages to get it into this country, and kills 20,000 people. Why would he do this? He and his entire country would be wiped off the face of the earth, paved over with Walmarts, McDonald's and Exxon stations and renamed Irakansas.

Look at the buildup of force that we have for an unproven possibility of WOMD. Imagine if he actually used them. He'd lose EVERYTHING...

pdham
Jan 30, 2003, 07:10 PM
People seem to think that we are invovled in this to protect Iraqi citizens, US interstes and of course our selves, but lets look at the facts. You say that we cannot allow a tyrannical madman to kill his own people and threaten an entire region. I could name you almost a dozen other countries around the world that live under much worse tyrannical power then those in Iraq. For example Searra Leon is unfer a small, ultra violent, white oligarchy that will shoot Africans on the spot if they are found outside past 11:00pm. Burm (or now the country formally known as) is under the rule of the SLORC which is a militeristic regieme that has completely closed borders off and actively forces migrent farmers to produce peyote for the drug trade and abducts 13 year old girls by the thousands to be forced into their vast sex industry. But lets face it they hold no economic value to this country, and our ploicy is economics over lives. We want to stop Saddam not beause he may (vary big if) be a threat or he is killing his people, but we want better and cheaper acess to his oil. That is not justification to put American citizens in danger.

My 2 cents
Let me know what you think
Paul

job
Jan 30, 2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by pdham
For example Searra Leon is unfer a small, ultra violent, white oligarchy that will shoot Africans on the spot if they are found outside past 11:00pm.

Ehm.

I beg to differ.

I am currently involved in Model United Nations and had to research Sierra Leone extensively since I am roleplaying the Leonese ambassador.

Where did the "white oligarchy" thing come from? Have you even kept up with current events in the country? They just elected a new president in a landslide election. The vast, draining civil war has been over for almost 2 years now.

job
Jan 30, 2003, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
kills 20,000 people. Why would he do this?

Seeing as he already slaughtered 20,000 of his own people with chemical weapons... :rolleyes:

cr2sh
Jan 30, 2003, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by pdham
We want to stop Saddam not beause he may (vary big if) be a threat or he is killing his people, but we want better and cheaper acess to his oil. That is not justification to put American citizens in danger.

I have a greater problem with our reliance on oil, than I do killing people who stand in our way. Darwinism still applies.
President Bush promised money for research in fuel cell cars, thank ****ing god.

I'm going to get flamed for this post.

jayscheuerle
Jan 31, 2003, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by hitman


Seeing as he already slaughtered 20,000 of his own people with chemical weapons... :rolleyes:

Because his own people didn't possess the greatest military might and horde of weapons of mass distruction in existence. His own people were helpless sheep- kinda like the way we're viewing the Iraqi army... :rolleyes:

Get it now?

jayscheuerle
Jan 31, 2003, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by cr2sh
President Bush promised money for research in fuel cell cars, thank ****ing god.

I'm going to get flamed for this post.

Yeah, but probably for thinking Bush's promise will amount to anything. It's a shame that he's wasted the excellent Christine Whitman (ex gov. of New Jersey) on the EPA post, which he obviously thought mean "Environmental Pollution Agency".

The best/worst thing that you can say about Bush is that he believes his own words. That makes him honest and naively scary at the same time.

macfan
Feb 1, 2003, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by markomarko
1) So what happens after Saddam?

I have yet to see anyone who supports this war explain that to me.

2) How does Iraq pose a threat to the US?

No one has explained that.

3) Who has evidence that Al Qaeda is linked to Iraq in any meaningful way?

No one has provided any evidence. Bush has promised that he has it. For some reason I guess he wants to keep it secret.


Pardon my cynicism, but I have yet to see a justification for war.

You aren't cynical, just ignorant. After Saddam, there are many possible solutions. A ceremonial monarchy with an elected parliament would be one option. A UN force similar to that in Bosnia would be another option. In any event, Iraqi opposition groups are working together in an attempt to chart a post-Saddam Iraq. No doubt, there will be a lot of work to be done to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.

