It wasn't the WsMD
-
Doug Goulden wrote: If you read the quote that I repeated, it says that th author of the article felt that "Bush had appropriately interpreted Iraq's refusal to remove WMD ambiguity in violation of numerous international agreements as an overtly hostile act". If WMD are in fact discovered in Iraq, then this question will become moot. But let us suppose that they are not. This "refusal to remove WMD ambiguity" seems like a very ephemeral thing to me. Iraq unambiguously denied that it had WMD. Iraq wasn't overly cooperative with weapons inspectors, but it is a very rare thing for any country to be cooperative with foreign inspectors. My own country of Australia interns people claiming refugee status until that status is determined. It claims that their treatment is entirely appropriate. But when various human rights groups (the UN, Amnesty International etc.) want to inspect the facilities, the government only offers the most grudging cooperation. For another example, take the openness of the US toward scrutiny of goings on a Guantanamo Bay. This demand that countries "remove ambiguity" is a case of presumed guilty until proven innocent. The US can get away with almost anything because it is the world's lone superpower. However, abandoning any notion that countries are entitled to reasonable treatment simply because the US believes that the only thing that really matters is US security is a policy that will guarantee that the US is hated worldwide. Doug Goulden wrote: Israel has never threatened the US with attack, and hasn't signed a cease fire with either the US or the UN saying they would disarm as a condition of a peace agreement. Iraq agreed 12 years ago to disarm within 45 days, they screwed around for 12 years. Iraq has never threated the US with attack either, at least not in any tangible way. If Iraq has gotten rid of its WMD, then the delay is of little account as justification for the war. Doug Goulden wrote: If nothing else, the point was made by the US that the we aren't going to let some country threaten our security. Yes, invading countries on any flimsy pretext will have that effect. I don't think that justifies the policy. John Carson
I think comparing the relationship between Amnesty International and Australia or the US and Iraq's relationship with the UN is somewhat misleading. Amnesty International definitely has its place in the world, however, you didn't see them marching in the streets of Baghdad protesting Sadaam Hussein's repression of his own people, or in Afghanistan for that matter. The problem I have in trying to equate the US's reluctance to deal with Amnesty International's claims in Guantanamo with Iraq's dealing with the UN is that people will always be more critical of the US because its easier. For that matter I don't think that the idea of having Libya chairing the UN Human Rights council lends much credibility to the institution. I don't see the US tying to use its power in the destructive way that a lot of people seem to fear. I understand the concern in having to much power in the hands of any one group, but since the start of the 20th century I think the US has shown remarkable restraint in the use of its power. Even after the end of WW2, the US helped in rebuilding its former enemies in contrast to the actions of its Allies in Germany after WW1. And Iraq may not have had armies marching against the US, but I don't think its much of a stretch to see the definite possibility that Saddam may have been helping Arab terrorists. Is it positive proof? No, just a gut feeling, but I think the idea of "better safe than sorry" applies. I think the only way out of the mess of a foreign policy that has evolved over the last 50 years is a combination of deterence and fairness. If the US can pressure both parties in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict into tring to resolve their differences, and at the same time show that it is willing to defend itself and others, who demonstrate reasonable policies, things can only get better. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
I think comparing the relationship between Amnesty International and Australia or the US and Iraq's relationship with the UN is somewhat misleading. Amnesty International definitely has its place in the world, however, you didn't see them marching in the streets of Baghdad protesting Sadaam Hussein's repression of his own people, or in Afghanistan for that matter. The problem I have in trying to equate the US's reluctance to deal with Amnesty International's claims in Guantanamo with Iraq's dealing with the UN is that people will always be more critical of the US because its easier. For that matter I don't think that the idea of having Libya chairing the UN Human Rights council lends much credibility to the institution. I don't see the US tying to use its power in the destructive way that a lot of people seem to fear. I understand the concern in having to much power in the hands of any one group, but since the start of the 20th century I think the US has shown remarkable restraint in the use of its power. Even after the end of WW2, the US helped in rebuilding its former enemies in contrast to the actions of its Allies in Germany after WW1. And Iraq may not have had armies marching against the US, but I don't think its much of a stretch to see the definite possibility that Saddam may have been helping Arab terrorists. Is it positive proof? No, just a gut feeling, but I think the idea of "better safe than sorry" applies. I think the only way out of the mess of a foreign policy that has evolved over the last 50 years is a combination of deterence and fairness. If the US can pressure both parties in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict into tring to resolve their differences, and at the same time show that it is willing to defend itself and others, who demonstrate reasonable policies, things can only get better. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
My point about foreign inspections was simply that, for reasons of national sovereignty, countries are typically reluctant to cooperate with them. I wasn't making any particular claims about the relative seriousness of the suspected violations. Doug Goulden wrote: I don't see the US tying to use its power in the destructive way that a lot of people seem to fear. I understand the concern in having to much power in the hands of any one group, but since the start of the 20th century I think the US has shown remarkable restraint in the use of its power. The big change in recent years is that the US no longer has a superpower rival in the form of the Soviet Union. Doug Goulden wrote: I don't think its much of a stretch to see the definite possibility that Saddam may have been helping Arab terrorists. Is it positive proof? No, just a gut feeling, but I think the idea of "better safe than sorry" applies. I think that it is remarkably reckless and irresponsible to go to war on such a basis. Doug Goulden wrote: I think the only way out of the mess of a foreign policy that has evolved over the last 50 years is a combination of deterence and fairness. Well...I think that your deterrence must be seen to be fair as well. There is an opposing argument to this "you get nowhere with appeasement" line. Sharon came to power promising to make Israel safe from terrorists by adopting hard-line policies. More Israelis died from terrorism during Sharon's first term in office than in any other equal-length period since the establishment of the state of Israel. The policies of "deterrence" have stirred up so much hatred that they have made the problem worse. In old-fashioned wars, you defeat the enemy and that is the end of it. Terrorism is not amenable to such decisive battles --- unless a country is willing to create an absolute bloodbath on a near-genocidal scale. I think that there is a place for military action. For example, I was in favour of the action against Afghanistan. But I think the US has been made reckless by power and is stirring up resentment that will come back to bite it. John Carson
-
it was the thought of WsMD! yeah, that's the ticket. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37165-2003May9.html[^] or... no, it wasn't that our intel was bad, it was that Saddam tricked us into thinking he had WsMD. (<kyle_and_stan>You Bastard!</kyle_and_stan>) well, we called his bluff. ha! -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareChris Losinger wrote: it was the thought of WsMD! yeah, that's the ticket. And Americans wonder why the rest of the world is so worried about them...
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africabrianwelsch wrote: I find my day goes by more smoothly if I never question other peoples fantasies. My own disturb me enough.
-
it was the thought of WsMD! yeah, that's the ticket. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37165-2003May9.html[^] or... no, it wasn't that our intel was bad, it was that Saddam tricked us into thinking he had WsMD. (<kyle_and_stan>You Bastard!</kyle_and_stan>) well, we called his bluff. ha! -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals Software"The Bush administration, appropriately interpreting Iraq's refusal to remove WMD ambiguity in violation of numerous international agreements as an overtly hostile act, has sent an unambiguous signal that it will take all steps necessary to eliminate such ambiguity" That's why NK declared having nuclear bombs. Now, there isn't any ambiguity anymore, so they won't be attacked. <sarcasm>Logical</sarcasm> I also noted the three references to Sept. 11, trying to mix once again Iraq with. The US administration voluntarily lied to the World and to the US people. I bet they won't acknowledge it so easily.
On the keyboard of life, always keep one finger on the escape key - Paul Watson
-
it was the thought of WsMD! yeah, that's the ticket. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37165-2003May9.html[^] or... no, it wasn't that our intel was bad, it was that Saddam tricked us into thinking he had WsMD. (<kyle_and_stan>You Bastard!</kyle_and_stan>) well, we called his bluff. ha! -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareChris Losinger wrote: (You Bastard!) So, you've finally been reduced to relying on the Washington Post for your irony! How sad. How very, very sad. :laugh:
-
looting: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36985-2003May9.html[^] locals using the drums for water and storage, after dumping the contents on the ground ("One of the villagers who took part in the looting said he tasted the yellow powder in the drums because it looked pretty") : http://www.asahi.com/english/international/K2003050800179.html[^] US WMD searching teams leaving: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3018063.stm[^] -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareOuch .... :( Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Chris Losinger wrote: (You Bastard!) So, you've finally been reduced to relying on the Washington Post for your irony! How sad. How very, very sad. :laugh:
ok. i give up. why is this funny?
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals Software -
ok. i give up. why is this funny?
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareWell, if the Washington Post isn't that ultra right-wing-paper owned by that Korean guy (Moon?) than it must be because I'm loosing my mind.
-
Well, if the Washington Post isn't that ultra right-wing-paper owned by that Korean guy (Moon?) than it must be because I'm loosing my mind.
That's the Washington Times. The Post is the good one. -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals Software -
I think comparing the relationship between Amnesty International and Australia or the US and Iraq's relationship with the UN is somewhat misleading. Amnesty International definitely has its place in the world, however, you didn't see them marching in the streets of Baghdad protesting Sadaam Hussein's repression of his own people, or in Afghanistan for that matter. The problem I have in trying to equate the US's reluctance to deal with Amnesty International's claims in Guantanamo with Iraq's dealing with the UN is that people will always be more critical of the US because its easier. For that matter I don't think that the idea of having Libya chairing the UN Human Rights council lends much credibility to the institution. I don't see the US tying to use its power in the destructive way that a lot of people seem to fear. I understand the concern in having to much power in the hands of any one group, but since the start of the 20th century I think the US has shown remarkable restraint in the use of its power. Even after the end of WW2, the US helped in rebuilding its former enemies in contrast to the actions of its Allies in Germany after WW1. And Iraq may not have had armies marching against the US, but I don't think its much of a stretch to see the definite possibility that Saddam may have been helping Arab terrorists. Is it positive proof? No, just a gut feeling, but I think the idea of "better safe than sorry" applies. I think the only way out of the mess of a foreign policy that has evolved over the last 50 years is a combination of deterence and fairness. If the US can pressure both parties in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict into tring to resolve their differences, and at the same time show that it is willing to defend itself and others, who demonstrate reasonable policies, things can only get better. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: I don't think its much of a stretch to see the definite possibility that Saddam may have been helping Arab terrorists. Is it positive proof? No, just a gut feeling, but I think the idea of "better safe than sorry" applies. so.. if US has a hunch about something they have the right to invade a country just because US has a feeling that saddam is dangerous? this military invasion was a violation of the international law. rite now US doesnt know how to excuse themselves for this military invasion, Saddam has WMD intelligence reports this, reliable sources. pff.. false, no proof was found. ok, that was lame how do we excuse ourselves? hmmm how about a freedom war? we feed iraqi people how about that? (Freedom is slavery) Iraqi people are soo happy that they are finaly free that they are celebrating all day long the US military invasion. Doug Goulden wrote: If the US can pressure both parties in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict into tring to resolve their differences, and at the same time show that it is willing to defend itself and others, who demonstrate reasonable policies, things can only get better. i'm really curious how US will pressure Israel. it seems that US is more of Israel bodyguard around the world or more like a host for a parasite? :/ (ignorance is strength) there are not charity wars or wars for freedom, all the wars were made for a profit. the reasons that are presented by the media for the war in iraq are jokes. --------------- Horatiu CRISTEA