Nobody ever said it was. What was said was that war without valid reason was illegal. The UN charter states quite clear what are valid reasons.
The Kuwait invasion by Iraq was illegal. By international law. The responding counter attack was legal. By international law. By signing the UN charter the member states have committed themselves to not wage war without valid reasons. And to respect the sovereignty of the other states, unless they have valid reasons not to. That is the case. <hr></blockquote></strong>
What's not valid about the US/UK/Spain Auzi etc case for war? legally I mean? SC resolution 1441 clearly states that Iraq must comply swiftly completely, fully and without delay or face the consequences of noncompliance - 4 months have passed since that resolution was passed and Iraq clearly hasn't complied! even the French accept that much - their argument is about the usefulness of war vs the usefulness of giving the inspectors more time - there is no argument about Iraq's non-compliance, no one is disputing this simple fact, in fact everyone agrees that Iraq has not complied with 1441. therefore Legally the use of force is absolutely legal and justified and is sanctioned by the UN and its resolution.
You can argue about the wisdom of war under current circumstances but legally you have no case here!
[quote]<strong>so while the original occupation in itself was not illegal. The fact that it has lasted for 35 years? <hr></blockquote></strong>
Read resolution 242 again my friend - it puts no specific time limits or deadlines, it calls for:
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; "
The two are intertwined - one part cannot happen without the other part taking place, so, in effect what we have here is a SC resolution that all involved parties are in breach of - that's it - nothing to do with the legality or the absence of legality of the continued Israeli occupation - note that the resolution doesn't even call for the FULL withdrawal of Israeli forces from ALL territories occupied - clearly the SC meant for boundaries to be established as a result of peace treaties and negotiations such as those that have taken place between Israel and Egypt (the only case where res 242 was actually implemented)
[quote]<strong>No Security Council power is trying to "preserve" Saddams regime, Stability and the integrity of the UN, yes. Maybe even Peace. But Saddam, no <hr></blockquote></strong>
Well, as wise powerdoc suggests lets not hazard to venture into other people's minds and personal agendas - how can we really?!?
though consider this:
Intentions are not the pertinent issue here, however plain real world results are at stake here - the point is that You, Chirac, Putin, all those millions of anti war marchers, protesters, pacifists, appeasers, interested parties, scared Arabs, proud Arabs and all the rest of them may not like Sadam, or wish him good health, or support his despotic regime, but (and that's a very big BUT), the END RESULT of what is being suggested, supported and done by the anti war side is one and the same with Sadam's interests! its simply to continue the same inaction and feet dragging of the past 12 years - more WOMD for Sadam, more Iraqis dying from sanctions, more Iraqis dying at the hands of Sadam's goons, more long term instability and greater WOMD risks in our world, and last but not least more years for old Sadam on his bloody throne!
You may not realize or mean to but in effect you are supporting Sadam!
[quote]Strong words from a usually mild man.<hr></blockquote>
Thanks to the efforts of this "mild man", North Korea presently possesses 1-2 uranium-implosion nuclear weapons, and is well on its way to the mass-production of weapons-grade plutonium. You don't get far by trusting paranoid dictators at their word. He should have retired to a log cabin in Georgia long, long ago. Fortunately for him, he'll likely have passed on before things come to a very bloody head in Korea. God help him if he's still around when a NK nuke lands on Los Angeles.
<strong>This record must be skipping. I thought we covered this. lets call it "illegal use of force" then, or " crime against peace", "breach of of international law" or just "being a world-scale asshole", doesn't really matter. We all know what we are talking about here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We are talking about the intent to settle the score with Iraq, a country with which the U.S.A. is still in a state of war (unless they signed a peace treaty while I was asleep). Those things have happened before:I recall one fine sunny morning in October 1973, and nobody said Egypt or Syria were committing a ?crime against peace?, ?illegal use of force?, or any other grandiloquent phrasings.
While there are many reasonable critiques which can be leveled at the planned attack of the U.S. , ?illegality? not being one of them.
Whatever the faults of the U.S.' planned war against Iraq, it is more legitimate than the ongoing existence of the Saddam Hussain regime.
[quote]Therefore, according to international law, the Golan is still considered as a territory under military occupation by Israel (as it was since 1967), and it doesn't recognise the unilateral annexation. Yet the occupation itself is not in contravention to international law, only the annexation.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>So what, it still a breach of international law. Since parts of the occupation (like the annexation) is illegal. So calling the occupation "illegal" is a fair statement, even when the act of occupying in itself is not illegal as such.</strong><hr></blockquote>
?Illegal occupation? means the act of occupying in itself is illegal as such. One can address the unlawful nature of the unilateral annexation form the POV of international law, that's another thing; otherwise violations, crimes, excesses, misdemeanors, occuring since the conquest of 1967, are other things yet. Yet these don't make the act of military occupation illegal, therefore, they don't make the occupation illegal.
[quote]<strong>We are not discussing wording here, but principles of international law. And you fail to address the real issues.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I do not.
[quote]Transfer of civilians is a forceful removal of civilians from one place to another. A civilian moving from say, Haifa, to Efrat is not being transferred.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Are you saying palestinians have not been forcefully removed from these areas?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The overwhelming majority of the settlements were built in uninhabited areas, which have been on state lands since Ottoman times.
[quote]<strong>And moving a person to an occupied territory is a transfer. Even if its voluntarily.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A person moving voluntarily form one residence to another is not transfer.
As said previously, there are many irregularity as per the settlements, the fact of Israeli Jews living there not being one of them.
?Voluntary transfer? is an oxymoron invented by late Israeli far-right politician Re'Hav'am ?Gandhi? Zeevi, funny that you adopt his expressions.
[quote]Then again, the settlement activity, particularly when enacted as a government policy, certainly presents numerous problems in the eyes of international law, but that is irrelevent to the question of the legality or illegality of military occupation of territories captured in war, pending peace treaty.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>It is very relevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Answered above, repreated by popular demand:
?Illegal occupation? means the act of occupying in itself is illegal as such. One can address the unlawful nature of the unilateral annexation form the POV of international law, that's another thing; otherwise violations, crimes, excesses, misdemeanors, occuring since the conquest of 1967, are other things yet. Yet these don't make the act of military occupation illegal, therefore, they don't make the occupation illegal.
[quote]Amazing how can anyone suspect such characters as Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin of such lofty goals as ?stability? and ?integrity?.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I don't consider "stability" and "integrity" a lofty goal. I think France and Russia are just trying to "stay in power" so to speak. I have no high thoughts for these governments.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In comparison with Putin's and Chirac's records they certainly seems lofty and laudable. These two make Bush II look like a boy scout.
[quote]<strong>Germany, on the other hand, I think is genuinely interested in peace. That's a "lofty" and valiant goal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is certainly pertinent of Germany to adopt a pacifist policy, but it's very imertinent of that cohtry to preach pacifism to others.
[quote]<strong>Jimmy Carter wrote a very good article in the New York Times this Sunday. I don't know why its not on the net yet, but at least you can read about it here. He says the war is unjust and "almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.'' Strong words from a usually mild man.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hardly ?unprecedented? or ?unjust? in comparison to recent history. Mr. Carter, whom I'm quite fond of actually, should tone down his superlatives, and remember that his policy of détente had a large part in encouraging the Soviets to show more audacity, like in the invasion of Afghanistan, among other things.
The most unjust thing in relation to Iraq today, is that it is still being governed by Saddam Hussain.
Question: do you use Safari when posting your messages?
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
I don't know Jacques Chirac enough to understand his real goals (if we supposed that his goals are differents than his claims), and i am always surprised by people who seems to know the real goal of peoples ; are they telepath ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Chirac's record in international affairs speaks for itself. He's been the major backer of the rapprochment with Saddam Hussain during the 70s and 80s: the Osirak nuclear plant was pretty much his baby, that back then, many referred to it as ?O'chirak?. The end of the current Iraqi regime means that all the carefully crafted connections set up there would go away, so the quai d'Orsay, and Chirac himself, have stakes in it remianing as it is.
[quote]<strong>For Putine, i have even less personal opinions about him : i would only say that he is better for russia than Eltsine (which is not a great compliment in itself).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Putin is a ruthless, moderately authoritarian (moderately for Russia that is) politician. Russia has little experience with the intricacies of modern sophisticated democracy, as it had mostly known autocracy and totalitarianism, with interregna of balagan (general disorder) or bardak (le bordel). Given these Russian realities Putin might actually be what the doctor ordered, particularly after years of Eltsine. Yet, he's hardly the one to think of when thinking ?stability? and ?integrity? in the international arena, if you ask me.
<strong>Chirac's record in international affairs speaks for itself. He's been the major backer of the rapprochment with Saddam Hussain during the 70s and 80s: the Osirak nuclear plant was pretty much his baby, that back then, many referred to it as ?O'chirak?. The end of the current Iraqi regime means that all the carefully crafted connections set up there would go away, so the quai d'Orsay, and Chirac himself, have stakes in it remianing as it is.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Chirac has commited big mistakes in the past, i think he commited this one with Giscard (i can't believe that the president did not know this contract).
I don't think he is still considering 27 years later that Saddam he is still a good guy. At the time he did not appear at the eye of some occidental countries (the israelian where more wise here) that it was a bad guy. Now it's different , Saddam commited two wars, tempted to make genocide against the kurds and employed chemical weapons. He is well known that he tried to make nuclear weapons also.
I didn't hear yesterday , Chirac saying that Saddam was a good guy, at the contrary he said he was dangerous dictator and a threat. The point he made, is that he wants to hear from the mouth of the inspector that their mission is not anymore possible, and thus war is the only option. He said that he was not his role to said if Iraq play the game or not. He voted and help to built the 1441 resolution, so he follow it. He also said that Iraq do not cooperate enough, probabily has still some weapons hidden and that the progress made was due to the giant pressure of US and UK.
Of course we can discuss the oportunity of such choice and consider like Powell it's a waste of time, but i would not say that Chirac want simply to save Saddam ass.
[quote] Putin is a ruthless, moderately authoritarian (moderately for Russia that is) politician. Russia has little experience with the intricacies of modern sophisticated democracy, as it had mostly known autocracy and totalitarianism, with interregna of balagan (general disorder) or bardak (le bordel). Given these Russian realities Putin might actually be what the doctor ordered, particularly after years of Eltsine. Yet, he's hardly the one to think of when thinking ?stability? and ?integrity? in the international arena, if you ask me. <hr></blockquote>
Your analysis is probabily right, but what i meant is that i don't know his "real" reasons for his position.
Chirac has commited big mistakes in the past, i think he commited this one with Giscard (i can't believe that the president did not know this contract).
I don't think he is still considering 27 years later that Saddam he is still a good guy. At the time he did not appear at the eye of some occidental countries (the israelian where more wise here) that it was a bad guy. Now it's different , Saddam commited two wars, tempted to make genocide against the kurds and employed chemical weapons. He is well known that he tried to make nuclear weapons also.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not so much a question of considering Saddam a ?good guy? or not. The French policies toward Saddam were quite consistent and constant in the 70s and 80s. While Giscard was certainly aware and favourable to the rapprochment wioth the Saddam regime, its most enthusiastic supporter was Chirac. The same policy was kept under Mitterrand, who ever ?loaned? Super Étendard? fighters to Iraq, hose French markings would be occulted when lfown by Iraqis in combat.
The true nature of Saddam was well known by then (but then so was the case for Bokassa or Mobutu), yet he was seen favourably by France and the U.S.S.R., and later by the U.S.A. as their old ally Iran had turned against them.
Due to the long years of partnership with that regime, bith France and Russia have a stake at seeing it endure, even if diminished. Naturally, it's not something which can be acceptable in their official discourse.
[quote]<strong>I didn't hear yesterday , Chirac saying that Saddam was a good guy, at the contrary he said he was dangerous dictator and a threat. The point he made, is that he wants to hear from the mouth of the inspector that their mission is not anymore possible, and thus war is the only option. He said that he was not his role to said if Iraq play the game or not. He voted and help to built the 1441 resolution, so he follow it. He also said that Iraq do not cooperate enough, probabily has still some weapons hidden and that the progress made was due to the giant pressure of US and UK.
Of course we can discuss the oportunity of such choice and consider like Powell it's a waste of time, but i would not say that Chirac want simply to save Saddam ass.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not so much about Saddam's arse, as it is about preserving the interests invested in his presidential posterior. A Saddam-less Iraq opens too many undertainties for them.
An Iraq with Saddam leaves open the eventuality he might one day recuperate and become a clear threat once again and not just to Iraqis and immediate neighbours, as he is now.
Given the lack of alternative initiatives for his removal from those politically opposed to the one removal currently proposed by the U.S., it follows that they prefer the perpetuation of the current impasse, which has been going on since 1991.
[While I have serious misgiving about an all-out war in Iraq, the only currently available alternative is even less acceptable.]
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if this website is neutral. They give a very bad image of Powell who at the contrary of Rumsfeld and others is not less pro-israelian (read in the article). Powell is shown as M Mistake in foreign politic.
I think that the internal conflict inside the white house explain this * changing politic of US for a war with Iraq . This change is one of the key of the lack of popularity of Bush's admin in the world . The other key is how the media presented Bush and his admin. US media presented him badly and Europe reported this image with the usual distorsion : you can see the result.
I think that preserving Saddam at the cost of "pissing" the US will be a big mistake and a very bad deal. If all this storie was just a preservation of some interest, all the issues could have been dealt secretly with the US. I think that the point is otherwhere, and that Powell did not understood this. We cannot understand the issue of these diplomatical conflict by oil issues or economics interests.
I don't know if this website is neutral. They give a very bad image of Powell who at the contrary of Rumsfeld and others is not less pro-israelian (read in the article). Powell is shown as M Mistake in foreign politic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The website is very well informed, and quite ?intellectual Parisian? in style. You wouldn't catch it publishing fake news (as was known to happen with the Nouvel Obs). Editorial opinions vary from pro-Israeli to pro-Palestinian, according to their authors, yet you wouldn't find there any reflections of views of such AI pundits and experts as New or Mika. So I'd say it's quite moderate and more or less balanced.
As for this editorial, I find it underestimates Powell as well as wrongly places him in the orbit of Baker and Scowcroft.
The one point of the article with which I'm in agreemnt is the one I quoted in my previous post to you.
[quote]<strong>I think that the internal conflict inside the white house explain this * changing politic of US for a war with Iraq . This change is one of the key of the lack of popularity of Bush's admin in the world . The other key is how the media presented Bush and his admin. US media presented him badly and Europe reported this image with the usual distorsion : you can see the result.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While the Bush administration, far form being unilateralist, does makes great efforts to engage a dialogue with the other world players, it's doing it very badly, and I disagree with the linked editorial that it is Powell who is mostly to blame.
[quote]<strong>I think that preserving Saddam at the cost of "pissing" the US will be a big mistake and a very bad deal. If all this storie was just a preservation of some interest, all the issues could have been dealt secretly with the US. I think that the point is otherwhere, and that Powell did not understood this. We cannot understand the issue of these diplomatical conflict by oil issues or economics interests.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The long partnership between the current Iraqi regime and the two permanent SC power most opposed to the U.S. initiative, France and Russia, has many built-in advantages for them, which would be lost should this regime be removed.
That, as well as a fear from U.S. assertive interventionism around the world, and a will to assert their own role as world players, is motivating the current stance of these two countries, if you ask me.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
The long partnership between the current Iraqi regime and the two permanent SC power most opposed to the U.S. initiative, France and Russia, has many built-in advantages for them, which would be lost should this regime be removed.
That, as well as a fear from U.S. assertive interventionism around the world, and a will to assert their own role as world players, is motivating the current stance of these two countries, if you ask me.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the latter point is the more important of the two.
[quote] The website is very well informed, and quite Â?intellectual ParisianÂ? in style. You wouldn't catch it publishing fake news (as was known to happen with the Nouvel Obs). Editorial opinions vary from pro-Israeli to pro-Palestinian, according to their authors, yet you wouldn't find there any reflections of views of such AI pundits and experts as New or Mika. So I'd say it's quite moderate and more or less balanced.
<hr></blockquote>
As i don't know this web-site and you know it, i will buy your advice.
[quote] While the Bush administration, far form being unilateralist, does makes great efforts to engage a dialogue with the other world players, it's doing it very badly, and I disagree with the linked editorial that it is Powell who is mostly to blame. <hr></blockquote>
I am not expert in the US admin, but i think that Powell is not unilateralist. However what you call great effort but badly made, looks rather for me like unilateral behavioring hidden behind official multilateral discussions where US has already made his opinion (we discuss alltogether but we have already our opinion but we will not change it, only smoothe some minor issues to make you please *).
An another point of this debate is the future of Iraq. Who will be in charge after Saddam. There is a great risk in the mid long term (not in the short, US and UN troops will prevent this) that the muslims extremists took power like in Iran. The good-hearted Carter wanted to remove a dictature the shah and at the place we see Khomeiny (great move), the French thinked that Khomeiny will thanks France for his exile (an another great move).
The action of occident in these aera is a long list of failure, but that's an another story, i just wish that there would not be an another add to this huge list.
*excuse me for this atrocious english , in french, comme des reunions de soi-disant concertation ou toutes les decisions ont ete prises Ã* l'avance)
[quote]However what you call great effort but badly made, looks rather for me like unilateral behavioring hidden behind official multilateral discussions where US has already made his opinion (we discuss alltogether but we have already our opinion but we will not change it, only smoothe some minor issues to make you please *).<hr></blockquote>
This seems to work both ways. France is set in their position no matter what happens, and Chirac himself has come out and said as much. So one can say that Bush wants war but if they want to be honest they must also say that Chirac wants Saddam to stay.
There is a false assumption surrounding this whole issue that the U.S. was a biased entity bringing their ideas to an objective body. The members of the U.N. are just as biased as the U.S. So you see Bush sticking hard to the language of 1441 and French diplomats running away from it. It's all about agenda, with both sides.
This seems to work both ways. France is set in their position no matter what happens, and Chirac himself has come out and said as much. So one can say that Bush wants war but if they want to be honest they must also say that Chirac wants Saddam to stay.
There is a false assumption surrounding this whole issue that the U.S. was a biased entity bringing their ideas to an objective body. The members of the U.N. are just as biased as the U.S. So you see Bush sticking hard to the language of 1441 and French diplomats running away from it. It's all about agenda, with both sides.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Groverat, you are welcome
I agree that France seems to be set to his position whatever will happens. I wish that the UN inspectors says : our mission failed, there is nothing to do. That way, according to what said Chirac yesterday on TV : France will enter in the coalition against Iraq, and that ****en Marmelade will stop. However it's only a dream and i doubt it will happen.
The article quoted by Immanuel showed (sorry it's in french and i do not agree with how was portrayed Powell) that there was a internal rivaltry between Powell and Rumsfield and others. This rivaltry explain, (if this article is true) why the management of the Iraq case by US changed. Unfortunately it did not change in the right order. If the case of Iraq had been bring in a different way, the result may be different.
Linking Iraq with Al Quaeda was not a good thing, or a bad shortcut . Rather than said there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, it would have been better to explain this (from the mouth of an US journalist, but not the exact wording) :this aera has many terrorists, Saddam is a dangerous dictator with many WOMD that he already use it, It's dangerous in the same region to let them stay together.
[QB]The article quoted by Immanuel showed (sorry it's in french and i do not agree with how was portrayed Powell) that there was a internal rivaltry between Powell and Rumsfield and others. This rivaltry explain, (if this article is true) why the management of the Iraq case by US changed.<hr></blockquote>
I obviously can't speak French, but there is definitely a difference between Powell and Rumsfeld. Powell has been a "dove" in many ways since before even the Gulf War in 1991.
And while I agree that trying to link Hussein to bin Laden is silly I think people make too much of how much importance the Bush administration places on it. It seems to be something convenient for those who would otherwise be against Bush to complain about. It is not as if Bush is basing his case on that issue.
Then we could have another 8 years of nothing being accomplished but Iraqi civilians being killed off by the tens of thousands from economic sanctions.
<strong>Then we could have another 8 years of nothing being accomplished but Iraqi civilians being killed off by the tens of thousands from economic sanctions.
Comments
[quote]<strong>
Nobody ever said it was. What was said was that war without valid reason was illegal. The UN charter states quite clear what are valid reasons.
The Kuwait invasion by Iraq was illegal. By international law. The responding counter attack was legal. By international law. By signing the UN charter the member states have committed themselves to not wage war without valid reasons. And to respect the sovereignty of the other states, unless they have valid reasons not to. That is the case. <hr></blockquote></strong>
What's not valid about the US/UK/Spain Auzi etc case for war? legally I mean? SC resolution 1441 clearly states that Iraq must comply swiftly completely, fully and without delay or face the consequences of noncompliance - 4 months have passed since that resolution was passed and Iraq clearly hasn't complied! even the French accept that much - their argument is about the usefulness of war vs the usefulness of giving the inspectors more time - there is no argument about Iraq's non-compliance, no one is disputing this simple fact, in fact everyone agrees that Iraq has not complied with 1441. therefore Legally the use of force is absolutely legal and justified and is sanctioned by the UN and its resolution.
You can argue about the wisdom of war under current circumstances but legally you have no case here!
[quote]<strong>so while the original occupation in itself was not illegal. The fact that it has lasted for 35 years? <hr></blockquote></strong>
Read resolution 242 again my friend - it puts no specific time limits or deadlines, it calls for:
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; "
The two are intertwined - one part cannot happen without the other part taking place, so, in effect what we have here is a SC resolution that all involved parties are in breach of - that's it - nothing to do with the legality or the absence of legality of the continued Israeli occupation - note that the resolution doesn't even call for the FULL withdrawal of Israeli forces from ALL territories occupied - clearly the SC meant for boundaries to be established as a result of peace treaties and negotiations such as those that have taken place between Israel and Egypt (the only case where res 242 was actually implemented)
[quote]<strong>No Security Council power is trying to "preserve" Saddams regime, Stability and the integrity of the UN, yes. Maybe even Peace. But Saddam, no <hr></blockquote></strong>
Well, as wise powerdoc suggests lets not hazard to venture into other people's minds and personal agendas - how can we really?!?
though consider this:
Intentions are not the pertinent issue here, however plain real world results are at stake here - the point is that You, Chirac, Putin, all those millions of anti war marchers, protesters, pacifists, appeasers, interested parties, scared Arabs, proud Arabs and all the rest of them may not like Sadam, or wish him good health, or support his despotic regime, but (and that's a very big BUT), the END RESULT of what is being suggested, supported and done by the anti war side is one and the same with Sadam's interests! its simply to continue the same inaction and feet dragging of the past 12 years - more WOMD for Sadam, more Iraqis dying from sanctions, more Iraqis dying at the hands of Sadam's goons, more long term instability and greater WOMD risks in our world, and last but not least more years for old Sadam on his bloody throne!
You may not realize or mean to but in effect you are supporting Sadam!
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
Thanks to the efforts of this "mild man", North Korea presently possesses 1-2 uranium-implosion nuclear weapons, and is well on its way to the mass-production of weapons-grade plutonium. You don't get far by trusting paranoid dictators at their word. He should have retired to a log cabin in Georgia long, long ago. Fortunately for him, he'll likely have passed on before things come to a very bloody head in Korea. God help him if he's still around when a NK nuke lands on Los Angeles.
<strong>This record must be skipping. I thought we covered this. lets call it "illegal use of force" then, or " crime against peace", "breach of of international law" or just "being a world-scale asshole", doesn't really matter. We all know what we are talking about here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We are talking about the intent to settle the score with Iraq, a country with which the U.S.A. is still in a state of war (unless they signed a peace treaty while I was asleep). Those things have happened before:I recall one fine sunny morning in October 1973, and nobody said Egypt or Syria were committing a ?crime against peace?, ?illegal use of force?, or any other grandiloquent phrasings.
While there are many reasonable critiques which can be leveled at the planned attack of the U.S. , ?illegality? not being one of them.
Whatever the faults of the U.S.' planned war against Iraq, it is more legitimate than the ongoing existence of the Saddam Hussain regime.
[quote]Therefore, according to international law, the Golan is still considered as a territory under military occupation by Israel (as it was since 1967), and it doesn't recognise the unilateral annexation. Yet the occupation itself is not in contravention to international law, only the annexation.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>So what, it still a breach of international law. Since parts of the occupation (like the annexation) is illegal. So calling the occupation "illegal" is a fair statement, even when the act of occupying in itself is not illegal as such.</strong><hr></blockquote>
?Illegal occupation? means the act of occupying in itself is illegal as such. One can address the unlawful nature of the unilateral annexation form the POV of international law, that's another thing; otherwise violations, crimes, excesses, misdemeanors, occuring since the conquest of 1967, are other things yet. Yet these don't make the act of military occupation illegal, therefore, they don't make the occupation illegal.
[quote]<strong>We are not discussing wording here, but principles of international law. And you fail to address the real issues.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I do not.
[quote]Transfer of civilians is a forceful removal of civilians from one place to another. A civilian moving from say, Haifa, to Efrat is not being transferred.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Are you saying palestinians have not been forcefully removed from these areas?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The overwhelming majority of the settlements were built in uninhabited areas, which have been on state lands since Ottoman times.
[quote]<strong>And moving a person to an occupied territory is a transfer. Even if its voluntarily.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A person moving voluntarily form one residence to another is not transfer.
As said previously, there are many irregularity as per the settlements, the fact of Israeli Jews living there not being one of them.
?Voluntary transfer? is an oxymoron invented by late Israeli far-right politician Re'Hav'am ?Gandhi? Zeevi, funny that you adopt his expressions.
[quote]Then again, the settlement activity, particularly when enacted as a government policy, certainly presents numerous problems in the eyes of international law, but that is irrelevent to the question of the legality or illegality of military occupation of territories captured in war, pending peace treaty.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>It is very relevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Answered above, repreated by popular demand:
?Illegal occupation? means the act of occupying in itself is illegal as such. One can address the unlawful nature of the unilateral annexation form the POV of international law, that's another thing; otherwise violations, crimes, excesses, misdemeanors, occuring since the conquest of 1967, are other things yet. Yet these don't make the act of military occupation illegal, therefore, they don't make the occupation illegal.
[quote]Amazing how can anyone suspect such characters as Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin of such lofty goals as ?stability? and ?integrity?.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I don't consider "stability" and "integrity" a lofty goal. I think France and Russia are just trying to "stay in power" so to speak. I have no high thoughts for these governments.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In comparison with Putin's and Chirac's records they certainly seems lofty and laudable. These two make Bush II look like a boy scout.
[quote]<strong>Germany, on the other hand, I think is genuinely interested in peace. That's a "lofty" and valiant goal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is certainly pertinent of Germany to adopt a pacifist policy, but it's very imertinent of that cohtry to preach pacifism to others.
[quote]<strong>Jimmy Carter wrote a very good article in the New York Times this Sunday. I don't know why its not on the net yet, but at least you can read about it here. He says the war is unjust and "almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.'' Strong words from a usually mild man.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hardly ?unprecedented? or ?unjust? in comparison to recent history. Mr. Carter, whom I'm quite fond of actually, should tone down his superlatives, and remember that his policy of détente had a large part in encouraging the Soviets to show more audacity, like in the invasion of Afghanistan, among other things.
The most unjust thing in relation to Iraq today, is that it is still being governed by Saddam Hussain.
Question: do you use Safari when posting your messages?
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>
I don't know Jacques Chirac enough to understand his real goals (if we supposed that his goals are differents than his claims), and i am always surprised by people who seems to know the real goal of peoples ; are they telepath ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Chirac's record in international affairs speaks for itself. He's been the major backer of the rapprochment with Saddam Hussain during the 70s and 80s: the Osirak nuclear plant was pretty much his baby, that back then, many referred to it as ?O'chirak?. The end of the current Iraqi regime means that all the carefully crafted connections set up there would go away, so the quai d'Orsay, and Chirac himself, have stakes in it remianing as it is.
[quote]<strong>For Putine, i have even less personal opinions about him : i would only say that he is better for russia than Eltsine (which is not a great compliment in itself).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Putin is a ruthless, moderately authoritarian (moderately for Russia that is) politician. Russia has little experience with the intricacies of modern sophisticated democracy, as it had mostly known autocracy and totalitarianism, with interregna of balagan (general disorder) or bardak (le bordel). Given these Russian realities Putin might actually be what the doctor ordered, particularly after years of Eltsine. Yet, he's hardly the one to think of when thinking ?stability? and ?integrity? in the international arena, if you ask me.
<strong>Chirac's record in international affairs speaks for itself. He's been the major backer of the rapprochment with Saddam Hussain during the 70s and 80s: the Osirak nuclear plant was pretty much his baby, that back then, many referred to it as ?O'chirak?. The end of the current Iraqi regime means that all the carefully crafted connections set up there would go away, so the quai d'Orsay, and Chirac himself, have stakes in it remianing as it is.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Chirac has commited big mistakes in the past, i think he commited this one with Giscard (i can't believe that the president did not know this contract).
I don't think he is still considering 27 years later that Saddam he is still a good guy. At the time he did not appear at the eye of some occidental countries (the israelian where more wise here) that it was a bad guy. Now it's different , Saddam commited two wars, tempted to make genocide against the kurds and employed chemical weapons. He is well known that he tried to make nuclear weapons also.
I didn't hear yesterday , Chirac saying that Saddam was a good guy, at the contrary he said he was dangerous dictator and a threat. The point he made, is that he wants to hear from the mouth of the inspector that their mission is not anymore possible, and thus war is the only option. He said that he was not his role to said if Iraq play the game or not. He voted and help to built the 1441 resolution, so he follow it. He also said that Iraq do not cooperate enough, probabily has still some weapons hidden and that the progress made was due to the giant pressure of US and UK.
Of course we can discuss the oportunity of such choice and consider like Powell it's a waste of time, but i would not say that Chirac want simply to save Saddam ass.
[quote] Putin is a ruthless, moderately authoritarian (moderately for Russia that is) politician. Russia has little experience with the intricacies of modern sophisticated democracy, as it had mostly known autocracy and totalitarianism, with interregna of balagan (general disorder) or bardak (le bordel). Given these Russian realities Putin might actually be what the doctor ordered, particularly after years of Eltsine. Yet, he's hardly the one to think of when thinking ?stability? and ?integrity? in the international arena, if you ask me. <hr></blockquote>
Your analysis is probabily right, but what i meant is that i don't know his "real" reasons for his position.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>
Chirac has commited big mistakes in the past, i think he commited this one with Giscard (i can't believe that the president did not know this contract).
I don't think he is still considering 27 years later that Saddam he is still a good guy. At the time he did not appear at the eye of some occidental countries (the israelian where more wise here) that it was a bad guy. Now it's different , Saddam commited two wars, tempted to make genocide against the kurds and employed chemical weapons. He is well known that he tried to make nuclear weapons also.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not so much a question of considering Saddam a ?good guy? or not. The French policies toward Saddam were quite consistent and constant in the 70s and 80s. While Giscard was certainly aware and favourable to the rapprochment wioth the Saddam regime, its most enthusiastic supporter was Chirac. The same policy was kept under Mitterrand, who ever ?loaned? Super Étendard? fighters to Iraq, hose French markings would be occulted when lfown by Iraqis in combat.
The true nature of Saddam was well known by then (but then so was the case for Bokassa or Mobutu), yet he was seen favourably by France and the U.S.S.R., and later by the U.S.A. as their old ally Iran had turned against them.
Due to the long years of partnership with that regime, bith France and Russia have a stake at seeing it endure, even if diminished. Naturally, it's not something which can be acceptable in their official discourse.
[quote]<strong>I didn't hear yesterday , Chirac saying that Saddam was a good guy, at the contrary he said he was dangerous dictator and a threat. The point he made, is that he wants to hear from the mouth of the inspector that their mission is not anymore possible, and thus war is the only option. He said that he was not his role to said if Iraq play the game or not. He voted and help to built the 1441 resolution, so he follow it. He also said that Iraq do not cooperate enough, probabily has still some weapons hidden and that the progress made was due to the giant pressure of US and UK.
Of course we can discuss the oportunity of such choice and consider like Powell it's a waste of time, but i would not say that Chirac want simply to save Saddam ass.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not so much about Saddam's arse, as it is about preserving the interests invested in his presidential posterior. A Saddam-less Iraq opens too many undertainties for them.
An Iraq with Saddam leaves open the eventuality he might one day recuperate and become a clear threat once again and not just to Iraqis and immediate neighbours, as he is now.
Given the lack of alternative initiatives for his removal from those politically opposed to the one removal currently proposed by the U.S., it follows that they prefer the perpetuation of the current impasse, which has been going on since 1991.
[While I have serious misgiving about an all-out war in Iraq, the only currently available alternative is even less acceptable.]
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
While I disagree with several points of that editorial analysis I agree with that one:
[quote]
Extrait:
«Pourtant, la diplomatie américaine commence une série de concessions dont l'importance n'apparaîtra pleinement qu'après coup : par exemple, en n'insistant pas - devant l'opposition irakienne relayée par la France et la Russie -, pour que le premier choix de patron des équipes d'inspecteurs, l'expérimenté diplomate Suédois Rolf Ekeus, soit nommé Ã* la tête de l'UNMOVIC . Ã? la place, elle se laissera imposer le plus souple Hans Blix . Ultérieurement, les noms de plusieurs experts en armements seront biffés par les Irakiens, dont une fois de plus la France se fera le relais pour les exclure des équipes d'inspecteurs.»<hr></blockquote>
The article in its integrality:
<a href="http://www.proche-orient.info/xjournal_pol_analyse.php3?id_article=10619"; target="_blank">Proche-Orient.info: Les faux-pas de Colin Powell : comment la diplomatie américaine s'est laissé ligoter en six mois aux Nations unies </a>
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
yes? (I'll get back to the issue later.)
Question: do you use Safari when posting your messages?<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
yes? (I'll get back to the issue later.) </strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose that's the reason why various signs such as a ? or a ? appear as an ?
If I were really to nitpick I'd say you're constantly mis-quoting me.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>Powerdoc
While I disagree with several points of that editorial analysis I agree with that one:
The article in its integrality:
<a href="http://www.proche-orient.info/xjournal_pol_analyse.php3?id_article=10619"; target="_blank">Proche-Orient.info: Les faux-pas de Colin Powell : comment la diplomatie américaine s'est laissé ligoter en six mois aux Nations unies </a>
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if this website is neutral. They give a very bad image of Powell who at the contrary of Rumsfeld and others is not less pro-israelian (read in the article). Powell is shown as M Mistake in foreign politic.
I think that the internal conflict inside the white house explain this * changing politic of US for a war with Iraq . This change is one of the key of the lack of popularity of Bush's admin in the world . The other key is how the media presented Bush and his admin. US media presented him badly and Europe reported this image with the usual distorsion : you can see the result.
I think that preserving Saddam at the cost of "pissing" the US will be a big mistake and a very bad deal. If all this storie was just a preservation of some interest, all the issues could have been dealt secretly with the US. I think that the point is otherwhere, and that Powell did not understood this. We cannot understand the issue of these diplomatical conflict by oil issues or economics interests.
<strong>
I don't know if this website is neutral. They give a very bad image of Powell who at the contrary of Rumsfeld and others is not less pro-israelian (read in the article). Powell is shown as M Mistake in foreign politic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The website is very well informed, and quite ?intellectual Parisian? in style. You wouldn't catch it publishing fake news (as was known to happen with the Nouvel Obs). Editorial opinions vary from pro-Israeli to pro-Palestinian, according to their authors, yet you wouldn't find there any reflections of views of such AI pundits and experts as New or Mika. So I'd say it's quite moderate and more or less balanced.
As for this editorial, I find it underestimates Powell as well as wrongly places him in the orbit of Baker and Scowcroft.
The one point of the article with which I'm in agreemnt is the one I quoted in my previous post to you.
[quote]<strong>I think that the internal conflict inside the white house explain this * changing politic of US for a war with Iraq . This change is one of the key of the lack of popularity of Bush's admin in the world . The other key is how the media presented Bush and his admin. US media presented him badly and Europe reported this image with the usual distorsion : you can see the result.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While the Bush administration, far form being unilateralist, does makes great efforts to engage a dialogue with the other world players, it's doing it very badly, and I disagree with the linked editorial that it is Powell who is mostly to blame.
[quote]<strong>I think that preserving Saddam at the cost of "pissing" the US will be a big mistake and a very bad deal. If all this storie was just a preservation of some interest, all the issues could have been dealt secretly with the US. I think that the point is otherwhere, and that Powell did not understood this. We cannot understand the issue of these diplomatical conflict by oil issues or economics interests.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The long partnership between the current Iraqi regime and the two permanent SC power most opposed to the U.S. initiative, France and Russia, has many built-in advantages for them, which would be lost should this regime be removed.
That, as well as a fear from U.S. assertive interventionism around the world, and a will to assert their own role as world players, is motivating the current stance of these two countries, if you ask me.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>
The long partnership between the current Iraqi regime and the two permanent SC power most opposed to the U.S. initiative, France and Russia, has many built-in advantages for them, which would be lost should this regime be removed.
That, as well as a fear from U.S. assertive interventionism around the world, and a will to assert their own role as world players, is motivating the current stance of these two countries, if you ask me.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the latter point is the more important of the two.
[quote] The website is very well informed, and quite Â?intellectual ParisianÂ? in style. You wouldn't catch it publishing fake news (as was known to happen with the Nouvel Obs). Editorial opinions vary from pro-Israeli to pro-Palestinian, according to their authors, yet you wouldn't find there any reflections of views of such AI pundits and experts as New or Mika. So I'd say it's quite moderate and more or less balanced.
<hr></blockquote>
As i don't know this web-site and you know it, i will buy your advice.
[quote] While the Bush administration, far form being unilateralist, does makes great efforts to engage a dialogue with the other world players, it's doing it very badly, and I disagree with the linked editorial that it is Powell who is mostly to blame. <hr></blockquote>
I am not expert in the US admin, but i think that Powell is not unilateralist. However what you call great effort but badly made, looks rather for me like unilateral behavioring hidden behind official multilateral discussions where US has already made his opinion (we discuss alltogether but we have already our opinion but we will not change it, only smoothe some minor issues to make you please *).
An another point of this debate is the future of Iraq. Who will be in charge after Saddam. There is a great risk in the mid long term (not in the short, US and UN troops will prevent this) that the muslims extremists took power like in Iran. The good-hearted Carter wanted to remove a dictature the shah and at the place we see Khomeiny (great move), the French thinked that Khomeiny will thanks France for his exile (an another great move).
The action of occident in these aera is a long list of failure, but that's an another story, i just wish that there would not be an another add to this huge list.
*excuse me for this atrocious english , in french, comme des reunions de soi-disant concertation ou toutes les decisions ont ete prises Ã* l'avance)
powerdoc:
[quote]However what you call great effort but badly made, looks rather for me like unilateral behavioring hidden behind official multilateral discussions where US has already made his opinion (we discuss alltogether but we have already our opinion but we will not change it, only smoothe some minor issues to make you please *).<hr></blockquote>
This seems to work both ways. France is set in their position no matter what happens, and Chirac himself has come out and said as much. So one can say that Bush wants war but if they want to be honest they must also say that Chirac wants Saddam to stay.
There is a false assumption surrounding this whole issue that the U.S. was a biased entity bringing their ideas to an objective body. The members of the U.N. are just as biased as the U.S. So you see Bush sticking hard to the language of 1441 and French diplomats running away from it. It's all about agenda, with both sides.
<strong>
I suppose that's the reason why various signs such as a ? or a ? appear as an ?
If I were really to nitpick I'd say you're constantly mis-quoting me.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, sorry. I was wondering why you were doing that.
<strong>
I guess safari doesn't support bullets very well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd guess that Apple doesn't support AppleInsider very well....
<strong>Sorry to interject...
powerdoc:
This seems to work both ways. France is set in their position no matter what happens, and Chirac himself has come out and said as much. So one can say that Bush wants war but if they want to be honest they must also say that Chirac wants Saddam to stay.
There is a false assumption surrounding this whole issue that the U.S. was a biased entity bringing their ideas to an objective body. The members of the U.N. are just as biased as the U.S. So you see Bush sticking hard to the language of 1441 and French diplomats running away from it. It's all about agenda, with both sides.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Groverat, you are welcome
I agree that France seems to be set to his position whatever will happens. I wish that the UN inspectors says : our mission failed, there is nothing to do. That way, according to what said Chirac yesterday on TV : France will enter in the coalition against Iraq, and that ****en Marmelade will stop. However it's only a dream and i doubt it will happen.
The article quoted by Immanuel showed (sorry it's in french and i do not agree with how was portrayed Powell) that there was a internal rivaltry between Powell and Rumsfield and others. This rivaltry explain, (if this article is true) why the management of the Iraq case by US changed. Unfortunately it did not change in the right order. If the case of Iraq had been bring in a different way, the result may be different.
Linking Iraq with Al Quaeda was not a good thing, or a bad shortcut . Rather than said there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, it would have been better to explain this (from the mouth of an US journalist, but not the exact wording) :this aera has many terrorists, Saddam is a dangerous dictator with many WOMD that he already use it, It's dangerous in the same region to let them stay together.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
[QB]The article quoted by Immanuel showed (sorry it's in french and i do not agree with how was portrayed Powell) that there was a internal rivaltry between Powell and Rumsfield and others. This rivaltry explain, (if this article is true) why the management of the Iraq case by US changed.<hr></blockquote>
I obviously can't speak French, but there is definitely a difference between Powell and Rumsfeld. Powell has been a "dove" in many ways since before even the Gulf War in 1991.
And while I agree that trying to link Hussein to bin Laden is silly I think people make too much of how much importance the Bush administration places on it. It seems to be something convenient for those who would otherwise be against Bush to complain about. It is not as if Bush is basing his case on that issue.
<strong>
If the case of Iraq had been bring in a different way, the result may be different.
]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely, perhaps Bush not assuming that he is fullfulling a holy mssion from God would also not alienate so many people
WooHoo for status quo politick!
<strong>Then we could have another 8 years of nothing being accomplished but Iraqi civilians being killed off by the tens of thousands from economic sanctions.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, let's kill them off quicker!