How is Iraq a threat to the United States? Let's see, he's already attacked Kuwait causing us to have to expend a whole lot of resources to kick him out of Kuwait. His presence is forcing us to maintain a much higher military profile than would otherwise be needed. He is developing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and he has shown himself to be more than willing to use these weapons. He has shown a willingness in the past to attack Israel as well, and now does so by proxy. Why don't you let the prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark and the president of the Czech Republic explain it to you?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002994

Iraq and terrorists? Saddam has a history of harboring terrorists, and there is some evidence that he has been in contact with Al Qaeda elements. However, evidence of Iraq associating with Al Qaeda is not a requirement for removing Saddam from Iraq. His violations of the Gulf War cease fire agreement are sufficient there, and the evidence for that is overwhelming.

markomarko
Feb 3, 2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by macfan


No doubt, there will be a lot of work to be done to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.
...

Let's see, he's already attacked Kuwait causing us to have to expend a whole lot of resources to kick him out of Kuwait. His presence is forcing us to maintain a much higher military profile than would otherwise be needed. He is developing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and he has shown himself to be more than willing to use these weapons. He has shown a willingness in the past to attack Israel as well, and now does so by proxy. Why don't you let the prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark and the president of the Czech Republic explain it to you?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002994

Iraq and terrorists? Saddam has a history of harboring terrorists, and there is some evidence that he has been in contact with Al Qaeda elements. However, evidence of Iraq associating with Al Qaeda is not a requirement for removing Saddam from Iraq. His violations of the Gulf War cease fire agreement are sufficient there, and the evidence for that is overwhelming.

Uh, right. the only reason the US needs a big military is because of Saddam. And there is no proof or even a likelihood that he has the capacity for developing nuclear weapons. And there is NO EVIDENCE that Saddam has harbored Al Qaeda. Sorry. If Bush had such evidence Baghdad would already have been bombed. And what violations of the cease-fire are you talking about?

An invasion of Iraq will be an aggressive invasion. The US is engaging in simple conquer for its own economic and strategic benefit. Own up to the fact that this excercise is not a benevolent action, that it is motivated by greed and the will to dominate.

I hardly think a country that won't even own up to the damage it caused in Hiroshima, let alone the fact that it was caused for diplomatic reasons rather than necessity, ought to be allowed to invade any country without heavy scrutiny.

I'm not ignorant my friend. And even if I were it would not matter. Any simpleton can grasp the idea that war ought to always be a last resort, and only under the imminent threat of greater harm than that which would result from the war. Of course, this suggests that you aren't a simpleton, but rather deceived.

Always treat others as ends, never as means.

markomarko
Feb 3, 2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
Believe it or not, there IS justification for military action. Saddam has clearly violated UN resolutions on disarmament. We know he is perfectly willing to kill his own people, and is a power thirsty bastard.

If a you think that a crazy man with tons of power and biological weapons should be allowed to do whatever he wants to his own people and his neighbors, then you must be smoking some pretty strong *****.

Saddam might not have the capability to attack the US, but he can attack US interests, and US forces in the area. War against Iraq will be protecting us and the rest of the world from saddam and his followers in the future, when they could possibly posses long range missiles and nuclear weapons.

Do we have to wait for somebody to attack us to put down a tyrant?

The US is not attacking anybody without evidence of wrongdoing.


Yes you do have to wait. That's why the world hasn't crumbled under perpetual war. Look up "just war tradition" on Google and learn a ****ing thing or two. Read the UN Charter. Etc.

By your very logic the people of timor and greece would be justified in blowing up washington. And so would El Salvador. And so would Chile. and so on.

markomarko
Feb 3, 2003, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by macfan


You aren't cynical, just ignorant. After Saddam, there are many possible solutions. A ceremonial monarchy with an elected parliament would be one option. A UN force similar to that in Bosnia would be another option. In any event, Iraqi opposition groups are working together in an attempt to chart a post-Saddam Iraq. No doubt, there will be a lot of work to be done to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.

