S
- Status
J
joanneh
Guest
I can AMEN!!! 
:
:
T
threej_lc
Guest
This article misses the point of so many.
Saddam was a vile ruler. No one denies that. But neither the U.S. nor the U.N. never demanded he stopped being a jerk. There was no resolution saying, “Iraq! Stop torturing your citizens or we will have to remove your government.”
Rather, the U.S. A. Put Saddam in Power. B. Supplied his WMDs to him when fighting with Iran. C. Turned the other way when he started torturing his citizens.
When we finally threatened to invade, it was due to the claim that we had “Strong intelligence telling us the location of of WMDs.”
Now that they haven’t been found, and that intelligence was found to not be strong enough to invading Iraq alone on, we go back and say, “Well, he was a jerk anyway. So its okay.”
That’s not the point. The ends don’t justify the means. We can’t say invading Iraq was okay in order to remove Sadam from power if we never diplomatically told Iraq what it would have to fix to keep us from invading.
Josh
Saddam was a vile ruler. No one denies that. But neither the U.S. nor the U.N. never demanded he stopped being a jerk. There was no resolution saying, “Iraq! Stop torturing your citizens or we will have to remove your government.”
Rather, the U.S. A. Put Saddam in Power. B. Supplied his WMDs to him when fighting with Iran. C. Turned the other way when he started torturing his citizens.
When we finally threatened to invade, it was due to the claim that we had “Strong intelligence telling us the location of of WMDs.”
Now that they haven’t been found, and that intelligence was found to not be strong enough to invading Iraq alone on, we go back and say, “Well, he was a jerk anyway. So its okay.”
That’s not the point. The ends don’t justify the means. We can’t say invading Iraq was okay in order to remove Sadam from power if we never diplomatically told Iraq what it would have to fix to keep us from invading.
Josh
G
gilliam
Guest
You need to read:
[678 (29 November 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s90/32)** ([PDF (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/1990/678e.pdf)).**
- “Authorizes Member States … to use all necessary means” to bring Iraq into compliance with previous Security Council resolutions if it did not do so by 15 January 1991.
686 (2 March 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
- Affirms the “independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq” and sets out terms for a cease-fire. The use of force remains valid to fulfil these conditions.
[687 (3 April 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/4)** ([PDF (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/1991/687e.pdf)).**
- Declares effective a formal cease-fire (upon Iraqi acceptance), establishes the UN Special Commission on weapons (Unscom), extends sanctions and, in paragraphs 21 and 22, provides ambiguous conditions for lifting or easing them.
J
Jeffrey
Guest
You’re darn straight we can justify removing Saddam from power. You need to read that list again… more than enough reason.
threej_lc:
J
Jeffrey
Guest
I agree with his list… not the whole white thing tho. That I don’t buy.
joanneh:
I can AMEN!!!
G
gilliam
Guest
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; from:
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
T
threej_lc
Guest
Gilliam,
Thanks for the links. I’ll look into this further.
Josh
Thanks for the links. I’ll look into this further.
Josh
W
walstan
Guest
Yes I read it and a more ludicrous tirade I find it difficult to imagine. If the writer had been sensible enough to stop after the last paragraph describing the brutality of Saddam maybe, just maybe he would have had some degree of sympathy, I also decry the brutality of such a regime the same as I decry ANY form of brutality anywhere in the world from countries that practice genocide on their population to others that simply kill them in the name of justice.
But to carry on and label all or any who oppose the Iraqi war as Colour or racially prejudiced, to lump them in with the “Rag Head” brigade is an insult to anyone. Does this mean the American Bishops who have come out against the war are “Racially Prejudiced”? Does this mean that the Pope is “Racially Prejudiced”? It would seem that the Right are again going down the route of:
If you can’t win the argument rubbish the opposition.
It is obvious that the vast amount of the American population are beginning to understand what the opponents of the war have been saying all along, War does not beget peace, it begets more war, and as I said in another string, you can only fool all of the people some of the time and the people are starting to wake up to the reality of this Bush, Cheney, Rumpsfeld war, because, lets not fool ourselves, that’s what it is, a war for the political and financial benefit of a small number of people. All this **** about protecting the Iraqi people and defending the western world is exactly that, ****. It’s about big business, its about doing what “Daddy” didn’t, it’s about selling arms, its about power. I feel sorry for those whose commitment to this war is such that they are blinded to the realities of life, or in this case death, they are so wrapped up in political dogmatism and rhetoric they fail to be able to think for themselves, it is like the masses in the film “Sleeper” they do as their told when their told and how their told with no free thought in their heads. Their even conned into thinking they are free. Maybe they are, as long as they beleive all they are told.
Thats my rant over for the day, now to get on with the Lords work.
But to carry on and label all or any who oppose the Iraqi war as Colour or racially prejudiced, to lump them in with the “Rag Head” brigade is an insult to anyone. Does this mean the American Bishops who have come out against the war are “Racially Prejudiced”? Does this mean that the Pope is “Racially Prejudiced”? It would seem that the Right are again going down the route of:
If you can’t win the argument rubbish the opposition.
It is obvious that the vast amount of the American population are beginning to understand what the opponents of the war have been saying all along, War does not beget peace, it begets more war, and as I said in another string, you can only fool all of the people some of the time and the people are starting to wake up to the reality of this Bush, Cheney, Rumpsfeld war, because, lets not fool ourselves, that’s what it is, a war for the political and financial benefit of a small number of people. All this **** about protecting the Iraqi people and defending the western world is exactly that, ****. It’s about big business, its about doing what “Daddy” didn’t, it’s about selling arms, its about power. I feel sorry for those whose commitment to this war is such that they are blinded to the realities of life, or in this case death, they are so wrapped up in political dogmatism and rhetoric they fail to be able to think for themselves, it is like the masses in the film “Sleeper” they do as their told when their told and how their told with no free thought in their heads. Their even conned into thinking they are free. Maybe they are, as long as they beleive all they are told.
Thats my rant over for the day, now to get on with the Lords work.
J
jman507
Guest
War does not beget peace, not going to war while another is still acting hostile does not beget peace either. You can say that the Armastice begot peace, but when I further look at it seems it let Nazi’s prepare for a better offensive.
The easy thing in Iraq the war of trying to end Saddams control is over. Now is a much harder part, to give it a government it can sustain, while respecting neighbors and its people. If that can be done there will be a much better chance of begetting peace. It must be said, to start a war is not always a good option, because it makes others hostile and more likely to want to go to war. That is why one has to really focus on what happens post-war. One cannot leave a people in defeat, but to give them something something workable.
Is it about power? I have no doubt there are often good and bad motivations behind every decision. There may be bad motivations that make you act on your good motivations that you wouldn’t have done otherwise. (“Yes, Mr Gates, I’ll help you try to find your kidnapped children.”) If there are only intentions of power, that person is wrong, if that person intent give the other freedom, that person might not be wrong. Too many other thing would go into it say he’d be right though.
I’m sorry you don’t seem to have hope. I’m sure it seemed hopeless one time to fight slavery. It probably at times seemed to come from people who seemed to come from people who wanted to take advatage of the politcal situation, but there really some people who wanted to end slavery cause they wanted to end slavery, even if that meant taking an econmic hit.
The easy thing in Iraq the war of trying to end Saddams control is over. Now is a much harder part, to give it a government it can sustain, while respecting neighbors and its people. If that can be done there will be a much better chance of begetting peace. It must be said, to start a war is not always a good option, because it makes others hostile and more likely to want to go to war. That is why one has to really focus on what happens post-war. One cannot leave a people in defeat, but to give them something something workable.
Is it about power? I have no doubt there are often good and bad motivations behind every decision. There may be bad motivations that make you act on your good motivations that you wouldn’t have done otherwise. (“Yes, Mr Gates, I’ll help you try to find your kidnapped children.”) If there are only intentions of power, that person is wrong, if that person intent give the other freedom, that person might not be wrong. Too many other thing would go into it say he’d be right though.
I’m sorry you don’t seem to have hope. I’m sure it seemed hopeless one time to fight slavery. It probably at times seemed to come from people who seemed to come from people who wanted to take advatage of the politcal situation, but there really some people who wanted to end slavery cause they wanted to end slavery, even if that meant taking an econmic hit.
M
mpav
Guest
In it’s failure to enforce it’s own resolutions about Iraq, the UN was acting much as the League of Nations did in failing to take action in the early days of aggression between the wars. If the UN won’t act, then it is worthless, and the US and it’s Allies were right to take action against Hussein.
- Status