8th April 2003, 8:33 AM
First, CartoonDevil. Please note that I made that post days before the war started... you don't seem to realize that... it should change some of what you said...
Oh, and this post will be long. :)
Of course France is also trying to protect its own intrests... but I very much doubt that they would be taking this hard a stand if all they wanted to do was protect their investments, not once war became inevitable (to try to get on the US's good side so that after its over they could be in the best position as possible to continue business)... yet they have. Hmm, I'd say that that puts it a lot closer to making a stand... as well of course as trying to capitalize on the public's hatred for this war in 99% of the world...
Umm... when I wrote that there was no proof of any kind of any violations like that... and plus, even if there was a violation, it didn't make war okay... Oh, and the only people who would have found Colin Powell's UN presentation effective agreed with him before it started.
Why do you think the US didn't try to vote on the resolution? Not because it would be vetoed by France... if that was all that would have happened they would have pressed on it anyway. No, they withdrew it because they knew that the resolution wouldn't get enough votes to pass. Only 3 votes were certain... and we would never have gotten the number we needed to get it to the point where France even could veto it. Enough countries knew how stupid the idea of a war here was.
As for 1441, my previous statements that show how it is a fact that according to people who are experts on the subject, that resolution did not in any way authorize war. Thinking anything else is just deluding yourself.
No, this war isn't a legal one. For a war to be legal it must be (as I said before) self defence or sanctioned by the UN. This is neither of those things. Denying that is silly.
As for offenses, of course he's violated UN resolutions. Of course he's hiding stuff. He almost certainly does have hidden chemical weapons. But (hey, repeating myself again!), THAT ISN'T THE POINT! Violating UN resolutions doesn't make war legal... it makes action a good idea, but not war. It made sanctions with increased strength and more inspectors and some threat of action if the Iraqis kicked out the inspectors again a very good idea. But Bush was too impatient and, as I've said several times, is playing sherriff by taking out the 'black hats'... the only problem is that he's acting irresponsibly and angering the citizens of the town (ie most everyone else in the world who doesn't live in the US, UK, or Israel).
I just don't understand why conservatives dismiss world opinion. Sure, we're more powerful than any of them. We could beat them up if we want. But is that a good measure of why to do something? NO! The support of the rest of the world should, by any reasonable administration, be of vital importance! Even the first Bush understood that, as I'll say later... but just because we outmatch them militarially and disagree on some issues politically, it doesn't mean that the rest of the world isn't of vital importance. What good is winning the war if the result is intense hatred for the US from huge portions of the globe? I didn't think so... but that is EXACTLY what is happening. Notice how much the Arab people hate us now? You think they hated us before? Well, they did... but now? Its several times worse... good job, hawks!
Oh, and making Europe (sans the UK) angry with us is a even worse idea. Europe is a very important part of the world and when we alienate them and leave them angry at us at our arrogance (which is how it is right now), we ask for one thing: them to become a LOT less willing to go along with US policies. Good idea there.
Bush is an idiot. He is also extremely unintelligent... I often wonder if he ever 'thinks'... He is doing what is best for some groups, sure... Rich people, Oil barons, the top 1%, and his father's (rich) friends. That's it. Stuff like his awful tax plans, how most of his advisors also advised the first Bush, and this war sure prove that... he's also both imperialist and slightly isolationist in some ways. Why isolationist? That is his hatred for peacekeepers, which are what I'd say should be the foundation of how to insure global security... the imperialism? It was made possible by 9/11, but probably was always there. Just look at Iraq... the only real reason we went to war was to help the intrests of US oil companies that want in... that and to get rid of Saddam after his father didn't...
Freedom? You HONESTLY think that this war has ANYTHING to do with freedom? Are you INSANE? I'd think that a blatant lie like that would be pretty clear... Bush tried for months to make this war valid. He tried WMD. None found before the war started that weren't being dealt with already.
They tried how he's a brutal dictator. Uh uh. Not after how many other dictators, who are worse, have been left in power... and how over the years the US has supported so many other brutal dictators to stay in power...
Then he hit on 'freedom'. Its nebulous, has nothing to do with war or international politics, and is a clear out on a situation that really was falling apart (that is, convincing anyone this war is remotely valid). Of course, no one believed this war is about freeing the Iraqis who didn't already agree with Bush because of how clearly he made it up to cover himself from the questions of the American people... and how he knew it'd go over real well on the public -- freeing people from opression gets good ratings! Of course that is a side effect of his actions, but lets not kid ourselves by trying to say that it is anything more for him than a forunate side effect.
It has nothing to do with the reasons he went to war (his father's legacy, helping oil companies, helping the people who got him elected, his personal vendetta against Sadaam, helping along neo-colonialism...).
Oh, and the fact that wars get REAL good ratings and always help people get re-elected sure makes it look good to him too...
And on to Darunia.
Huh? What does this have to do with peacekeeping? I can't see a connection... its not like we could have sent peacekeepers into Iraq while Sadaam was still in power so I fail to see the connection...
Check back after the war is over. When he refuses to let US troops be peacekeepers like he's done in Afghanistan, THEN you will have a point that peacekeepers and Bush's opinion of them have something to do with Iraq. Of course, like Afghanistan, it'll be a bad point... we need peacekeepers there! If we'd put a bunch of peacekeeprs in Afghanistan maybe we could have helped those people a lot more than we are doing...
You make no sense, you know. Uh, I'd say that Afghanistan is a prime example of neo-colonialism now. Now, I would say that we didn't go to war there to create a empire (we did it to get rid of Al-Quaida... the freeing of the Afghanis from the Taliban was, like the freeing of the Iraqis will be, just a nice side effect that got good TV ratings), but now? We've got the troops in the country and a puppet government that is deeply indebted to us... not to mention Iraq, where all of the reasons that we are fighting are for personal profits or benefits while expanding American power onto helpless nations (a hallmark of colonialism)...
Uh, that isn't what I said... I said that Bush didn't kill Sadaam and didn't take out the Ba'ath party because of lack of international support. As you said, he had a huge international group supporting his actions to kick Sadaam out of Kuwait... and that did very well. But that cooalition didn't support taking out Sadaam... the Saudis in particular. So he didn't because he didn't want to have the US take a unilateral action. Now the second Bush comes along and does exactly that: unilaterally takes out Sadaam. And the result? As I outlined above... hatred for us and our alienation in the international community... not good things. And the first Bush was smart enough to see that.
Oh, and this post will be long. :)
Quote:How can you possibly say that the United States is only in this war for oil and revenge, and then say that France is not trying to protect it's cashcow? When did you become a French citizen? How do you know that we're just in it for the money, yet they're noble people who's money is the last thing on their minds?
Not too bright, are you?
Of course France is also trying to protect its own intrests... but I very much doubt that they would be taking this hard a stand if all they wanted to do was protect their investments, not once war became inevitable (to try to get on the US's good side so that after its over they could be in the best position as possible to continue business)... yet they have. Hmm, I'd say that that puts it a lot closer to making a stand... as well of course as trying to capitalize on the public's hatred for this war in 99% of the world...
Quote:Are you insane? Have you watched Colin Powell's address to the UN security council? Have you watched any of the news on TV? Whether or not Iraq has chemical weapons (which he does) is a mute point. The very SCUDS he's fired into Kuwait are in serious violation of UN resolution 1441, which was UNANIMOUSLY supported by the security council. That fact alone would be enough to justify military action.
Umm... when I wrote that there was no proof of any kind of any violations like that... and plus, even if there was a violation, it didn't make war okay... Oh, and the only people who would have found Colin Powell's UN presentation effective agreed with him before it started.
Why do you think the US didn't try to vote on the resolution? Not because it would be vetoed by France... if that was all that would have happened they would have pressed on it anyway. No, they withdrew it because they knew that the resolution wouldn't get enough votes to pass. Only 3 votes were certain... and we would never have gotten the number we needed to get it to the point where France even could veto it. Enough countries knew how stupid the idea of a war here was.
As for 1441, my previous statements that show how it is a fact that according to people who are experts on the subject, that resolution did not in any way authorize war. Thinking anything else is just deluding yourself.
No, this war isn't a legal one. For a war to be legal it must be (as I said before) self defence or sanctioned by the UN. This is neither of those things. Denying that is silly.
As for offenses, of course he's violated UN resolutions. Of course he's hiding stuff. He almost certainly does have hidden chemical weapons. But (hey, repeating myself again!), THAT ISN'T THE POINT! Violating UN resolutions doesn't make war legal... it makes action a good idea, but not war. It made sanctions with increased strength and more inspectors and some threat of action if the Iraqis kicked out the inspectors again a very good idea. But Bush was too impatient and, as I've said several times, is playing sherriff by taking out the 'black hats'... the only problem is that he's acting irresponsibly and angering the citizens of the town (ie most everyone else in the world who doesn't live in the US, UK, or Israel).
I just don't understand why conservatives dismiss world opinion. Sure, we're more powerful than any of them. We could beat them up if we want. But is that a good measure of why to do something? NO! The support of the rest of the world should, by any reasonable administration, be of vital importance! Even the first Bush understood that, as I'll say later... but just because we outmatch them militarially and disagree on some issues politically, it doesn't mean that the rest of the world isn't of vital importance. What good is winning the war if the result is intense hatred for the US from huge portions of the globe? I didn't think so... but that is EXACTLY what is happening. Notice how much the Arab people hate us now? You think they hated us before? Well, they did... but now? Its several times worse... good job, hawks!
Oh, and making Europe (sans the UK) angry with us is a even worse idea. Europe is a very important part of the world and when we alienate them and leave them angry at us at our arrogance (which is how it is right now), we ask for one thing: them to become a LOT less willing to go along with US policies. Good idea there.
Quote:See, your liberal ideals are warping your reality. Bush is a good and moral man, who would do the right thing, and fight for both our freedom and the freedom of the Iraqi people whether it was going to get him re-elected or not. BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING, not because he only cares about re-election!!! It's called having morals, and Tony Blair also has morals. He was standing with the US, despite falling polls in Brittain (which have since turned around).
You have demonstrated yourself to have no moral compass. You believe in nothing worth fighting for, and wouldn't fight for anything worthwhile if your friends thought you shouldn't. You live a very sad life.
Bush is an idiot. He is also extremely unintelligent... I often wonder if he ever 'thinks'... He is doing what is best for some groups, sure... Rich people, Oil barons, the top 1%, and his father's (rich) friends. That's it. Stuff like his awful tax plans, how most of his advisors also advised the first Bush, and this war sure prove that... he's also both imperialist and slightly isolationist in some ways. Why isolationist? That is his hatred for peacekeepers, which are what I'd say should be the foundation of how to insure global security... the imperialism? It was made possible by 9/11, but probably was always there. Just look at Iraq... the only real reason we went to war was to help the intrests of US oil companies that want in... that and to get rid of Saddam after his father didn't...
Freedom? You HONESTLY think that this war has ANYTHING to do with freedom? Are you INSANE? I'd think that a blatant lie like that would be pretty clear... Bush tried for months to make this war valid. He tried WMD. None found before the war started that weren't being dealt with already.
They tried how he's a brutal dictator. Uh uh. Not after how many other dictators, who are worse, have been left in power... and how over the years the US has supported so many other brutal dictators to stay in power...
Then he hit on 'freedom'. Its nebulous, has nothing to do with war or international politics, and is a clear out on a situation that really was falling apart (that is, convincing anyone this war is remotely valid). Of course, no one believed this war is about freeing the Iraqis who didn't already agree with Bush because of how clearly he made it up to cover himself from the questions of the American people... and how he knew it'd go over real well on the public -- freeing people from opression gets good ratings! Of course that is a side effect of his actions, but lets not kid ourselves by trying to say that it is anything more for him than a forunate side effect.
It has nothing to do with the reasons he went to war (his father's legacy, helping oil companies, helping the people who got him elected, his personal vendetta against Sadaam, helping along neo-colonialism...).
Oh, and the fact that wars get REAL good ratings and always help people get re-elected sure makes it look good to him too...
And on to Darunia.
Quote:WTF? It has everything to do with Iraq; it's his stance that is liberating it. Were is stance any different, Iraq would be different too...how can you say that? His stance is the differenc between war and peace!
Huh? What does this have to do with peacekeeping? I can't see a connection... its not like we could have sent peacekeepers into Iraq while Sadaam was still in power so I fail to see the connection...
Check back after the war is over. When he refuses to let US troops be peacekeepers like he's done in Afghanistan, THEN you will have a point that peacekeepers and Bush's opinion of them have something to do with Iraq. Of course, like Afghanistan, it'll be a bad point... we need peacekeepers there! If we'd put a bunch of peacekeeprs in Afghanistan maybe we could have helped those people a lot more than we are doing...
Quote:Yea, you're right; just like we turned Afghanistan into a viable colonial empire. The Jewel of the American crown, those Afghanistanis. Colonialism...you're either the most liberal person ever, or very naive.
You make no sense, you know. Uh, I'd say that Afghanistan is a prime example of neo-colonialism now. Now, I would say that we didn't go to war there to create a empire (we did it to get rid of Al-Quaida... the freeing of the Afghanis from the Taliban was, like the freeing of the Iraqis will be, just a nice side effect that got good TV ratings), but now? We've got the troops in the country and a puppet government that is deeply indebted to us... not to mention Iraq, where all of the reasons that we are fighting are for personal profits or benefits while expanding American power onto helpless nations (a hallmark of colonialism)...
Quote:I'm pretty sure that we had the world's support on that one. Even France dispatched a whole carrier battle division (it's only one.) Germany sent 2,560 aids to CentCom, one battalion of troops, and three naval frigates. We had everyone on our side that time. Your theory holds no water.
Uh, that isn't what I said... I said that Bush didn't kill Sadaam and didn't take out the Ba'ath party because of lack of international support. As you said, he had a huge international group supporting his actions to kick Sadaam out of Kuwait... and that did very well. But that cooalition didn't support taking out Sadaam... the Saudis in particular. So he didn't because he didn't want to have the US take a unilateral action. Now the second Bush comes along and does exactly that: unilaterally takes out Sadaam. And the result? As I outlined above... hatred for us and our alienation in the international community... not good things. And the first Bush was smart enough to see that.