How is Iraq a threat to the United States? Let's see, he's already attacked Kuwait causing us to have to expend a whole lot of resources to kick him out of Kuwait. His presence is forcing us to maintain a much higher military profile than would otherwise be needed. He is developing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and he has shown himself to be more than willing to use these weapons. He has shown a willingness in the past to attack Israel as well, and now does so by proxy. Why don't you let the prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark and the president of the Czech Republic explain it to you?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002994

Iraq and terrorists? Saddam has a history of harboring terrorists, and there is some evidence that he has been in contact with Al Qaeda elements. However, evidence of Iraq associating with Al Qaeda is not a requirement for removing Saddam from Iraq. His violations of the Gulf War cease fire agreement are sufficient there, and the evidence for that is overwhelming.

BTW, the letter you link is nothing more than a diplomatic maneuver. Those eight countries, barring the supplicant UK (whose leader is going to crash and burn next election without doubt), are all economic lightweights. This is the main reason they are siding with the US. They're prostituting themselves.

Mr. Havel must be ill if he believes that the American gov't will liberate the Iraq citizens from a despot without replacing him with another.

What kind of monarchy do you have in mind, macfan. Something along the lines of the Shah of Iran or the Saudi Royal Family? What wonders that would do for the average Iraq citizen.

macfan
Feb 3, 2003, 02:21 PM
Uh, right. the only reason the US needs a big military is because of Saddam.

I didn't say that. I said we are forced to keep more forces in the Gulf region (a higher military profile) than we would like to have because of Saddam. If Iraq did not represent such a threat to the region, we wouldn't need to deploy the forces in the numbers that are there.

And there is no proof or even a likelihood that he has the capacity for developing nuclear weapons.

Apparently, you haven't been listenting to Dr. Khidhir Hamzi, former head of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Read his testimony and book, then come back and explain that Saddam doesn't have a likelihood of developing nuclear weapons.


What kind of monarchy do you have in mind, macfan. Something along the lines of the Shah of Iran or the Saudi Royal Family? What wonders that would do for the average Iraq citizen.

Something along the lines of Jordan. Your concern for the average Iraqi citizen is touching and is something many of us share, but your blindness to the current situation endured by the average Iraqi citizen at the hands of Saddam tends to indicate that concern is not particularly sincere.

If Bush had such evidence Baghdad would already have been bombed.

Why? Bush didn't bomb Afghanistan on September 12th, even though he knew that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban. Why should he order a military strike before the military is ready?

And what violations of the cease-fire are you talking about?

Are you really unaware of the cease-fire requirements? In accepting the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire, Iraq's leaders agreed to "destroy or render harmless" all weapons of mass destruction. They have not done so, thus they are in violation of the terms of the agreement.

I hardly think a country that won't even own up to the damage it caused in Hiroshima, let alone the fact that it was caused for diplomatic reasons rather than necessity, ought to be allowed to invade any country without heavy scrutiny.

What do you mean, won't own up the the damage it caused? I have always read and seen reports of he terrible damage and destruction to those cities. It is opinion, not fact, that it was not a "necessity" to use the bomb against Japan. I once attended a presentation on nuclear weapons and their use in WW II. The bias of the presentation was in the direction of pacifism and the elimination of nuclear weapons. In thinking about the totality of the situation, I realized that Truman's decision was one that ended the war quickly and saved many lives, both Japanese and American. It was suggested that a naval blockade would have been a better course of action. Indeed, we could have starved millions of Japanese with such a blockade, along with all allied POWs. When I asked whether Truman was in a position to not end the war quickly given the condidtions of POWs and the casualties inherent in an invasion, many of those in attendance were forced to agreed that he made pretty much the only decision he could. It is easy to criticize him in hindsight, but it is by no means a "fact" that he made a poor decision.

Yes you do have to wait. That's why the world hasn't crumbled under perpetual war.

First, there are plenty of wars out there. That it isn't worse is has to do with the presence of the United States military around the world, not the charter of the United Nations or the "just war" tradition.


An invasion of Iraq will be an aggressive invasion. The US is engaging in simple conquer for its own economic and strategic benefit. Own up to the fact that this excercise is not a benevolent action, that it is motivated by greed and the will to dominate.

