Printable View
how can I be ignorant if I don't what a pelosi is! I'm not American, am I expected to know every member of their Federal Govt.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
"you're ignorant" , that the best you got?
Only a truely ignorant person would blow up the civilian infastructure (water treatment, electricity, telecoms) in Iraq and then demand that iraqis be greatful for what was done to them.
Did the Iraqi governemnt sign away all their rights to their oil yet?
Another interesting link on how Reagan armed the Mujahadeen, which led indirectly to the Taleban rise in Afghanistan.
http://www.democracynow.org/article..../06/10/1425222
I think perhaps you mean von Clausewitz? Let's not forget that all his writing is based on the Napoleonic era, when the nature of warfare was very different from what it became in the first half of the 20th century, which in turn is very different from what it has become now.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Basing our modern opinions on warfare on Clausewitz is a bit like basing our opinions on medicine on Hippocrates.
Eki was talking about NAZI medical experiments without consent. Tukegee syphilis trials <cough> or how about the LSD experiments conducted by the CIA?Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
not to mention that the USA hired all the NAZI scientists after WW2.
His name is spelled more than one way, but at least you recognize him. You may also recognize Giap. (his name will also be spelled more than one way.) I wish there were one book that I could suggest you read to avoid jumping to conclusions, but there are so many for you to read.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
Well said Harsha, except that if you don't agree with what is being written, then that is Revisionism!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by harsha
Kissinger lol 'nuff said! Closed subject.
Arrows... SOD thumbsup and spot on.
Wars are the result of failure on every level.
Did the Iraqi governemnt sign away all their rights to their oil yet?
US oil companies are working on the terms (very long term ones) of the 'Leasing agreement' as we speak.
Yes, I know. It's spelled one way by the people who know who he was and what he wrote, and another way by people who have heard his name mentioned in some political debate and think that mindlessly repeating the name gives their argument credibility. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
And took Wernher von Braun, the father of the modern day rocket to the US, where he was instrumental in setting up the US space programme even though he was a member of the SS, double standards, the US never.......Quote:
Originally Posted by SOD
(Never mind...)Quote:
Originally Posted by cossie16
That comes across as being a condescending response to what was a question asked as part of an open discussion, particularly as you cannot know my level of interest in the topic, the contents of my bookshelves, or particularly my level of education in international relations/history.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Instead of lecturing, how about expanding on what you meant? Exchanging opinions and ideas makes the world go around.
My apologies if I got the tone of your reply to my question wrong.
Where does the monetary support from Palestine come from? Over 95% comes from the US, Great Britain and ---- Isreal. Less than 5% comes from Arab states that have overwhelming capability to support the poor opressed Palestentians. But instead they merely point to the ongoing strife, blaming it on the Isrealis in order to inflame thier own people against someone else -- so as not to focus any attention on the the problems in thier own countries. Palestine could be a world center of trade and tourism if the radicals would make an effort to live in peace and enjoy prosperity along with the Isralis.
How many times does Isreal need to give in to demands, only to have rockets with anti- personnell ball bearings launched INTENTIONALLY into residential areas by militant Palestenians. No more.
Maybe the Arab countries would be more generous if Israel gave back the occupied territories and granted Palestine independence? Wouldn't that be at least worth to negotiate about with them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandfly
Have a read of this Sandfly from last weekends Sydney Morning Herald.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandfly
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rac...105185701.html
Ed O'Loughlin Herald Correspondent in Jerusalem January 13, 2007
ONE of Israel's ruling parties has sparked a race row by denouncing the appointment of the country's first Arab minister as a blow against "the Jewish character" of the state.
Esterina Tartman, chairwoman of the Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home) party, said that the Defence Minister, Amir Peretz, was promoting "assimilation" when he named an Arab legislator, Raleb Majadele, as Science Minister.
Mr Peretz is head of the moderate Labour Party and deputy leader of the ruling centre-right coalition.
Ms Tartman told Israeli Army radio that the move was "a lethal blow to Zionism". According to the newspaper Ma'ariv, she also remarked "this pestilence must be burned".
Peretz is making a sacrifice of Zionism," she said. "He has crossed all the red lines. Israel is a Jewish state and should be run according to Jewish principles."
]Ms Tartman's party leader, a Avigdor Lieberman, a Russian immigrant, called on Mr Peretz to resign as defence minister, although he said he had "no problem" with the appointment of an Arab. "The problem here is the timing and the fact that a minister in the State of Israel is using the tools he has wrongfully in order to promote himself politically," he said
While Arabs make up about a fifth of Israel's population and are able to vote in elections, the Israeli parliament has traditionally isolated Arab members from political decision making. In the past any Zionist party seen to be actively courting Arab support risked losing votes among its Jewish constituency.
Mr Lieberman is one of the rising stars of Israeli politics, and is now ranked second in popularity after another right-winger, Benjamin Netanyahu.
]Since joining Ehud Olmert's cabinet as minister for strategic threats last year, he has publicly advocated the Cyprus-style expulsion of ethnic minorities and the shooting of Arab-Israeli parliamentarians who visited Damascus.
Ms Tartman's anti-Arab outbursts were strongly condemned by several Jewish mainstream parties. One Labour MP called on Mr Peretz to leave the coalition rather than sit with Mr Lieberman's "racist" party. Michael Eitan of the Likud party, said he "rejected with disgust Ms Tartman's racist pronouncements".
If I was treated like a third class citizen in my homeland I think I'd being taking pretty drastic action as well.
Fire the ovens. Where have I heard about a similar attitude before? Oh yes, it was about 60 years ago in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by cossie16
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOD
As someone that has been involved, I'm aware of the role of reactionary forces in a number of humanitarian missions, including those involving countries not allied to the US such as Iran. If you feel I should feel bad for having such a label I suggest you're once again speaking of something you aren't educated about.
My question remains. What have you directly done to make the lives of the people in Iraq better?
As for the resolutions, if you were actually familiar with them and the inspection reports, you would find that Iraq was in direct violation of every listed concern. They hold up just fine and as so gave authority for any member nation to use force to uphold them.
Therein rests a problem I have - "any member nation".Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
The UN Charter (Article 2) says:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Is it not the case that the US-led coalition, in acting against Iraq without the authority of the UN, did so in a manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, the purposes they had signed up to.
Exactly. I think the UN Charter does, as it should do, over rule any resolution of the Security Council.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Last Time I looked, the US government was paying to put that back together with help from Iraq. Ok, So the US doesn't invade, everyone is happy? Except those dying year in year out in Iraq. This argument that the Americans killed more than Saddam would have is bogus. What is more if Iraqi causalties through the war was more than 20000 a year, it was a one year blip, and the death toll is not that high now.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOD
Lets add one more point. All of you who condemn the US for invading better get something straight. If Saddam didn't play his game, the US isn't there. If dictators don't murder, cheat, steal, enslave and generally threaten everyone else, the US wouldn't have a reason to go anywhere with their military. You dont like their self imposed job of policeman? Fine, then one of the useless leaders of about 50 countries who condemn all of this propose a solution to handle a nation that invaded two neighbours in less than 20 years and was sponsoring terriorism world wide. Let them figure it out. The last time the US played Ostrich, it took Pearl Harbor to get their attention. Americans don't ignore lessons of history, they learn from them. The rest of you get the Neville Chamberlain award for hoping for the best in the face of dealing with a tyrant.
You guys yap about diplomacy, but it cant be the ends to the means...
Oh yes, I was told someone mentioned Abu Garab prison and how the AMericans are just as bad. Maybe if you want to believe that, but here is the truth. Saddam runs it, you dont' leave it alive,and you are tortured. The US runs it, some guards decide you have to play naked twister, they get busted, charged and thrown out of the military and you go back to where you were. In the end, your own people likely have decided your fate.....BIG difference there, but I understand how those who hate America cant see it, you only see what you want to see....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Arrows,
When the UN invokes the use of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, they are declaring that other means have failed and authorizing use of more intense political means or force.
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Resolutions of the Security Council are made only within the scope of the UN Charter, and most of the time they cite the particular Chapters of the UN Charter they are using as authority for the resolution.
Resolution 1441 was the last in a line that declared Iraq was a threat to international peace and security in the region, reaffirmed all the other resolutions it was currently in violation of along with those that authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to uphold the previous and current resolution.
The UN, not the US or any individual coalition country, declared the things Iraq had done to warrant them a threat to peace. Those things are listed in 1441 and include humanitarian issues and conventional weapons violations along with WMDs.
If the UN Charter agreed with the invasion, why did General Secretary Kofi Annan call the invasion illegal? I'd rather take his word for it than yours:Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3661134.stm
"The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally."
The saddest thing for me is that there are numerous conflicts between Light and Darkness (so to speak) around the world where the US/the West could get much more significant results with a fraction of the resources used in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
The US is the most important country in the world, and the world desperately needs the US to get their stuff right, to choose their battles wisely, to be successful and strong.
What the world desperately doesn't need is the US getting thoroughly thrashed on the international scene, and then withdraw into isolationism to lick their wounds. Which, I'm sorry to say, will now probably happen in the next 10 years.
You say that America learns from the lessons of history? How I wish that you're right. There is truly much to learn from all this.
(And our American friends, can you please elect someone who isn't so ****ing mediocre for your next President? ;) )
As I said in post 579, I think the question of the legality of the war is secondary to the far more important question of whether the war was right or not. But for those who claim it was indeed illegal, I think airshifter's point has to be troubling. I don't know much about the subject, frankly, but from what little I do know, it seems quite likely that Resolution 1441, taken together with earlier resolutions, constitutes UN authority for the war. What else could "all necessary means" mean? And not only that, it is also far from clear that a war, to be legal, has to be explicity authorised by Resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
But merely discussing the legal points sounds so ludicrous, doesn't it? Only a lawyer or a propagandist could think that these fine legal distinctions are important.
I think they're important, and I'm neither.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Truly Gannex, if you don't seek justification from laws, where do you seek it? From God? :rolleyes:
It wasn't that many years ago that India was firmly aligned with the Soviet Union, and wanted nothing from the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by harsha
Time changes things but don't forget the past.
Equally the dispute between Pakistan and India has been simmering sice the creation of the two separate countries in 1948.
That the two countires have not managed to make peace is nothing to do with the current "war on terror" thinking that has occurred since 9 11. It is an old dispute based on events of the past. Only the methods have changed.
Very nice to see India and Pakistan making recent efforts to ramp up the peace process, but don't confuse this dispute with others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Saddam was never a stooge of the CIA
Saddam was happy to be the benefactor of CIA ignorance, and he took and received supplies while it suited him. When it ceased to suit him, he went to the Russians for support.
The CIA have picked some losers, and Saddam outwitted them, simple.
studiose, I decide whether a war was just, based on the circumstances, not on the law. For example, I believe that England's war against the Axis powers in World War II was right, and I believe that without even knowing whether it was legal or not. I also believe that China's prosecution of the Korean War was dreadfully wrong, regardless of whether it was legal under the international law that was prevailing at the time. In both cases, I have no idea, frankly, about the legality, and I can't see how it is relevant. If you, as an international lawyer, were to inform me that England acted illegally in declaring war on Germany in 1939, I would tell you that in that case, the law is an ass. And if you told me that China's war in Korea was legal, I'd tell you that only shows how inadequate the legal system was at the time, that it should condone such a wrong action. So, in historical terms, I believe that the justness of a war is either there or not there, but that the question turns on considerations far more complex and weighty than what the state of international law was at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
Do you think that the US war in Korea was legal? Are you sure it wouldn't have been better to let the Koreans just duke it out by themselves? In the Finnish civil war, the Reds got weapons and other help from the Russians and the Whites got weapons and other help from the Germans. I think without those weapons and help there might have been a lot fewer Finns dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
And what are these complex and weighty considerations that determine the justness of a war in your eyes? Are they something most people in the world could conceivably agree on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Did you fight in that war? On which side? How many troops were involved? How many casualties? How many fatalities? How many books?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Pakistan attacked India with the arms in 99.Not the militants,the army.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
As to your question on who trained Al-Qaida,the americans trained Taliban in their fight against the Russians in Afghanistan.
Pakistan completely denies the presence of Dawood Ibhrahim,an underworld Don responsible for the Mumbai blasts although there is clear evidence of him staying in Pakistan.
India was never alligned with any country,DO you remember the non-alligned movement.......yes,India had friendly relations with the Soviet Union,but it wasn't part of their circleQuote:
Originally Posted by bowler
Originally Posted by Eki
Do you think that the US war in Korea was legal? Are you sure it wouldn't have been better to let the Koreans just duke it out by themselves? In the Finnish civil war, the Reds got weapons and other help from the Russians and the Whites got weapons and other help from the Germans. I think without those weapons and help there might have been a lot fewer Finns dead.
Well, since I am back in the thread, I guess I cant have a good debate without a rebuttal of Eki, here we go:
Eki, if the German's didn't give the Finn's arms in the Winter war, who is to say there is any Finland? Here is a clue, War's are ugly, but as your own nation has proven, sometimes you have to fight to survive. So not all wars are evil, wrong or unjust. So spare me all the rhetoric about how many more died because both sides were getting arms. Yes, they were, and thank god the Whites got more than the Red's.
As for the legality of the US invasion, as it was shown, the US had grounds under the resoulutions that were shown. Yet Kofi Annan declared the war "illegal". Why? Simple, Oil for food. You remember that little fiasco and how it has been discovered ELF was buying oil on the black market from Iraq and Saddam was putting in his back pocket. One of the people getting alleged kick backs was Annan's son. We have heard little of the investigation because of course, the only body that would be able to prosecute him would be your precious UN.
Listen, calling this war illegal based on the laws and dictates of the UN isn't going to fly, because there is a reasonable doubt that the US DID have the authority based on the resolutions. Furthermore, since there was no effort on the part of Russia and France to recuse themselves (as both were in bed with Iraq) at the Security council, the whole thing is a sham.
The UN is NOT the moral authority for anything and when you start giving member nations such as Iraq the same moral weight over human affairs as Finland or the US or Canada, you cant be taken seriously AT all; yet that is what you would suggest.
