Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:32
VIEWED: 15590
PAGE 9 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I would like to apologize, if someone called me an American I would be a little ticked off as well.
No worries
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Really enjoying this thread though, everyone here has put alot of thought into their stances.
Gino from Calgary
Indeed. Reid, from Winnipeg.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Because the UN works so well ironically.
Geezer, I just thought I'd point something out:
The UN inspections and sanctions did neuter Hussein.
I know Bush kept repeating the inane claim that the US just HAD to do something because no one else was. And most Americans just kind of deleted out the information that there were inspectors in Iraq, and that there was (up to the point the US attacked) no indication of any WMD. And, a wonder to behold, the US has concluded there were no weapons.
One plus one equals, in my world, two. The UN inspections and sanctions worked very well.
What is one plus one in your world?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The invasion of Iraq was justified because it was in our national interest.
It is also in the US's national interest to secure the natural resources in Canada as you people don't know how to manage your own. But, then again, the impossibility of the task is probably what's stopping you. Yes, the "mighty US" does have its limits.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Terrorists are NOT the people in Fallujah. They just live there. Get it?
I met someone the other day that told me about a T-Shirt that she saw. It had a picture of a group of stereo-typical "Indians" on it. The caption said, "Fighting terrorism since 1492."
I have one! They've been selling them at pow-wows around the country for a while now. The picture is an obscure photo of Geronimo and three others holding rifles. You missed the best part though: across the top of the picture in big letters it says "HOMELAND SECURITY."
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The UN inspections and sanctions did neuter Hussein.
One plus one equals, in my world, two. The UN inspections and sanctions worked very well.
What is one plus one in your world?
There are the other results of the sanctions,
Due to the embargo on water purification equipment, medical supplies, and other equipment which was destroyed during the bombing campaign of the first gulf war the loss of life in Iraq as a result of the sanctions is yet another reason why the United States is dispised in the region. The use of depleted Uranium weapons has raised the occurances of several types of cancer by %600, if anything these weapons should be consider WMD due to the long term effects in the area of deployment. U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was asked whether the over half a million children at that point in 1996 killed by the sanctions were "worth it." Her response was: "It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it."
Other nations worked to lift the embargo, including Russia, France, Canada, and Germany...
The US refused to even discuss it,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/35065.stm
http://www.unicef.org/emerg/iraq/
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/uranium.html
Inspections I am in favour of, but systematicly destroying a country in this fashion is something Stalin did in the Ukraine, not something that ever should have happened under the UN flag. Reforming the United Nations so that it can effectivly be a voice of reason in these troubled days and less of a puppet of the powers that be.
A security council without a veto will be a more effective security council
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I realize that, and I'm not saying they were a good thing. And, b/c of the sanctions, the UN is also pretty-well despised in Iraq (as a puppet of the US), making their ability to bring peace to the country uncertain.
BUT, there is a tendency (in the US) for people to unthinkingly parrot Bush. Nobody was doing anything. The UN didn't 'work' and so Hussein was a menace. (The sanctions didn't exist in most US'ers minds.). The inspections were a joke. Iraq's declarations a fraud. etc etc etc The only thing was for the US to go in and do the job itself BECAUSE 'nobody was doing anything'.
In fact, Bush propagandized (as usual), and most US'ers just went okely dokely, and in the process lost track of a big chunk of reality (the UN's role). And stepped even further into national delusion.
I just want to make the point that seems to get lost - Hussein was no threat specifically BECAUSE of the UN. I want to restore some of the reality that got erased.
It was not the best solution, however.
PS If it hasn't been clear to this point, I am no fan of Bush, or the US attack on Iraq. (Let's see, what do you call it when a vastly larger well-armed country attacks a smaller nearly defenseless country without provocation after drumming up a pretext? It's called, uhm, let's see, there's a word I'm looking for ... oh yes, aggression.)
I too think the veto hobbles the UN from being a truly effective organization. Though, IMHO, they have managed to accomplish quite a lot in spite of their organizational problems. I support the idea of world action in general. It is the only effective option to solving problems, and, yes, bringing miscreant rulers and governments in line.
One of the posters here seemed to think the only thing to do was to go out a get all them evil bastards. It is too easy to use fear to make hate and hate to make righteouness. Another poster fervently believes that war works better than anything else, and besides, it's human nature.
I think war, by any means, is a dead-end path.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I guess the fallacy is that many Americans felt the inspections were not working because they didn't find any weapons, but that was because there were no weapons to find...
Would be comedy if it wasn't fiction... or the Harry Harrison variety
Quote:
It is the only effective option to solving problems, and, yes, bringing miscreant rulers and governments in line.
Mind you this, I believe anyway, is the main reason why there was so much resistance to the idea of regime change from 1991 to present. Saddam gone, that was fine but nobody..... nobody wanted the US to stick in a puppet to replace him. A free UN might have a free hand against miscreant rulers which are supported by the US government, and that I can't see being allowed to happen.
The group Islamic Jihad, btw originaly started out as a want to be political party in Egypt. Sadat used his American funded security forces to jail or kill most of them and the remainder are now terrorists. They managed to get Sadat, but now thirty years later they now seem to think getting the US out of their countrys before trying to get reforms at home is neccersary...
Sad really
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The invasion of Iraq was justified because it was in our national interest.