An invasion of Iraq will be a continuation of the war that Saddam started in August of 1990. A war that has continued on a low grade level since the cease-fire was declared.

BTW, the letter you link is nothing more than a diplomatic maneuver. Those eight countries, barring the supplicant UK (whose leader is going to crash and burn next election without doubt), are all economic lightweights. This is the main reason they are siding with the US. They're prostituting themselves.


What a convenient argument. When someone disagrees with your position, they are supplicants and prostitutes. It is probably because you have no answer for the substastance of their statement. Why do you not view the stances of France, Germany, and Russia as diplomatic maneuvers? Are you unable to see them as anything other than disinterested, objective observers in this situation?

I'm not ignorant my friend. And even if I were it would not matter. Any simpleton can grasp the idea that war ought to always be a last resort, and only under the imminent threat of greater harm than that which would result from the war

That you are unaware of the evidence of Saddam's likelihood of developing nuclear weapons, that you seem unaware of the terms of the cease-fire, that you think the US doesn't admit the destruction of the bombing of Japan during WWII, and that you seem to think ecomomic strength give a country its moral justification for a position indicated that you are indeed ignorant, and yes, it does matter.

After more than a decade, and in the face of continued defiance of the United Nations on the part of Saddam, we have long passed the point where the removal of Saddam offers a lower potential for harm than for him to continue in power. He should have been removed from power in 1991, but he was not. This is not a matter of starting a new war against Saddam. It is about ending the 1990 war.

markomarko
Feb 3, 2003, 06:39 PM
No one is forcing the US to stay in Iraq. The US is there to protect its economic interests. Militarily protecting your economic interests is a choice.

Regarding Dr. Khidhir Hamzi: I don't have time to read his book, but don't think it is necessary. When Iraq was driven from Kuwait it was at the height of its nuclear program. It is widely acknowledged that since the impositions of UN sanctions the economic and research capacity of Iraq has become so reduced that the development of a Nuclear weapon would be impossible.

I'm glad you hope to see a monarchy like Jordan's in Iraq. Nonetheless, you ignore my point that the US is not interested in good government in the middle east. If it were the Saudi's would have a democracy.

On the issue of Iraq and Sept. 11: there is no linking evidence. NONE.

On the cease-fire: whatever. I say resolution, you say cease-fire. Either way, when the agreement was made there was nothing mentioning an invasion should Iraq fail to fully comply, hence all the new Security Council resolutions.

On Hiroshima: I was referring to the crippled Smithsonian exhibit on Hiroshima. There were no pictures of victims allowed. Nor were historians allowed to provide declassified wire transmissions from Japan indicating that Japan was nearly defeated before the Nukes were dropped. These were intercepted by the US. At the least Japan should have been offered the option of surrender at "bomb-point".

" That it isn't worse is has to do with the presence of the United States military around the world, not the charter of the United Nations or the "just war" tradition "

Ok, that statement is just self-evidently arrogant and untrue. In fact, one could easily make a case that in many instances the opposite is true. Again, I ask you to consider Panama, El Salvador, Chile, East Timor, Greece, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etcetera.

On the letter by 8 european countries: it is simply a statement of support. there is no substantive argument contained within it that specifically relates to a material justification of war. Isn't it ironic that Havel would endorse this type of thing? The justification employed here sounds much like the Soviet invasion and occupation of Czech following the progressive Prague Spring.

France Germany and Russia aren't necessarily objective either. Certainly Russia is not, given its oil contracts with Iraq. But will you go further and allow that the US administration is also supremely self-interested in this matter and not the pure moral agent it claims to be?

I'll allow that the war in 1990 never ended if you allow that rest of the world didn't give a **** that it was continued and if you take account of the fact that in the ten years of this war the US has been totally impotent, accomplishing nothing but huge military expenditure at the expense of civilian death and suffering.

And since you've demonstrated that you aren't above name-calling, I'll engage you in like manner. You are a zealot, a madman, a lackey, a morally unfit human being, a fool and quite likely a racist.

That's it. That is as far as I will carry on with this. I hope you have had fun.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 3, 2003, 06:49 PM
what the hell is a lackey??????:confused: I'm just a- nodder naive Gringo:eek:

job
Feb 3, 2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
His own people were helpless sheep- kinda like the way we're viewing the Iraqi army...

And that somehow makes it right?

job
Feb 3, 2003, 07:13 PM
Well, we'll see how the next few days go.

Colin Powell is going before the SC in a closed door meeting to present proof of Saddam's WMD.

Let's hope the United States has something to back up the aggressive rhetoric.

macfan
Feb 3, 2003, 07:56 PM
markomarko,
It is too bad that you resort to calling me "a madman, a lackey, a morally unfit human being, a fool and quite likely a racist." That ad hominem style is generally the rhetorical strategy of a debate opponent who has found himself without a compelling, logical means of response. It is truly a shame that you are unable to address these issues in a more coherent, civil manner.

It is widely acknowledged that since the impositions of UN sanctions the economic and research capacity of Iraq has become so reduced that the development of a Nuclear weapon would be impossible.

No it isn't widely acknowledged, it is merely widely hoped. However, the program was up and running when Dr. Hamza left Iraq in 1994, well after the sanctions were imposed on that country. Iraq is allowed to sell oil. They have income streams. Many countries, including the United States, France, Russia and no doubt other have contracts with Iraq under the auspices of the UN. Iraq is neither isolated nor destitute when it comes to having the resources to develop such weapons. The inspectors, who may have had some impact on the nuclear program, were kicked out in 1998. There is a concept for the belief that Saddam isn't developing these weapons: it's called wishful thinking.

Here's a little sample of the book, for those who think it is necessary to know something before forming an opinion on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20001001mag-hamza.html

cr2sh
Feb 3, 2003, 08:32 PM
I start the best threads.... EVER. :D

Anyone hear from those underwear gnomes recently?

markomarko
Feb 5, 2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by macfan
markomarko,
It is too bad that you resort to calling me "a madman, a lackey, a morally unfit human being, a fool and quite likely a racist." That ad hominem style is generally the rhetorical strategy of a debate opponent who has found himself without a compelling, logical means of response. It is truly a shame that you are unable to address these issues in a more coherent, civil manner.


Ok, I lied. ;) I'm back.

Actually, that isn't an ad hominem argument. It's just a statement of my opinion and was not implicitly or explicitly linked to the content of my argument. In fact, I went out of my way to make a point of stating that I was only responding to an insult you made.

You on the other hand, in response to my first post opened with the statement "you aren't cynical, just ignorant" rejecting my claims by attacking me personally. A much stronger case for Ad Hominem can be made here.

So there. Oh and "Nyeah, nyeah" also.

BTW, I just said that stuff to piss you off anyways. It's not fair of me to attack you like that. Just fun.
:D

macfan
Feb 5, 2003, 02:31 PM
markomarko,
My observation about your ignoracne on the particulars involved is not a personal attack, merely an inevitable conclusion supported by a reasoned explication of the questions you presented. Indeed, ignorance itself is nothing to be ashamed of. It is easily remedied by gaining more information on the three issues you were wondering about and giving that information thoughful analysis. Not knowing, for example, of the connections between Saddam and terrorists (as deliniated by Secretary Powell at the UN today) is not a personal fault or negative trait. It is merely a state that can be rectified. The Secretary provided all the evidence a reasonable needs for your second and third questions in his presentation, and the question of a post Saddam Iraq, while complicated, can be handled by a UN-sponsored government and peacekeeping force, a new constitution respecting the concerns of varous groups in Iraq and establishing democratic institutions, and rebuilding the economy of Iraq using its petroleum resources.


BTW, I just said that stuff to piss you off anyways. It's not fair of me to attack you like that. Just fun.

That was somewhat apparent, and was also why you didn't succeed in that endeavor! :)

trebblekicked
Feb 7, 2003, 03:34 PM
why is the common conception of anti-war folks that they don't care about sadam; don't consider him dangerous? We do. But there are propper diplomatic channels, the very same ones we accuse sadam of disobeying, in place to prevent spats like this from developing into ugly, full scale wars. If we act without the blessing of the UN, we are just as bad (in material breech ,to borrow a phrase from our government) as iraq.

And now that North korea has flat out said they would consider a pre-emptive attack on the United States, someone tell me why the bejesus we are causing such a fuss over sadam hussein.

macfan
Feb 7, 2003, 04:09 PM
why is the common conception of anti-war folks that they don't care about sadam

Mostly because they don't care about Saddam, or if they do, they care, for whatever reason, about keeping him in power rather than removing him from power. Saddam, indeed, is not the focus of many of those who oppose his removal by force. While the international community says that Saddam must disarm, the anti-war folks, on the whole, do not offer any viable option short of the threat of force that would disarm Saddam. Please provide a realistic rationale whereby Saddam is removed absent at least the real threat of his removal by force. It would be wonderful if military action did not happen and Saddam was still removed. The strategy of continued diplomacy without the option of force offers no solution. Only the threat of force has made Saddam allow inspector back in at this late date. Diplomacy has been tried for many years with Saddam. It was attemped after he invaded Kuwait, and it failed then. Economic sanctions have not been effective at forcing Saddam to disarm, moral persuasion has not worked, occasional bombing such as was carried out in 1998 in the face of Saddam's refusal to cooperate with the UN proved not to be effective.

And now that North korea has flat out said they would consider a pre-emptive attack on the United States, someone tell me why the bejesus we are causing such a fuss over sadam hussein.

Would you support a military invasion of North Korea right now? If not, your argument rings quite hollow.

BTW, if read 1441, you will see that it offers all the diplomatic blessing that is required. No one who voted for that resolution had any doubt but that force could be used if Saddam remained in material breach.

trebblekicked
Feb 7, 2003, 05:56 PM
macfan-
your reply to me seems to be asking what we should do about hussein. right? the way you put it, removing hussein is the only way to make him disarm, and i completely disagree with that. He should be subject to a policy similar to one given by Mark Danner, as outlined on one of these MacRumors threads The Great Debate (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=241003#post241003)


"... Instead of pursuing this catastrophically risky course, Danner advocated continuing with a beefed-up containment policy -- more inspectors, unlimited time -- combined with smart sanctions (targeted only at imports that could be used to make weapons of mass destruction) and a tough new policy allowing U.S. or allied air forces to bomb sites to which Saddam did not allow inspectors access."

i will try to look up some others, i just wanted to get this reply in quickly. remember, both sides must read eachother's propoganda in order to find the truth that lay between.

In regards to your last comment:
Would you support a military invasion of North Korea right now? If not, your argument rings quite hollow.

i'm not sure what argument you are talking about. i was simply pointing out a small irony. This was in no way intended to support any argument. I don't believe there even was an argument in my post. The irony here should be plain to see:

While we're busy trying to prove a case to go to war with one country, another is just dying to give us multiple excuses to go to war with them, and they just can't get our attention. Where is the pressure for regime change in North Korea?

>EDIT: fixed a typo

macfan
Feb 7, 2003, 06:52 PM
the way you put it, removing hussein is the only way to make him disarm, and i completely disagree with that.

All available evidence would indicate that Saddam will never disarm, and you are completly wrong and misguided in the belief that there is a means short of force to do so. You must have cooperation to disarm a country, and you aren't going to get it from Saddam. He has had 12 years to comply, and he has not. What has changed? Nothing. Why would any more time make a difference? Even your "solution" involves bombing Iraq.

The problem is not the weapons, the problem is Saddam. It is the attitude of Saddam that prevents the inspections from working, not the number of inspectors and not the possibility of bombing places where the inspectors are not permitted. Inspections have never be intended to actually disarm a country, only to verify that such disarming was taking place.

What I'm talking about in refernece to North Korea is that the argument is often made that North Korea is a really big threat, but we aren't massing forces to invade them, therefore, we should leave Iraq alone. It simply doesn't follow that the two should be connected. This argumnet is often made by those who would oppose action against North Korea as well.

Where is the pressure for regime change in North Korea?

The fact that they are staving their people is putting internal pressure on the North Korean government. They are trying to hold on to power as it slips away inevitably. Saddam, on the other hand, remains firmly entrenced in a reign of terror that has seldom been rivaled in history, and he has adequate resources to continue for an indefinite timeframe.

Looking at the anti war protesters, why don't I say many signs that say "Disarm, Saddam!" or "Comply with the UN, Saddam" or something long those lines? It's because the protesters don't care about Saddam.

trebblekicked
Feb 7, 2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by macfan

Even your "solution" involves bombing Iraq.

this is not my solution. but strategic bombing of specific locations compared to ground war/city warfare/invasion & occupation? to try the latter before the former ammounts to blood lust. Even in danner's solution, bombing is a last resort. If it comes to bombing it comes to bombing, but my point and the point of all opposed to the war is not that saddam hussein is a good person or shouldn't be dealt with, it is that diplomatic solutions have only begun to work, and the US rattling it's saber is counter-productive.

Now i ask you; inspectors are in iraq. according to blix, they are making progress. Why are you so opposed to increasing the inspection forces, perhaps allowing a peacekeeping force to intervene if necessary, and maintaining this path until the UN feels it is no longer effective? We have spent months putting the pressure on hussein to allow the inspectors back, and you want to waste the only dipomatic avenue to peace? The question is, and should be, what is the hurry?

Originally posted by macfan
Saddam, on the other hand, remains firmly entrenced in a reign of terror that has seldom been rivaled in history, and he has adequate resources to continue for an indefinite timeframe.
No offense, but this is an overstatement.

Originally posted by macfan
Looking at the anti war protesters, why don't I say many signs that say "Disarm, Saddam!" or "Comply with the UN, Saddam" or something long those lines? It's because the protesters don't care about Saddam.
Exactly how many protests have you been to? If you rely on the photographs in the paper to give you an account of the aptmosphere of a protest, you are only getting about 10% of the picture. Don't lump protesters together the way you do. A protest contains a wider sampling of backgrounds, nationalities, ideologies and religions than anything else i can think of. At the Pittsburgh march last month, the signs ranged from the offensive and stupid (Bush eats *expletive*) to the satirical (A Brain for Bush, A Heart for Cheyne and Courage for Powell) to the profound (Drop Sanctions, Not Bombs) and the priceless (Lead By Example). Not one speaker at the Pittsburgh rally failed to address hussein's regime and it's problems, and if Iraqi immigrants can share the street with me and, despite what they've seen and lived through, still believe we can effect change in iraq without war, i tend to think there is some truth in that.

job
Feb 7, 2003, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by trebblekicked
If we act without the blessing of the UN, we are just as bad (in material breech ,to borrow a phrase from our government) as iraq.

I want to understand why some people believe that a soverign nation cannot act without the explicit permission of the UN.

It is a moderating body, yes, used to prevent and resolve conflicts. However, it is not a one-world, do-all, rule-all, wonder government.

I will agree that North Korea is a far more potent threat than Saddam and Iraq. Their threat to strike the United States makes for an interesting, yet lethal, situation.

I'll say this though: If North Korea does hit the United States it will cease to exist as a geographical entity. ;)

trebblekicked
Feb 8, 2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by hitman


I want to understand why some people believe that a soverign nation cannot act without the explicit permission of the UN.

i'm not saying we can't act without the UN's permition, but the UN exists to prevent wars. It provides a mulitlateral mitigation body to keep disputes from escalating to war. The US is proposing a military action that is not in self-defense, and it is a proposal that is met with skepticism from other nations. For this reason, permission from the UN should be sought.

macfan
Feb 8, 2003, 01:57 AM
the US rattling it's saber is counter-productive.

Far from being counter productive, the US "rattling it's saber" is the ONLY reason there are any inspectors in Iraq today AT All. The ONLY hope, slim though it is, for getting Saddam to comply is a contined threat of force.

I have driven by several protests, and have seen others on TV, but have yet to see any significant signs critical of Saddam.


No offense, but this is an overstatement.

In point of fact, Saddam is just about as brutal as they come. He may not be in a class by himself, but it doesn't take very long to call the roll.