Home
TheSinner.net
War With Iraq
Why the UN
by Guest on Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:52 am
Just out of interest why does everyone seem to think that, morally, action should only be taken if the UN gives its blessing? The UN is an outdated organisation, a relic of the cold war, pretty incompetent, totally dependent on the US if it wants to fight any one and is in no way democratic. For example, China and Syria are currently two of the members of the security council. Are our governments somehow incapable of making a correct moral judgement without the nod from these two odious regimes?
-
Guest
Re:
by Al on Fri Jan 10, 2003 12:36 pm
"Just out of interest why does everyone seem to think that, morally, action should only be taken if the UN gives its blessing?"
Because, before plunging the world into war, it helps if you consider the opinions and viewpoints of other countries. This is especially true if you are supposedly acting in defence of "international law". Otherwise, any action smacks of "empire building". Not that the US could ever be accused of that. Oh no.
[hr]"Life is a horizontal fall"
Because, before plunging the world into war, it helps if you consider the opinions and viewpoints of other countries. This is especially true if you are supposedly acting in defence of "international law". Otherwise, any action smacks of "empire building". Not that the US could ever be accused of that. Oh no.
[hr]"Life is a horizontal fall"
-
Al
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Re:
by Guest on Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:00 pm
Why is China an odious regime?? surely, and with more truth the sentence' the US is an odious regime' makes sense. and , they practically run the UN anyway...war will happen , let's not get into a debate about that little one. i'm still shocked that the weapons inspectors haven't found '50,000 nukes' in an abandoned shed somewhere....which would be damn appropriate for us...and , we, the people, have no real way of substanciating the claim....
o well
americans eh , what to do....
o well
americans eh , what to do....
-
Guest
Let's have some peace.
by ethdual on Sun Jan 12, 2003 7:03 pm
Opinions:
1. What if UN weapons inspectors came to Britain or America and demanded to see all our weapons of mass destruction or else they through more weapons of mass destruction at us? Isn't one of the reasons countries like Iraq have such weapons because they feel the need to defend themselves against us? Does this sound at all familiar? Why don't we just get rid of all our weapons of mass destruction and see what happens?
2. Why even add the "of mass destruction"? Are our weapons of localised destruction morally acceptable? There is no moral difference between killing 1 person and killing 1,000,000.
3. Evil is by nature destructive, and so in the end, eventually destroys itself. In this context, all that is necessary for the triumph of good is for good people to do nothing. Are any of us good people?
1. What if UN weapons inspectors came to Britain or America and demanded to see all our weapons of mass destruction or else they through more weapons of mass destruction at us? Isn't one of the reasons countries like Iraq have such weapons because they feel the need to defend themselves against us? Does this sound at all familiar? Why don't we just get rid of all our weapons of mass destruction and see what happens?
2. Why even add the "of mass destruction"? Are our weapons of localised destruction morally acceptable? There is no moral difference between killing 1 person and killing 1,000,000.
3. Evil is by nature destructive, and so in the end, eventually destroys itself. In this context, all that is necessary for the triumph of good is for good people to do nothing. Are any of us good people?
-
ethdual
Re:
by Valkaryn on Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:28 pm
[s]Unregisted User ethdual wrote on 15:01, 12th Jan 2003:
Opinions:
1. What if UN weapons inspectors came to Britain or America and demanded to see all our weapons of mass destruction or else they through more weapons of mass destruction at us? Isn't one of the reasons countries like Iraq have such weapons because they feel the need to defend themselves against us? Does this sound at all familiar? Why don't we just get rid of all our weapons of mass destruction and see what happens?
One of the conditions under which the Gulf War ended was that Iraq would disarm it's WMD. It would be permitted to maintain munitions to protect itself, but it is generally the consensus that WMD are not necessary to protect oneself. Iraq agreed to this to prevent the UN from removing Hussein from his position. Notice my cynicism here - Hussein didn't do this to protect his people. <-- otherwise, he would have stepped aside recently when the Arabian nations called for him to do so.
2. Why even add the "of mass destruction"? Are our weapons of localised destruction morally acceptable? There is no moral difference between killing 1 person and killing 1,000,000.
WMD are more likely to be used on nations outside one's domain. While localized weapons are more likely to be used to defend a home front. If your nieghbor on onside had a large knife, while your neighbor on the otherside had a bazooka - which one would be more likely to damage your home?
3. Evil is by nature destructive, and so in the end, eventually destroys itself. In this context, all that is necessary for the triumph of good is for good people to do nothing. Are any of us good people?
Do nothing IS doing something. It's called complacency. Complacency is often very destructive. If you believe that doing nothing is a good thing, just ask all those people who hide behind their doors afraid of the hoodlums on the street corners, but won't tell the police what they see.
You have to take responsibility for your own well being. If you wait for what is handed to you, all you will get is cold lumpy oatmeal (if your lucky). But more likely life will just pass you by. The greater tragedy will be that you will have never lived. Why fight for your life, if you are not willing to live it? To stand up for it? To risk speaking out? To make a difference? Complacency is not being a "good" person. Complacency is complacency. It supports the evil that you believe you are not.
Opinions:
1. What if UN weapons inspectors came to Britain or America and demanded to see all our weapons of mass destruction or else they through more weapons of mass destruction at us? Isn't one of the reasons countries like Iraq have such weapons because they feel the need to defend themselves against us? Does this sound at all familiar? Why don't we just get rid of all our weapons of mass destruction and see what happens?
One of the conditions under which the Gulf War ended was that Iraq would disarm it's WMD. It would be permitted to maintain munitions to protect itself, but it is generally the consensus that WMD are not necessary to protect oneself. Iraq agreed to this to prevent the UN from removing Hussein from his position. Notice my cynicism here - Hussein didn't do this to protect his people. <-- otherwise, he would have stepped aside recently when the Arabian nations called for him to do so.
2. Why even add the "of mass destruction"? Are our weapons of localised destruction morally acceptable? There is no moral difference between killing 1 person and killing 1,000,000.
WMD are more likely to be used on nations outside one's domain. While localized weapons are more likely to be used to defend a home front. If your nieghbor on onside had a large knife, while your neighbor on the otherside had a bazooka - which one would be more likely to damage your home?
3. Evil is by nature destructive, and so in the end, eventually destroys itself. In this context, all that is necessary for the triumph of good is for good people to do nothing. Are any of us good people?
Do nothing IS doing something. It's called complacency. Complacency is often very destructive. If you believe that doing nothing is a good thing, just ask all those people who hide behind their doors afraid of the hoodlums on the street corners, but won't tell the police what they see.
You have to take responsibility for your own well being. If you wait for what is handed to you, all you will get is cold lumpy oatmeal (if your lucky). But more likely life will just pass you by. The greater tragedy will be that you will have never lived. Why fight for your life, if you are not willing to live it? To stand up for it? To risk speaking out? To make a difference? Complacency is not being a "good" person. Complacency is complacency. It supports the evil that you believe you are not.
-
Valkaryn
Re:
by Guest on Fri Feb 07, 2003 5:44 pm
[s]Zombie Sheep wrote on 23:33, 30th Aug 2002:
I would support a war on Iraq.
Ya??? Well then send your sons and daughters, or yourself to die in the dessert for nothing but oil.....
I admit that I am not sure that I would be able to argue my reasons to a satisfactory conclusion. Basically, the leader of Iraq appears to be unstable and capable of actions that will have drastic consequences for the world. It may be argued that it will never happen. But it has happened before, so who can say it will never happen again. But like I said, I'm not sure that I can entirely justify my position.
I would support a war on Iraq.
Ya??? Well then send your sons and daughters, or yourself to die in the dessert for nothing but oil.....
I admit that I am not sure that I would be able to argue my reasons to a satisfactory conclusion. Basically, the leader of Iraq appears to be unstable and capable of actions that will have drastic consequences for the world. It may be argued that it will never happen. But it has happened before, so who can say it will never happen again. But like I said, I'm not sure that I can entirely justify my position.
-
Guest
Bush's wars
by Jolene on Sun Feb 09, 2003 5:55 pm
Prescott Bush (President's Grandfather) financed Hitler into power from 1922 onwards and had his assets confiscated by the US Government in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act. That was Prescott Bush's contribution to 54 million deaths.
There are similarities between Hitler invading Poland and Bush invading Iraq:
1. Each happened simply because just one warmonger politician decided to invade.
2. Both events had the Bushes behind it (Hitler had Prescott Bush from 1922)
3. Hitler only invaded Poland once, and killed less Poles than Dad Bush killed Iraqis. (Dad killed 200,000 in the war, 1.5million with sanctions - UNICEF)
4. Both Hitler and Bush chose a defencess nation to attack. (The Iraqis could never attack America, can't and never have killed Americans)
5. Both Bush and Hitler headed the world's biggest military machines. (There over 1,000 times more Weapons of Mass Destruction in the USA; isn't that where the Weapons Inspectors should be sent?)
6. Both Hilter and Bush seized power by usurping the electoral process. (Bush brothers destroyed 250,000 Democratic votes in 4 electoral frauds in Florida, declared "W" the winner by 537 votes.)
7. Hitler and Bush gave fake reasons to invade. (Saddam Hussein has never been in partnership with bin Laden). But he Bushes and bin Ladens have been business partners for 24 years. The bin Ladens were the first investors in GW Bush's first company, Arbusto in 1978 and are still joint owners of The Carlyle Group, a multi billion dollar weapons company which the Bushes built up with corrupt government contacts.
8. Freedom in Germany and the USA had been denied before the attack (This time it's Bush's cynically named USA Patriot Act which nullifies the Bill of Rights of 1791. Both Hitler and Bush imprison people without trial.)
9. Both Hitler and the Bushes show stunning cruelty. (Dad Bush dropped depleted uranium "dirty bombs;" now thousands of Iraqis are dying horrible deaths of radiation poisoning.)
10. The populations of both Germany and the USA were indoctrinated by the govenment (Carl Rove with 24/7 "news" has duped gullible Americans into believing they are "under threat" and war is "inevitable")
11. Hitler and Bush both keep their populations subdued with brutality. (GW Bush faced 7 legal cases (eventual impeachment?) for electoral fraud in Florida. That was Bush's motive to bring down the World Trade on 9/11, he said his junior business partner Osama did it, which is unbelievable - he should have resigned at that point if only for his connections to Osama.)
12. Both wars could have been preventing simply by arresting the President of the invading country and prosecuting him for election fraud and war crimes. (GW Bush has killed 10,000 innocent Afghans).
War is only inevitable while Bush is President. We will be at war for as long as Bush is President.
If Carl Rove continues to fool the American people and Bush serves two terms, he will destroy the foreign-debt ridden American economy for all time. (He will probably also kill more than the total of 4.73 million people his Dad did, but Americans don't care about that - their press is censored.)
And remember the USA orgainsed the 1963 coup which put Saddam Hussein's brutal Bathist party in power, and the USA and Britain financed and armed Hussein every step of the way. All the killing around Iraq has been done by the USA or is the responsibility of the USA. It is up to the USA to remove Bush first, as Dubya is the real threat and killer, then remove Saddam the way it put him in, ie a coup, not a war.
If you want proof, see bushfraud.blogspot.com.
There are similarities between Hitler invading Poland and Bush invading Iraq:
1. Each happened simply because just one warmonger politician decided to invade.
2. Both events had the Bushes behind it (Hitler had Prescott Bush from 1922)
3. Hitler only invaded Poland once, and killed less Poles than Dad Bush killed Iraqis. (Dad killed 200,000 in the war, 1.5million with sanctions - UNICEF)
4. Both Hitler and Bush chose a defencess nation to attack. (The Iraqis could never attack America, can't and never have killed Americans)
5. Both Bush and Hitler headed the world's biggest military machines. (There over 1,000 times more Weapons of Mass Destruction in the USA; isn't that where the Weapons Inspectors should be sent?)
6. Both Hilter and Bush seized power by usurping the electoral process. (Bush brothers destroyed 250,000 Democratic votes in 4 electoral frauds in Florida, declared "W" the winner by 537 votes.)
7. Hitler and Bush gave fake reasons to invade. (Saddam Hussein has never been in partnership with bin Laden). But he Bushes and bin Ladens have been business partners for 24 years. The bin Ladens were the first investors in GW Bush's first company, Arbusto in 1978 and are still joint owners of The Carlyle Group, a multi billion dollar weapons company which the Bushes built up with corrupt government contacts.
8. Freedom in Germany and the USA had been denied before the attack (This time it's Bush's cynically named USA Patriot Act which nullifies the Bill of Rights of 1791. Both Hitler and Bush imprison people without trial.)
9. Both Hitler and the Bushes show stunning cruelty. (Dad Bush dropped depleted uranium "dirty bombs;" now thousands of Iraqis are dying horrible deaths of radiation poisoning.)
10. The populations of both Germany and the USA were indoctrinated by the govenment (Carl Rove with 24/7 "news" has duped gullible Americans into believing they are "under threat" and war is "inevitable")
11. Hitler and Bush both keep their populations subdued with brutality. (GW Bush faced 7 legal cases (eventual impeachment?) for electoral fraud in Florida. That was Bush's motive to bring down the World Trade on 9/11, he said his junior business partner Osama did it, which is unbelievable - he should have resigned at that point if only for his connections to Osama.)
12. Both wars could have been preventing simply by arresting the President of the invading country and prosecuting him for election fraud and war crimes. (GW Bush has killed 10,000 innocent Afghans).
War is only inevitable while Bush is President. We will be at war for as long as Bush is President.
If Carl Rove continues to fool the American people and Bush serves two terms, he will destroy the foreign-debt ridden American economy for all time. (He will probably also kill more than the total of 4.73 million people his Dad did, but Americans don't care about that - their press is censored.)
And remember the USA orgainsed the 1963 coup which put Saddam Hussein's brutal Bathist party in power, and the USA and Britain financed and armed Hussein every step of the way. All the killing around Iraq has been done by the USA or is the responsibility of the USA. It is up to the USA to remove Bush first, as Dubya is the real threat and killer, then remove Saddam the way it put him in, ie a coup, not a war.
If you want proof, see bushfraud.blogspot.com.
-
Jolene
Re:
by kensson on Mon Feb 10, 2003 2:05 pm
I was thinking along the same lines... it's not the people saying "Um... this war is a really, really bad idea" that are the appeasers, but those who believe we should stand shoulder to shoulder with the USA (in return for?)
[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
-
kensson
Re:
by Guest on Mon Feb 10, 2003 4:43 pm
[s]Unregisted User Jolene wrote on 15:56, 9th Feb 2003:
(GW Bush faced 7 legal cases (eventual impeachment?) for electoral fraud in Florida. That was Bush's motive to bring down the World Trade on 9/11, he said his junior business partner Osama did it, which is unbelievable
This is a beautiful example of why Bush need not fear the anti-war groups. Because if certain elements of them continue to resort so easily to this sort of hysterical bullshit, they will discredit the legitimate protests of others.
War is only inevitable while Bush is President. We will be at war for as long as Bush is President.
And with an increased majority in congress the american people sure do look like they are angry with him for his 'crimes'.
(GW Bush faced 7 legal cases (eventual impeachment?) for electoral fraud in Florida. That was Bush's motive to bring down the World Trade on 9/11, he said his junior business partner Osama did it, which is unbelievable
This is a beautiful example of why Bush need not fear the anti-war groups. Because if certain elements of them continue to resort so easily to this sort of hysterical bullshit, they will discredit the legitimate protests of others.
War is only inevitable while Bush is President. We will be at war for as long as Bush is President.
And with an increased majority in congress the american people sure do look like they are angry with him for his 'crimes'.
-
Guest
Kick His Botty
by Stan Ogden on Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:15 am
Ask most Anti-war protagonists why we shouldn't give Saddam a good kicking and most will come up with a combination of - think of all the thousands of innocent civilians that will die, it is a war over oil, American didn't do anything for Rwanda/isn't doing anything about other despotic regimes, it will lead to an increase in terrorism.
They all boil down to one thing - a misguided belief that when the chips are down and SHi# comes to shove, the weakest Person/ Nation/ player etc. can avoid submitting to the will of the stronger party and that WAR is wrong.
Sadly, Humans are not like that, the US will kick Saddam out of Iraq this time around because it is in their interests to do so and diplomacyy hasn't worked And what is wrong with that ?
Thousands of civilians probably wont die (but so what if they do - millions die each year becasue of out innability as a species to act in a collectivist manner on certain issues so why should this be case of war be any different)
If it is about oil (and I don't subscribe to that viewpoint as the main reason for this situation) who would deny the effect of huge hikes in Oil prices on the world economy and inevitable effect on some of the Worlds disadvantaged people ! Might as well be suggesting that it would be wrong to go to War over the worlds oxygen supply !
The inability of othe nations or bodies of nations to come to a concencous over foreighn policy is pretty obvious - so why beat up the US when they take action on some issues and not others.
You might as well argue that there is no point putting your hand in your pocket to donate to one charity becasue you cant donate to them all - indeed it is worse than that - more like critising someone else for giving to one charity and not all when you yourself give to no-one.
Terrorism may increase in the short term in wake of another War with iraq but so will the hope of many miullions living in despotic regimes that someone cares enough (or has another interest)to come to their aid - even. Terrorists will always exist and will always use a variety of issues to justify their position. What they will know is that they are not safe to continue doing what they do becasue they know the answer to violence, their type of violence is to meet it head on with timely force and conviction.
They all boil down to one thing - a misguided belief that when the chips are down and SHi# comes to shove, the weakest Person/ Nation/ player etc. can avoid submitting to the will of the stronger party and that WAR is wrong.
Sadly, Humans are not like that, the US will kick Saddam out of Iraq this time around because it is in their interests to do so and diplomacyy hasn't worked And what is wrong with that ?
Thousands of civilians probably wont die (but so what if they do - millions die each year becasue of out innability as a species to act in a collectivist manner on certain issues so why should this be case of war be any different)
If it is about oil (and I don't subscribe to that viewpoint as the main reason for this situation) who would deny the effect of huge hikes in Oil prices on the world economy and inevitable effect on some of the Worlds disadvantaged people ! Might as well be suggesting that it would be wrong to go to War over the worlds oxygen supply !
The inability of othe nations or bodies of nations to come to a concencous over foreighn policy is pretty obvious - so why beat up the US when they take action on some issues and not others.
You might as well argue that there is no point putting your hand in your pocket to donate to one charity becasue you cant donate to them all - indeed it is worse than that - more like critising someone else for giving to one charity and not all when you yourself give to no-one.
Terrorism may increase in the short term in wake of another War with iraq but so will the hope of many miullions living in despotic regimes that someone cares enough (or has another interest)to come to their aid - even. Terrorists will always exist and will always use a variety of issues to justify their position. What they will know is that they are not safe to continue doing what they do becasue they know the answer to violence, their type of violence is to meet it head on with timely force and conviction.
-
Stan Ogden
Re:
by kensson on Tue Feb 11, 2003 11:15 am
Stan Odgen misses the point. Surprisingly. The point is not simply that thousands of civilians will die - and they will (back a madman with big weapons into a corner so he has nothing to lose by using them? hello?) - nor that the motives for attacking are murky. Nor even simply that to fund and arm a country while it massacres its own people before feigning surprise that it has weapons of mass destruction is at best hypocritical. (The only solid link between al-Qa'eda and Iraq I've found so far is that they were both supported by Daddy Bush's CIA in the 1980s.) Stan also forgets to mention that a war right now might help middle Americans forget about losing their jobs.
The point is that attacking another country pre-emptively contravenes international law. Attacking without UN backing contravenes international law. To attack without at least some kind of consensus that Saddam Hussein is a threat to other interests - elsewhere on this thread I've explained why I think that is unlikely - is a very dangerous precedent. From a very dangerous president.
If the US weren't prepared to give the weapons inspectors a chance, why did they bother setting up the first resolution? If the US were going to attack in any case, why bother asking the UN at all? If this is an issue about upholding international law, why won't the aggressors abide by it? And if it's about upholding Resolution 1441 in particular, why is US intelligence going directly to the UN rather than to Hans Blix?
Terry Jones puts it far more succinctly:
http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story ... 59,00.html
[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
The point is that attacking another country pre-emptively contravenes international law. Attacking without UN backing contravenes international law. To attack without at least some kind of consensus that Saddam Hussein is a threat to other interests - elsewhere on this thread I've explained why I think that is unlikely - is a very dangerous precedent. From a very dangerous president.
If the US weren't prepared to give the weapons inspectors a chance, why did they bother setting up the first resolution? If the US were going to attack in any case, why bother asking the UN at all? If this is an issue about upholding international law, why won't the aggressors abide by it? And if it's about upholding Resolution 1441 in particular, why is US intelligence going directly to the UN rather than to Hans Blix?
Terry Jones puts it far more succinctly:
http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story ... 59,00.html
[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
-
kensson
Re:
by Rennie on Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:51 pm
True Kensson, true 
To the people who support a US-led war against Iraq without a second resolution - Do you think that if it was right to do so, countries would be going against the US, risking economic losses (blocking French made products or taxing them much higher, etc..) as well as support on issues they want to raise in the UN, etc.. The US has a lot of power wielding over countries like France, and still they are prepared to go against them - there must be a good reason for it.
It is also obvious that the US care not one jot about 'carrying out UN resolutions to help the people of Iraq' If this was truly the case, why do they veto every UN resolution against Israel, and say that they are prepared to break international law in order to go to war with Iraq, second resolution or not.
Countries are going against the US in this issue because they know why teh US is going to war. Yes, I believe Saddam has to be removed, but not in the way the US has tried to remove people/parties in the past. It seems as though, in the last few days, he has changed his tactics hopefully - allowing weapons inspectors to get on with their jobs (personally though i feel it's just too damn easy to hide weapons in a whole country, no matter how many people you've got looking for it)
I think France and Germany are right in giving the weapons inspectors more time - the US don't want this as it would wreck their timescale for war, and bring them into the summer still fighting with equipment that is likely to malfunction (see last Gulf War)
To the people who support a US-led war against Iraq without a second resolution - Do you think that if it was right to do so, countries would be going against the US, risking economic losses (blocking French made products or taxing them much higher, etc..) as well as support on issues they want to raise in the UN, etc.. The US has a lot of power wielding over countries like France, and still they are prepared to go against them - there must be a good reason for it.
It is also obvious that the US care not one jot about 'carrying out UN resolutions to help the people of Iraq' If this was truly the case, why do they veto every UN resolution against Israel, and say that they are prepared to break international law in order to go to war with Iraq, second resolution or not.
Countries are going against the US in this issue because they know why teh US is going to war. Yes, I believe Saddam has to be removed, but not in the way the US has tried to remove people/parties in the past. It seems as though, in the last few days, he has changed his tactics hopefully - allowing weapons inspectors to get on with their jobs (personally though i feel it's just too damn easy to hide weapons in a whole country, no matter how many people you've got looking for it)
I think France and Germany are right in giving the weapons inspectors more time - the US don't want this as it would wreck their timescale for war, and bring them into the summer still fighting with equipment that is likely to malfunction (see last Gulf War)
-
Rennie
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 1:51 pm
Re:
by Ashley on Tue Feb 11, 2003 3:40 pm
I myself too find myself uncomfortable with the prospect of going to war. Quite an interesting (and thorough) viewpoint here..
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0208-05.htm
And a follow-up link-
http://www.rupe-india.org
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0208-05.htm
And a follow-up link-
http://www.rupe-india.org
[i:1zn3ute4]Nobody ever mentions the weather can make or break your day[/i:1zn3ute4]
-
Ashley
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2002 4:46 pm
Re:
by Hmmm on Tue Feb 11, 2003 6:36 pm
Well it's been interseting reading all your arguements, I particularly love the hypocritical way you try and force your opinion on others the same way that you say Bush is doing.
But enough beating round the...you know.
What would your solution be, direct answers please. Is it really that simple? No. Have you ever run a country? No.
When it's all over lets see whose opinions have all changed.
But enough beating round the...you know.
What would your solution be, direct answers please. Is it really that simple? No. Have you ever run a country? No.
When it's all over lets see whose opinions have all changed.
-
Hmmm
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 30 guests