I'm not bothering reading all the posts in this thread. As an American I believe the war and this presidency is a sham and half of this country is brain dead for voting for Bush. My fellow American's OBAMA 08!
Printable View
I'm not bothering reading all the posts in this thread. As an American I believe the war and this presidency is a sham and half of this country is brain dead for voting for Bush. My fellow American's OBAMA 08!
Really........... :sQuote:
Originally Posted by klm-607
so instead of german,russian or japanese,we are speaking English,doesn't it mean the same thing
The Iraqi people disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by harsha
Ah, you enjoy brutality, so you are a masochist. If I had your addy, I could arrange something appropriate for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by harsha
Okay, when someone demonstrates an incredible level of ignorance, there is only one solution! <PLONK>Quote:
Originally Posted by SOD
:s mokin:
Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
tell me where in my previous posts did i say that i enjoyed brutality...don't twist my words...i just said that i'd rather have peace in the region even if a tyrant like Saddam in charge rather than complete chaos with your self righteous war....
He wont be. He is judged by history, and to many, has botched this war. That said, (god here we go again explaining what people don't want to see) Saddam Hussein was killing over 20000 people a year just running the nation. Amnesty International (not people who take sides with George W Bush) has records on what a turd Mr. Hussein was. He just didn't merely kill, he did it for style points. Rape rooms, torture, feeding people into plastic recycling shredders, the whole lot. Gassing a few thousand Kurd's who didn't agree with him. OH ya, he and ole Dubya ought to be roasting marshmallows in hell together if I asked you. Problem is, All Dubya did was try to enforce a UN resolution or two...make it 14. Fourteen resolutions that were to be either followed or have force taken to enforce them.Quote:
Originally Posted by harsha
These resolutions were not for whether Saddam had clean laundry, or had been a nice dad, these were resolutions to get rid of his WMD's, and let the UN inspect the country unencumbered by Saddam's restrictions so the UN could be confident that he didn't have them and then the sanctions against his country could be lifted. These were terms AGREED to by Saddam to save his sorry @ss when he screwed up the last time and the US military and a strong international force were running up the highway to Baghdad. Now 11 years later, he played one game after another, then told the UN to take a hike. What was the world supposed to do? Well, if a few of you were asked, nothing...because most of you would do nothing when faced when making a tough choice.
Listen, I thought this invasion thing was botched and I thought it was not thought out well, and I was against it when they went in. I am glad Canada was NOT involved, but not for the limp wristed reasons most of you have. I am glad because I didn't think the plan for rebuliding Iraq was sound. I didn't think they had a good plan. Saddam could rot in hell as far as Iam concerned. His actions have been DIRECTLY responsible for a lot more death's than most of you are too chicken to admit. HE enjoyed killing people, and he didn't care who he killed either. Now for you guys to get all verklept is a joke. I said it to Eki, I have said it to Tomi and a few others, and I am now telling you Harsha and a few others who still don't want to see what happened for what it was that Saddam Hussein could have avoided all of this, and Iam not sorry he is dead. Heck, I am against the death penalty but in this case, it had to be seen to be done.
Saddam could have just played nice boy in the UN, he would still be in power and what is more, he would be alive today. Not only that, but he would still be killing and suppressing both his Shiite and Kurdish minorities, looting the country, and none of you would waste the outrage you are on a democratically elected president who for all his faults, is at least trying to do the right thing. You know, democracies, that country all of you have the luxury of living in where you can shoot your mouth's off while not applying logical thought to your argument. Saddam would have hung the lot of ya without batting an eyelash and before his next sip of coffee......
i am not denying the fact that Saddam Hussein was a Tyrant,Despot.......but just the fact that the US and it's allies went into the war "without UN Sanction" acting as if they were the guardian angels of this world .............
Harsha, I think you have good intentions towards your fellow man. I admire that you aren't a violent nasty guy, but don't be getting all stupid over this. You wouldn't want to live in his nation, or have his kind of Peace. There was no peace with Saddam, he invaded Iran first, and then Kuwait. If it wasn't for the fact the UN and NATO forces in the gulf were not on top of him all the time, he likely would have invaded Kuwait again, or maybe god forbid Saudi Arabia.Quote:
Originally Posted by harsha
Listen, your kind of thinking was prevalent in the UK and in the US in the late 1930's. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini took full advantage of it. Hideki Tojo pushed his Japanese regime in to China and Mongolia, but since the victims were not white, no one seemed to care. Stalin killed over 20 million in pogroms and ethnic clearances in the Ukraine, and all the "peaceful" people said he was a great guy. No one said anything, save for a few crackpots. You know, that Winston S. Churchill fellow. He was a "warmonger" and Neville Chamberlain made "peace" with Hitler. Peace in our time....next year Neville had to declare war because the writing was on the wall. With people like Saddam Hussein, it was ENGRAVED on the wall after his wreckless and cruel invasion of Kuwait. They should have taken him out then, so why is is wrong that he is gone now? I disagree with how the rebuilding of Iraq has gone, but that doesn't alter the fact that in 100 years, Hussein being taken out was an example to every other repressive thug.
You cannot tolerate ANY form of violent or repressive regime in the name of peace and then turn around and call George W Bush a criminal. It is hypocracy of the highest form. Saddam was a murderous thug. I cant say that enough. Dubya on the other hand was crying practically talking to a wounded soldier the other day. I think he knows he has not handled the peace well, but it doens't alter the fact that Iraq has a chance to rebuild their country under some form of democracy, and 80% of them came out to vote in a nation where people were trying to kill those who voted.
There is a HUGE gulf between Bush and Saddam, and I despise those who play this moral equivalency crap. I despire that because it is not intellectually honest. If you decry the deaths after Bush's invasion, you should of been posting on here how terrible Saddam was then. You should be posting long threads about Darfur and the Sudanese's tolerance of genocide. How about the Chinese in Tibet? Maybe the government of Myanmar (Burma) and their regime? Oh wait a minute, you aren't posting on those because the US isn't the bad guy. Hypocracy is a funny thing. When you knock one tyrant, you should condemn them all equally, yet you pick on the one leader you want to because you don't like the country he comes from or the party he leads. Never mind he was elected. Never mind his nation defends the freedom's you would use to condemn him.
George W Bush is not a great president. There I said it, and history will judge this Iraq adventure as not a great idea. That said, he had the guts to stand up Saddam and enforce the will of the UN, when the UN itself of course has no balls. Saddam was a threat to the middle east, and he likely would have been a threat to the US if left alone. Bush is no different than any other western leader, except he wasn't willing to just sit there while we played Saddam's little games of mocking the UN and the resolutions he was to follow. Now you may say he had ulterior motives, I can argue that most of those are unproven, and weak arguments, and you could say he is a cowboy, and you would be wrong. Democratic members of Congress backed this war, and now want out when it isn't going well. They didn't want to be standing by the roadside if it went well, so they ok'ed it just to try to pander for votes. You want to talk cynical hypocrites, write a few of them letters.
George Bush isn't a war criminal, but Saddam Hussein surely was.......
If Saddam had just stuck to oppressing his own people and followed the UN resolutions to the letter, he is alive today.
now...go back to your blather about how bad George is...I am waiting...
America defending my freedom :sQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
India is a World Power in its own right,an apart from the Civil Nuclear Deal between India and the US,i can't see when the US actually helped India fight against Terrorism.Everyday we get news over here of some Indian Soldiers being killed because of insurgents from Pakistan.One of my friends is an officer posted in Kashmir,The first thing i do whenever i see that paper is look for the names.
US has more of hindered rather than helped India in its war against terrorism,and the US government fails to see that Pakistan is the center of Islamic Terrorism today
It is really simple. UN sanction means squat. The UN wont sanction any incursion to any nation for ANY reason, because the Security Council doesn't give a rats behind about peace. China and Russia were both in bed financially with Saddam, and they are in bed with people just as bad as Saddam. The French were buying illicit oil on the black market that Saddam was using to get around the "oil for food" program. Those nations who voted against the US and the UK are the real hypocrites, making money off the backs of those Saddam enslaved and was starving while he built another palace.Quote:
Originally Posted by harsha
At some point, every now and then a leader decides he has had enough BS and lies and calls someone on their little game. If Saddam lets the UN inspectors see whatever they needed to see, he is still alive and in power today, as ugly as that would be for the people of Iraq. Bush didn't tell Saddam to flip the world the finger....he did it all on his lonesome precisely because too many people like you would tell him he is nasty, but we only want peace. Peace sometimes only comes after bloodshed. WW2 proved that....sometimes evil has to be confronted.
You may not like the UK and the US and the 53 nations of the "willing" did this, but it comes down to the point where words are useless. Note how Qaddafi gave up his WMD's in Libya right after Iraq fell. He couldn't get rid of them fast enough. You think this little invasion didn't make a lot of dictatorial thugs nervous???
I don't understand why you say this, harsha. Don't you think that the biggest threats to India are jihadi Muslims and those from Pakistan who are militant on the Kashmir question? I would think that on both counts, especially the jihadists, the US has been helpful to India in its desire to counter the extremists within Islam, and bolster the peace-loving Muslims. As far as Kashmir is concerned, you and Pakistan came close to nuclear war over the issue just two years ago. It was US diplomatic intervention that helped take the heat out of the situation, when a cooling of tensions between India and Pakistan was desperately needed. So I would say that India has benefitted, and continues to benefit from US foreign policy, in that its most important goals are supported by the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by harsha
who supplies arms to Pakistan :?:
who trained the Al-Qaida :?:
who refuses to see pakistan as a hot bed for islamic terrorism :?:
Of course, harsha, it is the US who supplies arms to Pakistan, but those arms are supplied to the Pakistani army, not the jihadists. That army, and those weapons are the forces opposing the jihadists, whom you want to see opposed. So you are focussing your hostility on the wrong target entirely. The Musharraf regime, like India, is doing all it can to rein in the Islamic militants, at great risk to itself, I might add, and with considerable courage. The aggressive wing of Islam hates Musharraf and the army he heads. If the US were not supplying arms to Pakistan's army, Pakistan would be taken over by the militants who, though I'm sure you don't need reminding of this, are determined to make terrible problems for India. So please, harsha, don't criticise the US for supporting Pakistan's army with materiel; they are helping to neutralise your enemies.
You ask in your post who trains Al-Qaida. Certainly not the Pakistani government. Al-Qaida train themselves. The last government that helped them, the Afghan government, has been deposed, and was deposed, by the way, by the same United States that you are complaining about.
Finally, you say that the US refuses to see Pakistan as a hot-bed for Islamic terrorism. I can assure you, as one who spends a lot of time in the US, that the Americans see very clearly that Pakistan is the home of militant Islamists. They see that as clearly as your government sees it, in fact, and that is precisely why the Americans have been very careful to co-opt Musharraf's help, more than anyone else's, in the war on terror. It was mainly for Musharraf's ears that Bush made his famous comment that you are with us or with the terrorists. So America is very well aware, harsha, of the realities of Pakistan, so aware, in fact, that it is probable that both British and American Special Forces are operating covertly in Pakistan precisely to counter those elements which you, apparently, desperately wish to see countered.
My conclusion, harsha, is this: your country wants to see the threat from Pakistan neutralised, so that you can live in peace. The US wants exactly the same thing, and has devoted a lot of military and diplomatic muscle to achieving that goal. As a patriotic Indian, I think you should be applauding that, not knocking it.
Nobody here has said or even implied that Saddam was a good man, unless YOU think being a CIA stooge is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
I sure would have voted in the US presidential elections if only had the right to do so. I didn't have. I don't think that's democratic. I think every person on this globe should have the right to vote in the US presidental elections, if the US presidents insist on bypassing the UN and meddling in internal affairs of other countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Pope John Paul II was against invading Iraq. At least the Popes have evolved since the Middle Ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by harsha
Of course, modern Popes operate without the corruptive influence of real political power - unlike their Medieval predecessors - which makes it so much easier to be a man of morals and ideals. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
:laugh: Unbelievable that someone still believes that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandfly
If the radical Islamists are willing to die for their religion, why would you killing them bother them? Aren't you more like doing them a favor? Now it's easier for them to find new recruits to revenge the killed Muslim brothers and sisters.Quote:
That is why I say it will not truly end until the elements within Islam that want to fight and die for Allah are convinced from wihin ISLam that the better choice is not to fight and die but to live for Allah and spread his religion by practice.
According to the latest reports, the US killed about 34,000 Iraqis last year. That's almost twice as many:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...raq/index.html
And Americans did their best to keep the old Abu Ghraib traditions alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Professionals of international law disagree with that. They said invading Iraq without a consent from the UN was against international laws. IMO, if you break a law, you're a criminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Just out of curiosity, who are these mysterious "professionals of international law"? Is this opinion unanimously shared among these people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Oh, and do you not believe in the rather popular notion of a person being "innocent until proven guilty" by an appropriate court of law? ;)
Professor Markku Koskenniemi, for example. I suppose you can read Finnish? I also remeber a group of Brazilian lawyers were going to try to get Bush into court. Bush himself doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty". He invaded Iraq and killed a lot of people before he had any evidence what so ever, and he still doesn't have evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
http://www.artto.kaapeli.fi/muut_jutut/M2003/e1205e
"Kehitys (05.12.2003 - Juhani Artto) Yhdysvaltojen hyökättyä maaliskuussa 2003 Irakiin, suomalaisten oikeusoppineiden ja tutkijoiden ryhmä esitti julkisesti, että hyökkäys rikkoo kansainvälistä oikeutta. "Yhdysvaltain sotilaallisella toiminnalla ei ole mitään kansainvälisen oikeuden tukea. Sota on laiton ja uhkaa kansainvälistä oikeusjärjestystä", kannanotossa todettiin.
Kannanoton allekirjoittajiin kuulunut Helsingin yliopiston kansainvälisen oikeuden professori Martti Koskenniemi totesi lokakuun lopulla Kehitys-lehdelle, että useimmat kansainvälisen oikeuden asiantuntijat ovat yhä samalla kannalla. "Yhdysvaltoihin ei kohdistunut Irakin taholta YK:n peruskirjan 51. artiklan tarkoittamaa hyökkäystä, joka olisi oikeuttanut ryhtymiseen sotaan.""
Translation: After the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, a group of law professionals and researchers stated publicly that the invasion is against the international law. "The US military operation doesn't have any backing from the international law. The war is illegal and threatens international law and order", said the statement. Professor of international law at Helsinki University, Martti Koskenniemi, who signed the statement among others said in October to the magazine Kehitys that most experts of international law still have the same view. "Iraq didn't pose that kind of threat meant by the 51st article of the UN charter towards the US that would have given the US the right to start a war".
Eki. I think it's very much open to doubt as to whether the invasion of Iraq was illegal. There are experts on both sides of that question, but do you really think it's relevant? I think the question is not whether the invasion was legal, but whether it was right. If it was the morally right thing to do, its legality or lack thereof, is, to my mind, of little importance. To see why, let me pose this scenario to you: a coalition is formed to go into Sudan and rescue the people of Darfur from the unfolding tragedy that we are all seeing over there. The nations of the coalition go to the UN Security Council seeking a resolution to intervene and stop the massacres, but China vetoes the plan, because it is seeking to establish closer ties with all African nations, including Sudan. Do the coalition nations then cancel the operation and let the killing continue? I think not. I think that the morally correct course of action in that case is to break the law and mount the rescue operation despite China's veto. Don't you?
I ask you another question. Is it right Israel has free hands to oppress it's Arab minority and neighbours because the US always vetos any resolution aimed against Israel? The veto right is bad in both hands, IMO. Like I've said before, I'd like these things be decided in the UN General Assembly. One nation, one vote, no veto. The Security Council should be scrapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
I was against the war, and I'm not bothered whether it was legal or not, largely because the issue keeps being parroted by people who want a quick and easy phrase with which to express their dislike of the conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
However, I don't think the war was right or justified, for all sorts of reasons too numerous to go into here. I would also say that the scenario you put forward is all very well, and of course one would hope that the coalition would do what the majority of people would see as the right thing. The trouble is that the members of that coalition wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on if they subsequently wanted to complain about China breaking international law in some way or other, even if the coalition nations had 'right' on their side in so doing.
The UN is very far from being perfect, but I tend to think that it's better to adhere to the rules it imposes than ignore them. After all, it is the only body of its type that we have, and I feel it's important. This is not to say that it doesn't require a root-and-branch reform, which it does.
Fair question, and my answer is an unequivocal yes. It is right that Israel has free hands to impose the occupation on the West Bank and Gaza strip, regardless of whether that occupation is legal under UN resolutions. There is a principle of law which holds that almost any law can be broken if it is necessary to do so for survival. So, for example, it is legal for me to kill a man if that man is pointing a gun at me and threatening to fire. Similarly, to put it in a context more closely analogous to the situation of the Jews, it was, to my mind, perfectly proper for Jews in the concentration camps to tear off strips of their uniforms to make foot coverings as they walked to their slave labour sites in winter, despite the fact that tearing those strips was against the law. Germans executed Jews for doing it because, under German law, the action constituted criminal damage to German government property. But I believe that the crime those Jews were committing, the illegality of their actions, I should say, was irrlevant. They did what they had to do to survive, because without the strips of cloth on their otherwise bare feet, their feet would have succumbed to frost bite, rendering the person immobile, at which point the inmate in question, now unable to work, would have been shot. So violating the law, for those Jews, was justified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
The same is true of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip, in my view. It is clear that if the occupation were ended tomorrow, to comply with the law, the Arabs would slaughter the Jews on the day after and celebrate the Jews' destruction for many days after that. In order to forestall that genocide, the Jews are entitled to do what they are doing, regardless of the fact that a UN resolution might decree otherwise.
I agree with you that, generally speaking, it is better for nations to comply with UN resolutions than not. But you avoid answering the question I posed: in a situation where complying with international law would lead to a massacre of innocent people, as in Darfur, or, say, Rwanda, is it the principle of compliance that governs, or the principle of saving innocent life? You don't say.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Gannex, another well written post. The issue of whether a war is legal is a red herring raised by people like the FFL for their own purposes. War is simply the continuation of politics by other means. If you win a war, it was legal. If you lose a war, it was not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Since you are ineligible to vote in an American election, I suggest you try to discuss something you might actually know about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Thanks for that, agwiii. And I think you summarised the principle well. Law is supposed to further justice, not prevent justice from being done.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
This may be the first thing you have written that is true. If radical islamists are willing to die for their religion, then I can assure you that the soldiers of the United States will accomodate them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
That's OK. Unfortunately, while doing it, they kill at least 10 if not 100 times as many people who are NOT radical Islamist but just happen to be where the American bombs, missiles and bullets hit, many of them young children and pregnant women.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
This is collateral damage, and is an element of every war that has taken place. Nobody ever claimed that war was neat and surgical. Do some research, starting with Von Klauswitz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Collateral damage doesn't come close to the tens of thousands of pregnant women and children butchered by Saddam, but that does not seem to be one of your concerns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Killing more people doesn't bring back those Saddam got killed, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
And if you accept pre-emptive warfare regardless of "collateral damage", you must also accept medical research on patients without their consent, you know Dr Mengele style, if it will potentially help more people than it destroys. Do you? Now you maybe say yes, unless they are Americans. Dr Mengele didn't equally care unless those human "lab rats" weren't "Aryan" Germans.
BTW, those who died in the 9/11 attacks were "just collateral damage" too. The real target was the US government and its foreign policy.
You have got to be kidding!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Where did the Taliban start? Afghanistan, who supplied them with weapons and probably training? the usa. Why? to fight those nasty pesky Ruskies who were in Afghanistan at the bequest of the legitimately elected government of that country at that time. Stinger missiles to take out Russian planes weren't bought on the free market....... Now being used on US forces, how ironic.
The Russians withdrew, much like the US did when it left Vietnam with it's tail between it's legs. Now the US don't like the Taleban as they weren't prepared to be a lapdog, suprise, suprise. Where were the original Taleban trained? mostly in madrases (sp?) in Pakistan right under the noses of Musharraf.
Have a look at this link http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/099.html Unusual top find the hand of the CIA involved. (sarcasm).
I'm sure I could find a lot more links for you, however I don't have the time that you guys seem to have for all this!!
In this case, Gannex, I think you're not correct. The purpose of law is not only to meet out (what is seen as) justice to those that have committed acts against (what is seen as) the common good, but also to act as a guideline and regulation on how various parties should interact with each other in order to achieve the greatest possible common good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Surely it is true that different people - and different nations - can have a very different idea of what is just and right, and law is the compromise that binds these different ideas into a functioning whole. Take away the law and there is no longer a common ground.
In world history, it has taken millennia for different nations to come to any sort of understanding on how international affairs should be pursued. If the mood around the world really changes to "to hell with international law, let everyone do what is just" then the consequence, I think, would be a very dramatic increase in military actions around the world, whereby the militarily strong impose their "justice" on the militarily weak.
To belittle international law is very short-sighted and dangerous IMO.
I'm not saying, though, that the US/UK invasion of Iraq was certainly against international law. I'm saying that it's very important to discuss it.
In the scenario you've provided there should be no need for a "coalition" to form and then approach the UN. An individual nation state can do that. The term "coalition" was convenient for President Bush when it was clear he did not have widespread support for his plans in Iraq, and he made it his policy to weaken and discredit the UN. That said, if the Chinese did veto a UN proposal in the circumstances you've outlined then the UN should override it, and I suspect there would be widespead support for them doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
I agree :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
In other words "might makes right", or to put it another way, the biggest bully in the playground wins?Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Well said, studiose.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
No. Read Von Klauswitz, Kissinger, etc. If you have a serious interest in the topic, I can send you a reading list.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
You have my condolences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki