|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
posted August 04, 2003 07:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ya people!
Attack Iraq!!!
I'm all for it!!
Goo US soldiers,go US troops!GO UK,go go..everybody go! Dance to the tune of the US anthem..go go..add some rock n roll to the beat of that..anthem..go ya..go... !!
Always good to hear from the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders.
____________
|
|
Bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted August 07, 2003 12:17 PM |
|
|
|
In retrospect it's rather obvious the US never wanted UN support.
|
|
midnight
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2003 06:22 AM |
|
|
ok, it got a bit quiet in here so I'll stir the pot again...
Given that US needs to secure the mid east oil, regardless of international law, then you wont care what france or russian thinks, but it doesnt make sense to alienate the local population by:
* dumping tonnes of radioactive waste in form of depleted uranium munitions (99%+ U238 which IS poisonous, radioactive, and burns on impact to form water soluble compounds). Is already strong evidence of massively increased birth defects in southern iraq from last gulf war.
* cluster bombs in residential areas so kids can find their shiny yellow cannisters and go bang 
* not planning a postwar structure for security and managing essential services such as water, electricity and sewerage.
is there something i'm missing, or is this a mess?
____________
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted August 15, 2003 01:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In retrospect it's rather obvious the US never wanted UN support.
If that's true why did they go through the motions? Presumably it's not a good strategy to look like your trying to get additional U.N. support and then fail to do so. Wait, I understand now, you don't know what you are talking about. Sorry, i missed the obvious.
____________
|
|
Draco
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2003 08:24 PM |
|
|
|
they had to go through the U.N. if they hadn't then it would have "clearly been illigal" where as here it looks more like the U.N messed up. at least they can try and convince us of this.
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted August 15, 2003 10:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
they had to go through the U.N. if they hadn't then it would have "clearly been illigal" where as here it looks more like the U.N messed up. at least they can try and convince us of this.
Sorry, the U.N. doesn't decide what's legal for the whole world. We haven't yet given them sovereignity over the whole of the planet.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted August 15, 2003 10:44 PM |
|
|
grave00, it seems you know what you are talking about, a rare event for this thread. Good job.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted August 16, 2003 09:58 PM |
|
|
The argument has been made that the U.S. acted to create the appearance of seeking U.N. support, but that it did so knowing that the U.N. would not. It has further been argued that the U.S. did so in a manner which they believed would not successfully garner the support so they could create an independent coalition to avoid getting bogged down with U.N. influences. The strategy (presumably) was to start a few tantrums among the more resistive, anti-American portions of the UN (France) which would anger certain consituencies in order to garner support for the U.S. position of moving forward with the campaign as they did.
I have only heard these arguments and do not necessarily subscribe to them. Frankly I don't know what exactly it is my government did or is doing, or what exactly is motivating them. I feel they certainly have not been straight with us. That being said, however, governments frequently act on unspoken motivations. While I believe this should not be the case in a putatively representative government, I am afraid reality is what it is.
Anyways, this would be one explanation for the U.S. seeking U.N. support when it did not actually want that support. Frankly I would speculate the the U.S.'s "attempt" to gain U.N. support was, more than anything else, evidence of the fracture in the Bush administration between the influence of Colin Powell vs. the more aggressive faction headed by Bush. I suspect that Bush gave into Powell's insistence that we seek U.N. support , but just enough to create that appearance. I DO suspect a degree of sabotage in the alleged effort. Powell's announcement the other day that he would not remain in his position for a second Bush term would tend to support this speculation.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
midnight
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 02:25 AM |
|
|
he he, seems i got things going again in this thread. now i dont have to be as provocative 
Ok, if we accept that international law is a shaky thing to start with, and morals are very subjective given different vested interests, religions, culture etc, then lets toss out legality as an issue.
Then what about this one... a logical risk
There is no question that uranium based weapons were used in iraq by US (and prolly UK, but not sure on that). Call it depleted uranium, kinetic energy penetrators, anti tank weaponry etc. If we ignore the environmental problems of U238 oxides (i noticed noone responded to that issue) there is a much more practical problem...
it is giving potential material for terrorists to collect and use in a dirty bomb. Surely in an unstable area such as mid east u would use tungsten based penetrators rather than DU even though is more expensive to manufacture, cuz the risk of it being thrown back at u is not there.
It is not as if DU are only penetrators that are manufactured. An example of a commercial tender for tungsten penetrators:
http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2003/04-April/03-Apr-2003/FBO-00292993.htm
____________
|
|
Bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 07:08 AM |
|
|
1) Any invasion of another country that is not specifically authorized by the UN Security council is a violation of international law. In that respect, yes, the UN does decide who can invade who. If not the UN, who would you have make such decisions? Might makes right? By that argument, Iraq was justified in invading Kuwait.
2) Because the US acted alone, they have a greater opportunity to cover up any evidence of their own weapons that they don't want people finding out about.
3) Because they acted alone, they'll have an easier time making sure the oil is all for them, and controlling the future of Iraq, which is (most likely) to join Turkey and Israel as bases of American power in the region.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 03:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1) Any invasion of another country that is not specifically authorized by the UN Security council is a violation of international law. In that respect, yes, the UN does decide who can invade who. If not the UN, who would you have make such decisions? Might makes right? By that argument, Iraq was justified in invading Kuwait.
The UN decides who can invade who? That has to be the dumbest thing I've heard in this thread (that was on topic). Would the UN acctually tell a government "yes, you can invade them"? That would be a big NO.
Quote:
2) Because the US acted alone, they have a greater opportunity to cover up any evidence of their own weapons that they don't want people finding out about.
Oh but we didn't act alone, check your facts there, buddy.
Quote:
3) Because they acted alone, they'll have an easier time making sure the oil is all for them, and controlling the future of Iraq, which is (most likely) to join Turkey and Israel as bases of American power in the region.