It is also in the US's national interest to secure the natural resources in Canada as you people don't know how to manage your own.
I disagree. Canada is a traditional US ally and valuable trading partner. Invading them would cause us to lose our other allies and trading partners around the world and hamper our efforts to find new allies and trading partners, such as those in Eastern Europe who know a thing or two about being invaded by the local superpower.
Ealier it was suggested that US interest would be served by dropping a plague on China. I note, for irony, the recent SARS outbreak. This is not correct. US interest is better served by fostering a relationship with China to encourage political reform and open Chinease markets to American goods. This creates regional stabiltiy which serves other US interests in Japan and the Korean peninsula.
Calculating US interests is a tricky thing, you might want to leave it to the professionals, especially since violence is your solution to all US interests. Bush's policy, like that of his father and President Reagan, has been one of recognizing and balancing competing interests. They applied different approach's to each circumstance and generally found success (although President Bush is still ongoing, yet I am confident of success). Dealing with terror is much different then dealing with a dispute over Canadian fishing rights. Diplomacy is not always the right answer.
I think the people who see Iraq as a quagmire have missed the real nature of the ongoing conflict there. We take out Saddam, in itself a worthy thing. Then we have all these soldiers in Iraq and what does the enemy do? They swarm from Iran, Syria, Jordan, etc, like ants or bees, falling over themselves to get at us. Call me a gamer, but looks to me like we are forcing the enemy into a fight at a time and in a place of our choosing. Maybe its not high level strategy, but the bad guys are there and now we get to shoot at them. Thats kinda the whole point of the war. So maybe Iraq is not so disconnected from the War on Terror as some people (44% of likely US voters) seem to think.
Oh, and lets consult one expert on the subject of Iraq:
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
I can't say it any better then that. That John Kerry guy can sure turn a phrase. (CNN, Crossfire, 1997)
Quote:
But, then again, the impossibility of the task is probably what's stopping you. Yes, the "mighty US" does have its limits.
Our only limits are self imposed. Lets face it, on the football (American, not soccer) field of international power, Canada is the punter. Which is odd, because Pakistan is the long snapper...wonder what that means...
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:Quote:
Their MO is not like soldiers, but like criminals.
I disagree with that statement, how are you making that distiction ? By method of attack? by choice of target?
or because they are fighting people you identify yourselve with ?
How is it that the terrorist/criminal connection is so hard for people to grasp these days? They are criminals because they are outlaws in their own lands. Because they enthusiastically endanger civilians from their own lands. Soldiers are not and do not. Are we so racist that we can't see that distinction amongst brown people? Do the folks throwing around the word "islamafascist" really believe that there is a freedom and peace loving Islam somewhere that they wouldn't bomb if there was a rumor that a few terrorists were hiding in their midst?
That question makes me so angry I'm gonna ask it again: Do the folks throwing around the word "islamafascist" really believe that there is a freedom and peace loving Islam somewhere that they wouldn't bomb if there was a rumor that a few terrorists were hiding in their midst?
You don't use a tank to stop a crack dealer. You don't carpet bomb a city because somebody's running a brothel in the area. You don't turn Little Italy into a parking lot to get rid of the Mafia. You do a little investigation (investigation doesn't mean torture), maybe go under cover, find the criminals and end their careers.
I can't help thinking that the apparent unwillingness to use espionage effectively in the Middle East is racially based. How many operatives in the CIA could pass for native Iraqis? How many are willing to do that? What the
is the matter with the intelligence community these days? Real terrorists are pretty mentally unstable. Mentally unstable people are not the most observant, clear-headed folk. Also, in organizations that behead people and kill children at the drop of a hat, there are bound to be a few who might be a teensy bit ambivalent about the whole enterprise and might just inform on the organization. Seems to me it would not be so hard, as such things go, to infiltrate their organizations and bring them down. Aw, what am I saying? Nuke the lot of 'em!HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
How is it that the terrorist/criminal connection is so hard for people to grasp these days? They are criminals because they are outlaws in their own lands. Because they enthusiastically endanger civilians from their own lands. Soldiers are not and do not.
Right then, using those definitions Washington and his followers in the American revolutionary war were criminals.
Quote:
Real terrorists are pretty mentally unstable. Mentally unstable people are not the most observant, clear-headed folk. Also, in organizations that behead people and kill children at the drop of a hat
Something like the US state department ?
U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was asked whether the over half a million children at that point in 1996 killed by the sanctions were worth it. Her response was: "It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it."
As for beheadings, that is the traditional form of execution in the area. Would it make you more comfortable if they found some trees to hang them from ?
Quote:
There are bound to be a few who might be a teensy bit ambivalent about the whole enterprise and might just inform on the organization.
Such as the UN administors who witnessed the effects of the sanctions firsthand and resigned rather than participate in what they called " a morally wrong " action. Or perhaps those who made the torture going on in US ran prisons public.
Quote:
Seems to me it would not be so hard, as such things go, to infiltrate their organizations and bring them down. Aw, what am I saying? Nuke the lot of 'em!
This is exactly why we all need nukes, there is equal justification to " nuke " the US, the downside is countries trying to stay the hell out of your insanity will feel the effects of the radiation... mind you it may just be a small price to pay to finally have an end to this crap.
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME