<strong>Your grandfather and so many others are historically and morally relevant, and the world is indebted to them. However, I fail to see how that weight can be applied to whether France's government should be allowed to speak against their US counterparts. How does it follow that the French must be reverent toward US government policy (unless it is the same as the will of World War II veterans, and assuming that the debt of the French includes the moral obligation not to object to veterans)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
France's government is allowed to speak. Speak away, France, scream until your vocal chords are bloody, raw and shredded. Protest, picket, stomp and hold your breath. Threaten the U.S. with boycotts and embargoes, publish anti-U.S. propaganda in your newspapers.
Just don't get in the way when others are willing to act.
Just don't tell a nation that it cannot get aid to defend itself from a potential threat.
France has contributed absolutely nothing constructive on this issue. They've proposed a beefed up inspections team which is so ludicrous even Blix balked at it. And they've proposed to tell Saddam to pass anti-WOMD legislation within Iraq; I don't even think I have to address this one.
What is the logical conclusions of the inspections process? Saddam is required to give proof that he has destroyed certain things and has not cooperated. How long do we allow ourselves to be strung along? 1 year? 5 years? 12 years?
And while he's misleading and counting on this spineless brand of diplomacy what else do you think he's doing? Baking cookies?
-
Let's say we find and destroy every weapon in Iraq that hasn't already been proven to be destroyed. Let's say we take down all their potential chemical/biological weapons facilities. What then?
Do we lift sanctions against Iraq and let Saddam go and do what he likes?
Do we keep the sanctions on that are killing thousands of Iraqi civilians?
The anti-war movement is long on pouting and screaming but very very very short on actual solutions and suggestions.
If France and Germany don't want to get their hands dirty that's fine, just get the hell out of the way.
I believe embargoes and other impediments to trade should be avoided as much as possible (unless one has to deal with a real monster regime, like that moustachioed officer's). Most of the trade of wealthy developed democratic nations is with the other wealthy democratic nations, so impeding such trade for some political disagreements is stupid.
Therefore I agree with the thread initiator.
Other than that, there's nothing illegal in occupying a territory conquered in war pending a negociated peace and a definitive border agreed upon by all concerned parties.
Furthermore, the UN resolutions dealing with disarmament of Iraq's non-conventional weapons are binding (?chapter seven? or something of the sort) ones, which is not the the case of any UNGA or UNSC resolution pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even less so the usual condemnations, scoldings, or tauntings.
[quote] Other than that, there's nothing illegal in occupying a territory conquered in war pending a negociated peace and a definitive border agreed upon by all concerned parties. <hr></blockquote>
woooo hooooo (thegelding grabs his gun and heads to the neighbor's house...planning to expand his territory abit).....
woooo hooooo (thegelding grabs his gun and heads to the neighbor's house...planning to expand his territory abit).....</strong><hr></blockquote>
What you're talking about is forceful aquisition by an individual, not occupation by the army of a sovereign state, which is a very different thing.
It is costumary in war that after a cease-fire is reached, the armies remain on their positions until a peace agreement is reached. It means that if one side captured some territory in battle, it retains it in the meanwhile.
That is why several countries and territories in the last century, notably Japan and Austria, remained under military occupation until peace treaty was signed.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
1. If anything Iraq is only guilty of not being fully compliant with UN resolutions. As said before, Israel is another country that has been in flagrant violation for many, many years. Funny that we don't seem to care. If they are developing WMD, I've seen no smoking gun. If we have evidence of such, we certainly haven't assisted weapons inspectors in finding them. Carl Levin of Michigan is lobbying this very accusation at the CIA
2. Iraq is not a direct threat to the US, only Israel. Israel is our ally and all, but to hell with pre-emptive, unilateral strikes on their behalf
3. NO links to al-Qaeda and 9/11...The spirit behind this war is that of a campaign against terrorism. Most Americans probably believe Iraq was involved. War in Afghanistan was justified-- this is not.
4. I hate hussein and would love to see him gone, but the manner in which we've engaged this-- the unilateralism and complete rejection of any diplomatic resolution is alarming... This was has become a self fulfilling prophecy and we're guilty of flagrant brinksmanship.
5. As much as it sounds like conspriracy theory and all, the wealth of oil in Iraq waiting to be used HAS to be considered as a possible motivating factor.
This war is going to be prosecuted in the name of global security; it's part of the greater war against terrorism.
And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are going to die: pictures of dead Iraqi babies. On your TV by the end of March. And a neo-colonial administration is going to be installed in Iraq.
Is there anyone, ANYONE, on these boards who really thinks that is going to do ANYTHING but create a new generation of SERIOUSLY pissed-off potential terrorists?
Come on, who thinks that the amount of terror is going to decrease as a result of this action?
Anyone?
Those people on the fence in Saudi Arabia ... what are they going to think?
The moderates in that CHANGING country of Iran ... how do you fancy their case is going to change in the face of changed public opinion?
Security in the Fatherland of USA ... is it going up or down?
<strong>And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are going to die: pictures of dead Iraqi babies. On your TV by the end of March. And a neo-colonial administration is going to be installed in Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the beautiful and peaceful U.N. diplomacy up to this point has done what? Oh, yeah, it's killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis through sanctions that hurt only the Iraqis who die malnourished and disease-ridden.
Yeah, that's a good idea. Let's do the thing where the Iraqis die (but we don't have to actually do the killing) and Saddam stays in power.
There isn't an option here where Iraqis won't die. They're dying as we speak.
[quote]<strong>Is there anyone, ANYONE, on these boards who really thinks that is going to do ANYTHING but create a new generation of SERIOUSLY pissed-off potential terrorists?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Me.
We'll oust Saddam and if the other U.N. states will put their full support behind this we can get a democracy running in Iraq. I am skeptical of the U.S.'s designs to an extent but Europe can help if they would draw up a resolution outlining multilateral post-war action and if they would get on board.
Right now the Iraqis are dying for no reason. I suppose you can ignore that if you like, but let's at least have a cause.
I don't know if you're saying that these are U.S. sanctions, because they are U.N. sanctions that your nation supports as well as mine.
I want the U.N. to go in and kill Saddam and do what they can to stabilize the nation with a democracy. Iraq has great potential to be a stable democracy with economic power.
Unless you want to lift all restrictions off of Saddam. Is that what you think the best course of action is? Just take the inspectors our, lift all sanctions and let him do what he's gonna do?
Eh, the sanctions are in place as part of the cease fire of the Gulf War. It's the same cease fire that called for the destruction of all his WMDs, the one that has him in hot water right now. Obviously, the sanctions haven't worked. His people starve but he's just A-OK. Obviously, the rest of the cease-fire also is in question. So I suppose the question is why the cease-fire, or maybe why the Gulf War?
Well, ask Kuwait. Or maybe Turkey, Israel or Saudi Arabia, who requested our troop presence, would have some idea. Nah, let's just let it slip.
We'll oust Saddam and if the other U.N. states will put their full support behind this we can get a democracy running in Iraq. I am skeptical of the U.S.'s designs to an extent but Europe can help if they would draw up a resolution outlining multilateral post-war action and if they would get on board.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hello, Grover? The guy in your government responsible for post-Saddam government has no intention of bringing in a democratic government. Newsflash: he said this in as many words (I know you'll want the link, wait a mo.) The administration will be run "in American interests."
You know why?
Well, what do you think they'll vote for? A secular pro-US government or a pissed off Islamic republic?
Clue: the answer is "pissed off Islamic republic."
No, you and the Brits will be running Iraq for the LONG TERM, being a source of annoyance to the Muslim world every long day. There's no way the US will allow them to democratically chose the wrong government for themselves.
And in other news, the idea is to reduce terrorism. Groverat: the only person in the world who thinks that pictures of dying babies on the TV won't inflame borderline terrorists. Doesn't matter that they're dying now in this sense -- it's the perception of this war amongst MUSLIMS that matters to your security, not YOUR perception of this war.
<strong>I don't know if you're saying that these are U.S. sanctions, because they are U.N. sanctions that your nation supports as well as mine.
I want the U.N. to go in and kill Saddam and do what they can to stabilize the nation with a democracy. Iraq has great potential to be a stable democracy with economic power.
Unless you want to lift all restrictions off of Saddam. Is that what you think the best course of action is? Just take the inspectors our, lift all sanctions and let him do what he's gonna do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are UN sanctions but my country didn´t have a word when they were put into action (part of the cease fire). If it had it would probably have voted for and I would have been vocal against them.
You on the other hand have a government that have part in them so you can work your government to change them.
Hello, Grover? The guy in your government responsible for post-Saddam government has no intention of bringing in a democratic government. Newsflash: he said this in as many words (I know you'll want the link, wait a mo.) The administration will be run "in American interests."
You know why?
Well, what do you think they'll vote for? A secular pro-US government or a pissed off Islamic republic?
Clue: the answer is "pissed off Islamic republic."
No, you and the Brits will be running Iraq for the LONG TERM, being a source of annoyance to the Muslim world every long day. There's no way the US will allow them to democratically chose the wrong government for themselves.
And in other news, the idea is to reduce terrorism. Groverat: the only person in the world who thinks that pictures of dying babies on the TV won't inflame borderline terrorists. Doesn't matter that they're dying now in this sense -- it's the perception of this war amongst MUSLIMS that matters to your security, not YOUR perception of this war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I actually think that the Iraqis, if given teh chance to choose their own government would probably choose a secular representative government . . . at least in part of the country,
WHich leads me to think that the best thing, probably for Iraw would be to allow it to split itself into three seperate regions:
[quote]<strong>Hello, Grover? The guy in your government responsible for post-Saddam government has no intention of bringing in a democratic government. Newsflash: he said this in as many words (I know you'll want the link, wait a mo.) The administration will be run "in American interests."</strong><hr></blockquote>
2 years. The plan is to occupy Iraq for 2 years.
The U.N. could have a lot to say in the matter, the Bush administration has given the U.N. ample opportunity to drive this issue. ONLY IF THE U.N. BALKS will the U.S. take full control of the matter.
There is the chance for multi-lateral involvement, Bush handed it to the U.N. Why do you keep ignoring that?
[quote]<strong>Well, what do you think they'll vote for? A secular pro-US government or a pissed off Islamic republic?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, since Iraq has absolutely no modern history of being an Islamic republic I don't see why they'd start now.
Since Iraq has a modern history of being secular democracy (fake, of course, after Saddam took over but still the gild) I think they might lean that way. They will be very rich, they are sitting on a goldmine.
But if I believe that all the brown people over there just can't wait to be fundamentalist Muslim terrorists then maybe I see your point.
[quote]<strong>No, you and the Brits will be running Iraq for the LONG TERM, being a source of annoyance to the Muslim world every long day. There's no way the US will allow them to democratically chose the wrong government for themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you believe that then why not push your government to get involved? Why not tell your government to go in as part of a multi-lateral task force and make sure that America doesn't turn Iraq into a colony?
If you KNOW it's going to happen, why not do something about it?
[quote]<strong>And in other news, the idea is to reduce terrorism. Groverat: the only person in the world who thinks that pictures of dying babies on the TV won't inflame borderline terrorists. Doesn't matter that they're dying now in this sense -- it's the perception of this war amongst MUSLIMS that matters to your security, not YOUR perception of this war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not see why this should sway us from the logical course of action. I do not think determining foreign policy to please a fuzzy enemy is wise.
And in case you didn't notice, people use dead baby pictures without war, just look at what SJO posts.
The Persian Gulf War was in 1991. 9/11 was in 2001. Somehow I'm thinking there are other factors besides war.
-------------
Anders:
[quote]<strong>They are UN sanctions but my country didn´t have a word when they were put into action (part of the cease fire). If it had it would probably have voted for and I would have been vocal against them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why isn't your government speaking out against them now? Why is your government doing nothing about it now? People are still dying, why not act if that's what you believe?
Sorry, but you're a part of it. You can't be neutral on a moving train.
[quote]<strong>You on the other hand have a government that have part in them so you can work your government to change them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only thing keeping your government from being involved is your government.
It is a lot easier to moralize from the sidelines, to tut at those who attempt to solve problems while your main objective is to judge.
The War on Iraq has not happened. Post-2003-War Iraq is not here, there is still time for Europe and whoever else wants to join to become involved. Yet they choose not to.
If you're going to say "I don't like the way the U.S. does things." then get in there and DO SOMETHING.
Does anyone actually believe the US government CARES about the Iraqi people? Does anyone actually believe the thrust of this war is a genuine desire to free them from Saddam's tyranny?
If getting rid of SOB heads of state and saving starving babies meets the threshold of a pre-emptive war then we have lots of work to do in Africa.
What is the premise of this war? Where is the justification? We have none. We are waging this war in the name of vague assumptions which, to me, is a sad prospect.
We do not have the right to take over this country unless they pose a clear and present danger to the US or they commit an act of war (i.e. Taliban and 9/11)
What is the premise of this war? Where is the justification? We have none. We are waging this war in the name of vague assumptions which, to me, is a sad prospect.
We do not have the right to take over this country unless they pose a clear and present danger to the US or they commit an act of war (i.e. Taliban and 9/11)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Premise for war: History lesson for those who seem to have short term memories: Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade other nieghbours. The UN responded with the Gulf war. Iraq Lost the Gulf War. The Gulf War was SUSPENDED under terms of a cease-fire agreed to and signed by the Iraqi leadership. The cease-fire agreement essentially said that hositilities would resume if Iraq failed to comply with the stated conditions of the cease-fire. Iraq has failed to comply with the stated conditions of the ceasefire.
Is that laid out clearly enough for those wondering what the hub-bub over Iraq is about?
Now, in addition to the extraordinarily obvious reasons, we also have: possible ties with Al-Queda. Continued threat to Isreal. Continued WMD development. Violation of recent UN Security Council resolution.
Now, before picking apart the additional reason stated, refer to original reason. That alone if enough. You lose a war, sign a ceasefire. You break the cease-fire, it means a resumption of hostilities...how difficult is that to understand?
The terms of the cease fire does not give the United States the legal authority for a unilateral action against Iraq. The right to use force hinges on the approval of the UN security council.
The simple matter is we have not made a clear and "extraordinary" case against Iraq that is sufficient to convince the Security Council, not to mention other skeptics, on the neccesity for war. In lieu of this, we have essentially decided that such UN approval is unneccesary. This is simply wrong.
Comments
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Mac The Fork ]</p>
<strong>Your grandfather and so many others are historically and morally relevant, and the world is indebted to them. However, I fail to see how that weight can be applied to whether France's government should be allowed to speak against their US counterparts. How does it follow that the French must be reverent toward US government policy (unless it is the same as the will of World War II veterans, and assuming that the debt of the French includes the moral obligation not to object to veterans)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
France's government is allowed to speak. Speak away, France, scream until your vocal chords are bloody, raw and shredded. Protest, picket, stomp and hold your breath. Threaten the U.S. with boycotts and embargoes, publish anti-U.S. propaganda in your newspapers.
Just don't get in the way when others are willing to act.
Just don't tell a nation that it cannot get aid to defend itself from a potential threat.
France has contributed absolutely nothing constructive on this issue. They've proposed a beefed up inspections team which is so ludicrous even Blix balked at it. And they've proposed to tell Saddam to pass anti-WOMD legislation within Iraq; I don't even think I have to address this one.
What is the logical conclusions of the inspections process? Saddam is required to give proof that he has destroyed certain things and has not cooperated. How long do we allow ourselves to be strung along? 1 year? 5 years? 12 years?
And while he's misleading and counting on this spineless brand of diplomacy what else do you think he's doing? Baking cookies?
-
Let's say we find and destroy every weapon in Iraq that hasn't already been proven to be destroyed. Let's say we take down all their potential chemical/biological weapons facilities. What then?
Do we lift sanctions against Iraq and let Saddam go and do what he likes?
Do we keep the sanctions on that are killing thousands of Iraqi civilians?
The anti-war movement is long on pouting and screaming but very very very short on actual solutions and suggestions.
If France and Germany don't want to get their hands dirty that's fine, just get the hell out of the way.
Therefore I agree with the thread initiator.
Other than that, there's nothing illegal in occupying a territory conquered in war pending a negociated peace and a definitive border agreed upon by all concerned parties.
Furthermore, the UN resolutions dealing with disarmament of Iraq's non-conventional weapons are binding (?chapter seven? or something of the sort) ones, which is not the the case of any UNGA or UNSC resolution pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even less so the usual condemnations, scoldings, or tauntings.
woooo hooooo (thegelding grabs his gun and heads to the neighbor's house...planning to expand his territory abit).....
<strong>
woooo hooooo (thegelding grabs his gun and heads to the neighbor's house...planning to expand his territory abit).....</strong><hr></blockquote>
What you're talking about is forceful aquisition by an individual, not occupation by the army of a sovereign state, which is a very different thing.
It is costumary in war that after a cease-fire is reached, the armies remain on their positions until a peace agreement is reached. It means that if one side captured some territory in battle, it retains it in the meanwhile.
That is why several countries and territories in the last century, notably Japan and Austria, remained under military occupation until peace treaty was signed.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
1. If anything Iraq is only guilty of not being fully compliant with UN resolutions. As said before, Israel is another country that has been in flagrant violation for many, many years. Funny that we don't seem to care. If they are developing WMD, I've seen no smoking gun. If we have evidence of such, we certainly haven't assisted weapons inspectors in finding them. Carl Levin of Michigan is lobbying this very accusation at the CIA
2. Iraq is not a direct threat to the US, only Israel. Israel is our ally and all, but to hell with pre-emptive, unilateral strikes on their behalf
3. NO links to al-Qaeda and 9/11...The spirit behind this war is that of a campaign against terrorism. Most Americans probably believe Iraq was involved. War in Afghanistan was justified-- this is not.
4. I hate hussein and would love to see him gone, but the manner in which we've engaged this-- the unilateralism and complete rejection of any diplomatic resolution is alarming... This was has become a self fulfilling prophecy and we're guilty of flagrant brinksmanship.
5. As much as it sounds like conspriracy theory and all, the wealth of oil in Iraq waiting to be used HAS to be considered as a possible motivating factor.
I love my country, but I HATE our foreign policy
This war is going to be prosecuted in the name of global security; it's part of the greater war against terrorism.
And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are going to die: pictures of dead Iraqi babies. On your TV by the end of March. And a neo-colonial administration is going to be installed in Iraq.
Is there anyone, ANYONE, on these boards who really thinks that is going to do ANYTHING but create a new generation of SERIOUSLY pissed-off potential terrorists?
Come on, who thinks that the amount of terror is going to decrease as a result of this action?
Anyone?
Those people on the fence in Saudi Arabia ... what are they going to think?
The moderates in that CHANGING country of Iran ... how do you fancy their case is going to change in the face of changed public opinion?
Security in the Fatherland of USA ... is it going up or down?
speak no evil
see no evil
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are going to die: pictures of dead Iraqi babies. On your TV by the end of March. And a neo-colonial administration is going to be installed in Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the beautiful and peaceful U.N. diplomacy up to this point has done what? Oh, yeah, it's killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis through sanctions that hurt only the Iraqis who die malnourished and disease-ridden.
Yeah, that's a good idea. Let's do the thing where the Iraqis die (but we don't have to actually do the killing) and Saddam stays in power.
There isn't an option here where Iraqis won't die. They're dying as we speak.
[quote]<strong>Is there anyone, ANYONE, on these boards who really thinks that is going to do ANYTHING but create a new generation of SERIOUSLY pissed-off potential terrorists?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Me.
We'll oust Saddam and if the other U.N. states will put their full support behind this we can get a democracy running in Iraq. I am skeptical of the U.S.'s designs to an extent but Europe can help if they would draw up a resolution outlining multilateral post-war action and if they would get on board.
Right now the Iraqis are dying for no reason. I suppose you can ignore that if you like, but let's at least have a cause.
[ 02-14-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>
Right now the Iraqis are dying for no reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Woohoo. If thats your stance please tell your government to stop the sanctions that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SADDAMS MILITARY POWER.
I don´t think anyone have argued for continued sanctions that targets the population. If anything they have helped keep Saddam in power.
<strong>
Right now the Iraqis are dying for no reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Woohoo. If thats your stance please tell your government to stop the sanctions that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SADDAMS MILITARY POWER.
I don´t think anyone have argued for continued sanctions that targets the population. If anything they have helped keep Saddam in power.
I want the U.N. to go in and kill Saddam and do what they can to stabilize the nation with a democracy. Iraq has great potential to be a stable democracy with economic power.
Unless you want to lift all restrictions off of Saddam. Is that what you think the best course of action is? Just take the inspectors our, lift all sanctions and let him do what he's gonna do?
Well, ask Kuwait. Or maybe Turkey, Israel or Saudi Arabia, who requested our troop presence, would have some idea. Nah, let's just let it slip.
[ 02-14-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>Me.
We'll oust Saddam and if the other U.N. states will put their full support behind this we can get a democracy running in Iraq. I am skeptical of the U.S.'s designs to an extent but Europe can help if they would draw up a resolution outlining multilateral post-war action and if they would get on board.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hello, Grover? The guy in your government responsible for post-Saddam government has no intention of bringing in a democratic government. Newsflash: he said this in as many words (I know you'll want the link, wait a mo.) The administration will be run "in American interests."
You know why?
Well, what do you think they'll vote for? A secular pro-US government or a pissed off Islamic republic?
Clue: the answer is "pissed off Islamic republic."
No, you and the Brits will be running Iraq for the LONG TERM, being a source of annoyance to the Muslim world every long day. There's no way the US will allow them to democratically chose the wrong government for themselves.
And in other news, the idea is to reduce terrorism. Groverat: the only person in the world who thinks that pictures of dying babies on the TV won't inflame borderline terrorists. Doesn't matter that they're dying now in this sense -- it's the perception of this war amongst MUSLIMS that matters to your security, not YOUR perception of this war.
<strong>I don't know if you're saying that these are U.S. sanctions, because they are U.N. sanctions that your nation supports as well as mine.
I want the U.N. to go in and kill Saddam and do what they can to stabilize the nation with a democracy. Iraq has great potential to be a stable democracy with economic power.
Unless you want to lift all restrictions off of Saddam. Is that what you think the best course of action is? Just take the inspectors our, lift all sanctions and let him do what he's gonna do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are UN sanctions but my country didn´t have a word when they were put into action (part of the cease fire). If it had it would probably have voted for and I would have been vocal against them.
You on the other hand have a government that have part in them so you can work your government to change them.
<strong>
Hello, Grover? The guy in your government responsible for post-Saddam government has no intention of bringing in a democratic government. Newsflash: he said this in as many words (I know you'll want the link, wait a mo.) The administration will be run "in American interests."
You know why?
Well, what do you think they'll vote for? A secular pro-US government or a pissed off Islamic republic?
Clue: the answer is "pissed off Islamic republic."
No, you and the Brits will be running Iraq for the LONG TERM, being a source of annoyance to the Muslim world every long day. There's no way the US will allow them to democratically chose the wrong government for themselves.
And in other news, the idea is to reduce terrorism. Groverat: the only person in the world who thinks that pictures of dying babies on the TV won't inflame borderline terrorists. Doesn't matter that they're dying now in this sense -- it's the perception of this war amongst MUSLIMS that matters to your security, not YOUR perception of this war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I actually think that the Iraqis, if given teh chance to choose their own government would probably choose a secular representative government . . . at least in part of the country,
WHich leads me to think that the best thing, probably for Iraw would be to allow it to split itself into three seperate regions:
Shi'ite
Sunni
and Kurds
[quote]<strong>Hello, Grover? The guy in your government responsible for post-Saddam government has no intention of bringing in a democratic government. Newsflash: he said this in as many words (I know you'll want the link, wait a mo.) The administration will be run "in American interests."</strong><hr></blockquote>
2 years. The plan is to occupy Iraq for 2 years.
The U.N. could have a lot to say in the matter, the Bush administration has given the U.N. ample opportunity to drive this issue. ONLY IF THE U.N. BALKS will the U.S. take full control of the matter.
There is the chance for multi-lateral involvement, Bush handed it to the U.N. Why do you keep ignoring that?
[quote]<strong>Well, what do you think they'll vote for? A secular pro-US government or a pissed off Islamic republic?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, since Iraq has absolutely no modern history of being an Islamic republic I don't see why they'd start now.
Since Iraq has a modern history of being secular democracy (fake, of course, after Saddam took over but still the gild) I think they might lean that way. They will be very rich, they are sitting on a goldmine.
But if I believe that all the brown people over there just can't wait to be fundamentalist Muslim terrorists then maybe I see your point.
[quote]<strong>No, you and the Brits will be running Iraq for the LONG TERM, being a source of annoyance to the Muslim world every long day. There's no way the US will allow them to democratically chose the wrong government for themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you believe that then why not push your government to get involved? Why not tell your government to go in as part of a multi-lateral task force and make sure that America doesn't turn Iraq into a colony?
If you KNOW it's going to happen, why not do something about it?
[quote]<strong>And in other news, the idea is to reduce terrorism. Groverat: the only person in the world who thinks that pictures of dying babies on the TV won't inflame borderline terrorists. Doesn't matter that they're dying now in this sense -- it's the perception of this war amongst MUSLIMS that matters to your security, not YOUR perception of this war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not see why this should sway us from the logical course of action. I do not think determining foreign policy to please a fuzzy enemy is wise.
And in case you didn't notice, people use dead baby pictures without war, just look at what SJO posts.
The Persian Gulf War was in 1991. 9/11 was in 2001. Somehow I'm thinking there are other factors besides war.
-------------
Anders:
[quote]<strong>They are UN sanctions but my country didn´t have a word when they were put into action (part of the cease fire). If it had it would probably have voted for and I would have been vocal against them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why isn't your government speaking out against them now? Why is your government doing nothing about it now? People are still dying, why not act if that's what you believe?
Sorry, but you're a part of it. You can't be neutral on a moving train.
[quote]<strong>You on the other hand have a government that have part in them so you can work your government to change them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only thing keeping your government from being involved is your government.
It is a lot easier to moralize from the sidelines, to tut at those who attempt to solve problems while your main objective is to judge.
The War on Iraq has not happened. Post-2003-War Iraq is not here, there is still time for Europe and whoever else wants to join to become involved. Yet they choose not to.
If you're going to say "I don't like the way the U.S. does things." then get in there and DO SOMETHING.
So full of criticism, so empty of answers.
If getting rid of SOB heads of state and saving starving babies meets the threshold of a pre-emptive war then we have lots of work to do in Africa.
What is the premise of this war? Where is the justification? We have none. We are waging this war in the name of vague assumptions which, to me, is a sad prospect.
We do not have the right to take over this country unless they pose a clear and present danger to the US or they commit an act of war (i.e. Taliban and 9/11)
<strong>
What is the premise of this war? Where is the justification? We have none. We are waging this war in the name of vague assumptions which, to me, is a sad prospect.
We do not have the right to take over this country unless they pose a clear and present danger to the US or they commit an act of war (i.e. Taliban and 9/11)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Premise for war: History lesson for those who seem to have short term memories: Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade other nieghbours. The UN responded with the Gulf war. Iraq Lost the Gulf War. The Gulf War was SUSPENDED under terms of a cease-fire agreed to and signed by the Iraqi leadership. The cease-fire agreement essentially said that hositilities would resume if Iraq failed to comply with the stated conditions of the cease-fire. Iraq has failed to comply with the stated conditions of the ceasefire.
Is that laid out clearly enough for those wondering what the hub-bub over Iraq is about?
Now, in addition to the extraordinarily obvious reasons, we also have: possible ties with Al-Queda. Continued threat to Isreal. Continued WMD development. Violation of recent UN Security Council resolution.
Now, before picking apart the additional reason stated, refer to original reason. That alone if enough. You lose a war, sign a ceasefire. You break the cease-fire, it means a resumption of hostilities...how difficult is that to understand?
[ 02-14-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
I'm off to an anti-war demo tomorrow, the forcast says it's going to be a beautiful day.
The simple matter is we have not made a clear and "extraordinary" case against Iraq that is sufficient to convince the Security Council, not to mention other skeptics, on the neccesity for war. In lieu of this, we have essentially decided that such UN approval is unneccesary. This is simply wrong.