No, The UN cant be the final arbiter of anything. Period.
One more thing Eki, the US wasn't the only nation in Korea, Most of the West was, including I suspect Finland. They were there on a UN mandate, and they wouldn't have been there if the North Koreans had stayed in North Korea. Of course, that is ok to you Eki, since you seem to not be bothered by some nations invading others, just you object to the US.
Studiose, by the way, the reason Bush is president is because Al Gore is an idiot, and John Kerry (I voted for the war, before I voted against it) are bigger fools than Bush. Say Bush is a terrible president, history will say in the end what he is, but trust me, he was the best choice in both elections. Al Gore and John Kerry for all their "brilliance" couldn't win an election against a "dunce" so that ought tell you something.....
And what ought it tell me? That Americans have developed a distaste for really clever men and therefore elect "men of people"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I don't much care for Kerry, but I think Gore would have made a truly fine President. (I don't see how you can call him an idiot. :s ) But anyway, all you can change is the future.
India was less non aligned with the Soviet Union, if you want to put it in those terms, but the net result was the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by harsha
The Finnish Civil War was fought in 1918, so I wasn't born yet. My father's grandfather was a company chief on the Red side and I think my mother's grandfather was either neutral or on the White side.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Troops:
Whites; 80,000-90,000 Finns,
550 Swedish volunteers,
13,000 Germans
Reds; 80,000-90,000 Finns,
4,000-10,000 Russians
Casualties:
Whites; 3,414 killed in action,
1,400-1,650 executed,
46 missing
Reds; 5,199 killed in action,
7,000-9,000 executed,
2,000 missing,
11,000-13,000 dead in prison camps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_civil_war
We are not even talking about the same war. I was talking about the Finnish Civil War in 1918 and you start to talk about the Winter War in 1939-1940. In Winter War, there were no Whites and Reds, they were both united to fight against the Soviets. Furthermore, in Winter War Germany didn't give Finland any help but actually OKed the Soviet invasion in a secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact
It was in the Continuation War in 1941-1944 where Germany helped Finland.
It's not about moral authority but about democracy. I think many of the about 200 member nations are quite reasonable and level headed and the "loonies" on both sides cancel each other out, so I think UN General Assembly could be able to do more impartial and reasonable decisions than the Security Council that only represents few countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Finnish UN peacekeepers have never been in an area where there is an open war going on. I think even our constitution forbids that. They only operate in areas where there is some sort of PEACE to be KEPT and have orders not to shoot except for self-defence when being shot at themselves. Besides, Finland wasn't allowed into the UN until 1955, the Korean War was over by then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
airshifter, I think your post illustrates the point I was trying to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
"When the UN invokes the use of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, they are declaring..."
"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace..."
"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action..."
The UN, not any one member nation.
President Bush chose to undermine & weaken the UN in order to pursue his agenda. Consequently international relations have been severely damaged. That has a far bigger long term significance than the invasion of Iraq alone, a significance that he will not have to deal with; or in other words, short term gain for long term pain.
The UN, not one member nation, is our best hope for resolving regional issues and conflicts in the world that all have global significance and an impact on all of us.
I agree. If individual nations want to pursue their own courses of action, that's up to them. These actions could include things that are generally viewed as being 'just', like humanitarian operations that get vetoed in the Security Council for one reason or another, or things that are more questionable, like the invasion of a country that posed no military threat to anyone based on what those prosecuting the conflict knew was a false premise that it did, and which has further inflamed the terrorism that the action is seeking to fight. However, and with particular reference to the latter case, those involved shouldn't expect the legality of those actions not to be questioned, nor — if the action goes disastrously wrong — for there to be widespread recriminations.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
I certainly feel justified in continuing to oppose the war in Iraq, and to feel some degree of revulsion towards those who suddenly became concerned about human rights in Iraq when George W. Bush raised the issue, having ignored it when the Hussein regime was commiting its atrocities, and indeed other abuses around the world, while simultaneously being taken in by the outlandish claims made with regard to Iraq's military capability. If Iraq had possessed a substantial military capability, and thus some kind of military threat to its neighbours, I wouldn't feel so strongly about it. In order to bring about the fear that Iraq did have this capability, the coalition had to undermine the work of the UN weapons inspectors, who, as it turns out, were right all along. This provided the final justification for going to war, but it was based — sorry to be basic about it, but I believe it to be true — on a blatant series of lies. What has happened since proves the irresponsibility on occasion of going against the UN.
The UN is a hopelessly corrupt organization that has outlived its limited utility.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Hopelessly naive and unrealistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
The UN is a hopelessly corrupt organization that has outlived its limited utility. However, if you actually believe that, I have a bridge for sale that may interest you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1