Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong.

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
If the US goes to war against the clear resolve of the rest of the world, it will mean the end of Bush's career (and a possible impeachment), the end of Powell's, Blair's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's careers, a significant increase in terrorism, further devastation of the US and world economies, many, many deaths of Americans in terrorist attacks on US and foreign soil, a strengthening of North Korea's argument for nuclear development, ejection of the US from Afghanistan leaving that country to revert to a system of oppressive governance and/or anarchic civil war, perhaps even a nuclear or biological attack against Israel and a precedent for raising Israel's genocide of Palestinians to an entirely new level.



And all of you who are pro-war without UN (and international) backing will be responsible.



We must all agree that whether or not war is necessary, no nation ever has the right to act on it's own like this, against laws, treaties, and general international concensus.
«13456719

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 368
    rodukroduk Posts: 706member
    It does seem to be a grey area as to whether attacking Iraq without UN approval is against international law. Rightly or wrongly, it will be interesting to see whether Bush and Blair are tried for international war crimes.



    Ironically I think Bin Laden and Saddam are close to achieving their objectives in starting a holly war and destroying the UN respectively, with Bush and Blair having helped them to achieve it.



    [ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 368
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    [quote]Originally posted by tonton:

    <strong>If the US goes to war against the clear resolve of the rest of the world, it will mean the end of Bush's career (and a possible impeachment), the end of Powell's, Blair's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's careers, a significant increase in terrorism, further devastation of the US and world economies, many, many deaths of Americans in terrorist attacks on US and foreign soil, a strengthening of North Korea's argument for nuclear development, ejection of the US from Afghanistan leaving that country to revert to a system of oppressive governance and/or anarchic civil war, perhaps even a nuclear or biological attack against Israel and a precedent for raising Israel's genocide of Palestinians to an entirely new level.



    And all of you who are pro-war without UN (and international) backing will be responsible.



    We must all agree that whether or not war is necessary, no nation ever has the right to act on it's own like this, against laws, treaties, and general international concensus.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I agree completely. Remember all those warning about how it took the Soviets years to deal with Afghanistan and how we would never be able to deal with the terrain and mountains. They said we would spend a dozen years in there and have thousands of men die.... and just look.....



    Oh wait... they were full of it and so are you.



    The will of the rest of the world? Ummm...sure....



    China, Germany and Russia and France are not the rest of the world.



    Where the hell do you get off saying further devastation of the U.S. economy? We don't have high flying growth and suddenly the economy is devastated? It is still achieving 2% growth despite 9/11, gas prices raising, and the tech bubble hangover. Aside from tech, everyone I know is working too much. I would love to have my friends working 5 days a week instead of 6-7 but the work is there. I'm trying to get some work done on my house and I am having to book guys for work to be done in a minimum of... 6 weeks.



    Yeah, no one is working my butt.



    The U.S. is not acting against international law, consensus, treaties, etc. They have done everything you can do diplomatically.



    The point is the world overall is still not a democracy. There are plenty of tyrants still trying to take their fiefdoms and expand them. The world at large doesn't want this but often others lack the simple will and resolve to insure right is done. They would rather debate than just deal with an issue.



    Let me give you another scenario. The U.S. and other troops go in and rid the world of Saddam within about 10 days. With the tyranny of Saddam gone the information rolls out about plans for biochemical and gas attacks from those who could not reveal information before at threat of death not only to themselves, but anyone even attached to their geneology.



    The world, is amazed as the U.S, as they did after WWII shows Iraq how to rebuild itself using the resources it has available.



    All is well and the naysayers are wrong again. Knowing this and having the uncertainty resolved the U.S. economy gets a bit of a bump and is rolling along at 3% as the 2004 elections roll around and Bush is re-elected.



    Nick
  • Reply 3 of 368
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    This is going exactly to plan for both Bin Laden and Bush interestingly enough.



    Bin Laden will have achieved the arrival of more recruits.



    He will have achieved the tumbling of a secular regime in Iraq, replaced by a period of chaotic opportunity (for himself).



    He will have achieved a greater crisis in Palestine, which fuels all of this -- only solving that solves international terror, not bombing a country Bin Laden thinks of as "infidel."



    Bush (OK, Wolfowitz, because Dubya doesn't have a clue) will have achieved the end of a common foreign policy from the EU.



    The US will have set the precedent for pre-emptive military action in support of "US interests" launched outside of international consensus.



    They'll get to use their MOAB!!! Kew-el, eh Donald?



    Astonishing how short-sighted Wolfowitz et al are. Gob-smackingly stupid.
  • Reply 4 of 368
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by RodUK:

    <strong>It does seem to be a grey area as to whether attacking Iraq without UN approval is against international law. Rightly or wrongly, it will be interesting to see whether Bush and Blair are tried for international war crimes.



    Ironically I think Bin Laden and Saddam are close to achieving their objectives in starting a holly war and destroying the UN respectively, with Bush and Blair having helped them to achieve it.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Scenarios that are acceptable.

    -The US does not seek UN approval and goes to war.

    -The US seeks UN approval, gets it, and goes to war.




    Scenarios that are NOT acceptable

    -The US seeks UN approval, does not get it, and goes to war anyway.

    -The San Diego Chargers move to LA (just needed another scenario to keep the heading plural)






    Just one more quick note...isn't it great that the three biggest imperialists in the history of the world (Spain, Portugal, and England) are the only ones backing us up?



    [ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 368
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Because obviously the lack of UN support = unilateral action.



    In that case, the actions in the Balkans and Somalia were initially 'unilateral' too. Didn't seem to end Clinton's career... Hmm, how man countries has Bush inserted troops into in his first two years of office? What about Clinton? How many were backed by the UN? Yeah, that's right.



    Selective memories...



    And in 1998, Clinton ordered missile strikes on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. And also on Baghdad, Iraq. Why did he launch missiles into the Iraqi capitol without UN approval? Well you can take either explanation.



    1) The Wag the Dog / Monica Theory.

    2) Iraq didn't meet weapons inspections deadlines.



    Gee, at least they had deadlines back then.



    So we're asking for a deadline and the US haven't even touched Iraq yet this time around. Why's Bush such a bad man again? Relatively speaking, he's a saint!



    [ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 368
    finboyfinboy Posts: 383member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>Because obviously the lack of UN support = unilateral action.



    In that case, the actions in the Balkans and Somalia were initially 'unilateral' too. Didn't seem to end Clinton's career... Hmm, how man countries has Bush inserted troops into in his first two years of office? What about Clinton? How many were backed by the UN? Yeah, that's right.



    Selective memories...



    And in 1998, Clinton ordered missile strikes on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. And also on Baghdad, Iraq. Why did he launch missiles into the Iraqi capitol without UN approval? Well you can take either explanation.



    1) The Wag the Dog / Monica Theory.

    2) Iraq didn't meet weapons inspections deadlines.



    Gee, at least they had deadlines back then.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Shhhhh! Don't tell anyone. The Left and the media wants everyone to think that Bush needs UN backing somehow.
  • Reply 7 of 368
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    When I grow up... I want to be George Will....



    It is a measure of the intellectual vertigo into which the U.N. has plunged "the international community" that America, which is going to war to enforce Resolution 1441, is said to be doing so "in defiance of the U.N." The war will be followed by a presidential election in which all candidates must answer this: "Do you believe that any use of U.S. military power lacks legitimacy unless approved by France, Russia and China?" The Republican candidate has already answered.



    Hahahah he makes things so clear sometimes. I'm sure the Democratic candidates will win election as Tonton suggests by telling Americans they are better off being dictated to by leaders from abroad.



    Nick
  • Reply 8 of 368
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,918member
    First, this should be locked. My thread on the topic was locked because it was redundant.



    Second, and let me spell this out for you, tonton:





    IF AND WHEN WE GO TO WAR IT WILL NOT, IN ANY WAY, BE "UNILATERAL".




    We have about eleven nations sending troops. We have 60 more "on our side". As one poster said, France, Russia and Germany do not make up thr rest of the world. Your statements are just more baseless rhetoric. There is nothing more unilateral about this that there was in 1998, or as another poster said...in the Balkans.



    [ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 368
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [quote]Originally posted by BR:

    <strong>

    Just one more quick note...isn't it great that the three biggest imperialists in the history of the world (Spain, Portugal, and England) are the only ones backing us up?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Biggest? What about France and Holland? Not to mention neoemerpialists like Russia and China?
  • Reply 10 of 368
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Yes its wrong. But not because it didn´t get passed in UN. Sometimes you have to act even if the law, moral, whatever say what you are about to do is wrong. Bosnia was not wrong even if it didn´t get UN approval. And there are several people I would kill in a heartbeat even if I would get convicted for murder and most of the rest of the world would see it as a wrong act.



    The reason it is wrong to start a war in Iraq is because the reason it would not get passed in UN is right. Read the first paragraf of Tontons first post here and there you have why it is wrong to start the war.
  • Reply 11 of 368
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,918member
    You mean this paragraph?



    [quote] If the US goes to war against the clear resolve of the rest of the world, it will mean the end of Bush's career (and a possible impeachment), the end of Powell's, Blair's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's careers, a significant increase in terrorism, further devastation of the US and world economies, many, many deaths of Americans in terrorist attacks on US and foreign soil, a strengthening of North Korea's argument for nuclear development, ejection of the US from Afghanistan leaving that country to revert to a system of oppressive governance and/or anarchic civil war, perhaps even a nuclear or biological attack against Israel and a precedent for raising Israel's genocide of Palestinians to an entirely new level. <hr></blockquote>



    In summary, he says we should not go to war because:



    1. It will be the end of Bush's career...possible impeachement.

    ---What? The end to Bush's career will only happen if the economy is still bad in 2004. Impeachement? Not quite. He has a clear cut congressional resolution on his side. It authorizes the President to use all means at his disposal, including military force to deal with Iraq....as he deems necessary.



    2. It might end Blair's career, but not the others. The whole reason the most recent vote was delayed was to help Mr. Blair.



    3. Terrorism increase.

    ---There is no evidence that this is true. We were targeted before, and we will be targeted again. 9/11 was unprovoked. If Al-Qaeda is willing to murder without provocation anyway, attacking Iraq will not change anything.



    4. "Further devastation to US and world economy".

    ---First, we are in the middle of a global economic slowdown, this much is true. But the US economy is still growing by about 2% per year. That's not great, but it isn't "devastated" as you say. Second, there is no evidence you are correct. I for one believe a quick and successful war will help the economy tremendously. There is one hell of a lot of cash in money market funds and savings out there right now that is begging to be invested in the markets. The price of oil will drop...it has already started as a matter of fact. War jitters will disappear and the natural business cycle will take over. Mark my words.



    5. "a strengthening of North Korea's argument for nuclear development"

    ---WHAT? Why? That doesn't even make sense. It is not connected to the Iraq situation.



    6. "ejection of the US from Afghanistan leaving that country to revert to a system of oppressive governance and/or anarchic civil war,"

    ---HUH? Who is going to eject us? Are you even aware of how much that country has changed in the last year? there is no basis for that statement whatsoever.



    7. "perhaps even a nuclear or biological attack against Israel"



    ---A possibility. But whose fault will that be? And, I assume you mean that Iraq in particular will be the aggressor? Oh wait, I thought Saddam didn't have any of those WMD, because inspections are "working"? Does he have them or not? Will he use them or not? Are you actually saying that if he uses his illegal weapons then WE will be responsible for it? Ok...I see....no, wait. I thought he wasn;t really a threat? It seems you are arguing to just let him be. After all, that way he won't be a threat. Please. HE IS A THREAT, he will CONTINUE to be a threat unless stopped.



    8. "...a precedent for raising Israel's genocide of Palestinians to an entirely new level".



    ---Wow. Talk about showing your true colors. Now, I am not the biggest Sharon supporter, but Israel is surrounded by people that literally want to push it into the sea. They have people walking into shopping malls, bus stops and open markets that blow themselves up in the name of Allah. These attacks come from within their sovereign territory. They do not target civilians. Yes, civilians die. But "genocide"??. The group trying to practice genocide is the PLO and company. They just don't have enough resources to do it. While I am no fan of the "in again, out again" military policy they have developed under Sharon, they are not comitting genocide.





    In summary, his statments are wholly unsupportable. There will be nothing unilateral about this. I challenge even ONE person here to show me how we will be acting unilaterally. We will have the support of quite few nations. That means it is not unilateral. Go look up the definition.
  • Reply 12 of 368
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Come now my republicano amigos, if not for ridiculous Wag the Dog paranoia, Clinton would have gone a lot further. With Clinton in charge the answer to 9-11 would have been much quicker and it would have continued straight into Iraq.



    Monica? That other hook nosed whore? Who cares? Republicans created this inconsequential drama that distracted the country from the real news. Obviously a man's marital fidelity is more important than his political know how, right? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
  • Reply 13 of 368
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>



    Biggest? What about France and Holland? Not to mention neoemerpialists like Russia and China?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    France and Holland don't come close to England, Spain, or Portugal...nor do China or Russia. Open a history book, will ya?
  • Reply 14 of 368
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,918member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>Come now my republicano amigos, if not for ridiculous Wag the Dog paranoia, Clinton would have gone a lot further. With Clinton in charge the answer to 9-11 would have been much quicker and it would have continued straight into Iraq.



    Monica? That other hook nosed whore? Who cares? Republicans created this inconsequential drama that distracted the country from the real news. Obviously a man's marital fidelity is more important than his political know how, right? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I am most interested in the first part of your statement. I am not attacking you or asking a rhetorical question here: Do you really think the 9/11 response would have been much quicker and that we would have gone right into Iraq? Why? The second part of the above question puzzles me.
  • Reply 15 of 368
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:

    <strong>The second part of the above question puzzles me.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes, it puzzles you because it is intellectual honesty coming from a fellow republican...not that democrats are intellectually honest either, but you get the point.
  • Reply 16 of 368
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Yes, I don't think Clinton was any kind of angel, sorry if I gave that impression, the Clinton's are both as big snakes as anyone, he would have exploited the situation to much greater effect though, because he's simply a better political mind, people trusted him, and republicans would have had no choice but to back him. You can be pretty sure that Clinton would easily coerce the French and Germans (all of Europe really) in a way that Bush and his boys are simply unable to do.



    It's not a party thing with me.
  • Reply 17 of 368
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Ugh, a republican?



    arrows through my heart...



    PS, by snake, I mean only possessed of the requisite political accumen, it sounds bad, but isn't really.
  • Reply 18 of 368
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>Ugh, a republican?



    arrows through my heart...



    PS, by snake, I mean only possessed of the requisite political accumen, it sounds bad, but isn't really.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I misread your sarcasm. My mistake. I thought you mentioned you were republican...hence the coming from a fellow republican bit. Again, my mistake. I don't believe in either political party.
  • Reply 18 of 368
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    The problem is that Bush/Blair created this on a grand scale and on the world's stage, playing right into Sadaam's hand.



    Could the removal of Sadaam not have been achieved through the services of a hired member of Iraqi Republian army or a single sniper?
  • Reply 20 of 368
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>So we're asking for a deadline and the US haven't even touched Iraq yet this time around. </strong><hr></blockquote>

    well, you've been bombing every day for several weeks now...
Sign In or Register to comment.