Ack! The "alone" thing again, see above. You people always tie it back to oil, why? It's not all about oil, just like the American Civil War was not really about slavery.
____________
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 07:06 PM |
|
|
###TANGENT ALERT###
[quote, just like the American Civil War was not really about slavery.
You might be being ironic but the ONLY issue in the civil war was slavery, any other issue that might be said to be a cause of the civil war did not exist without slavery.
(now to relate back to the topic) the only issue in Iraq is Oil. Other issues would not be important without oil. Oil is the reason that Iraq could be able to research WMD(whatever they are) or the fund terrorist orgs. Iraqi Oil is a strategic resource which the US is unwilling to let remain in control of a percieved enemy.
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted August 17, 2003 07:37 PM |
|
|
###TANGENT ALERT YOURSELF###
Quote:
You might be being ironic but the ONLY issue in the civil war was slavery, any other issue that might be said to be a cause of the civil war did not exist without slavery.
Ahhh, you may be honorable but you're still wrong. South Carolina passed their "ordinance of secession" on Dec. 20th 1860 and six other states left the Union in the next two months, but the main issue was not slavery itself as people like yourself so wrongly believe. It was the principle behind it, those states believed the federal government had no right to tell the states what to do.
Abraham Lincoln was elected in november of that year under the position that he would not push the issue of slavery in either direction. He did not fight the war to end slavery, he didn't do that until 1863. He fought to hold the country together, and he did. "No state has the right to leave the Union whenever it pleases" - Abraham Lincoln
And don't forget the South fired first, Fort Sumter 1861.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 08:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
He did not fight the war to end slavery, he didn't do that until 1863
Wrong actually. Lincoln drafted the Emancipation Proclamation very early in the war, and issued it in the aftermath of the confederates loosing the battle of Antietam/Sharpsburg in mid 1862.
Quote:
He fought to hold the country together, and he did. "No state has the right to leave the Union whenever it pleases"
Indeed, he did claim he would have restored the union if necessary with slavery still permitted in the south, as long as it allowed the union to remain.
I think that it was an issue for the southern states, their fear of the north overwhelming their way of life was very real. In the north the issue was nothing to the masses, only church zealots drove the issue forward. Lincoln used it for a number of reasons. By standing against, and making the war seem to be about slavery Lincoln made an astute political move. Britain could not be seen to enter a war on the side of a slave state and against the north given the fact that we ourselves were anti slavery. France would not intervene without Britain, and it was infinitely unlikely that the south could gain and maintain their independence without the support of either. It also united support from outside the country, giving the north the moral high ground it lacked prior to the denouncing of slavery.
Lincoln may have known the war was not about slavery, but he made it THE issue of the war, as nothing more than a politically wise move.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 09:30 PM |
|
|
In other words, it was not fought over slavery entirely. Thanks PH.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 09:53 PM |
|
|
That's being selective to prove your point, especially considering that's not the thrust of my argument. The war was fought for many reasons, but if slavery is removed it's very likely the south would have won their independance in the summer of 1863 with European support. Therefore it is THE issue of the war.
Also on the Sumter issue, the Union it is said, provoked the south into firing first. If you assume a state has the democratic right to leave the union (assuming it's people agree etc) as part of the whole philosophy of the revolutionary war, then the Fort itself, as part of the state of South Carolina, belonged to the state, not the union. From what I have read, the confederate goverment attempted to pay the union for the fort in some way, and were flat out denied by Lincoln. Lincoln then sent an agressive fleet to the area, leaving the Confederate general soon to be caught between 2 enemies. Also by re-inforcing the fort, it would directly threaten nearby Charlestown, not something designed for peaceful future actions. Therefore it's highly debateable who really provoked whom into the start of the conflict.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 11:02 PM |
|
|
I am being selective, but you have to be to argue the other side too. But the fact remains, the war was not fought specifically about slavery. If slavery wasn't an issue then it probably wouldn't have happened in a war but the North and South were growing apart and that didn't help things either.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 11:38 PM |
|
|
The problem with being selective is that you're not looking at the whole issue. Whether they were growing apart or not, it was the issue of slavery that mattered to the higher parts of the confederacy, those with money. It was these political and economic masters that drove the south towards independence, these who owned slaves and wanted this to continue westwards. So even at that level slavery was very important. Where it didn't matter was the likes of the soldiers and poorer people.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted August 18, 2003 03:10 AM |
|
|
South Carolina wanted to suceed because of states rights.
What right was it that would make them want to leave the union?
What issue would the south have that they could not negotiate with reasonable people?
What issue became so intolerable that the north would send in troops?
Slavery.
Slavery is the prime, root, & only cause of the civil war.
Without slavery there would have been no contention between the north and south, no reason to argue over state's rights and the soveriegnty of the union.
People who say that slavery wasn't the issue are just plain wrong. Without slavery there are no other issues to cause the civil war.
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted August 18, 2003 03:44 AM |
|
|
Secessionist movement was caused by the South's desire to maintain the right to trade slaves.
Civil War arose as result of secessionist movement.
Therefore, Civil War was caused by the South's desire to maintain the right to trade slaves.
Simple syllogism. Anybody who tries to sashe' their way out of it is, IMHO, being intellectually dishonest, and/or has read too many history books written by the victors (which would be nearly all of them, Howard Zinn notwithstanding). No offense intended to anyone. My own husband still maintains there is a distinction, somehow.
This ia a Republican administration. I still maintain that the invasion was only indirectly (at best) associated with 9-11. If it were not for the economic interest the U.S. has in Iraq, the likelihood that the Republican administration would have invaded would have been greatly diminished (i.e. the dance with Saudi Arabia was OVER).
Bizud, your instincts are the product of evolved thinking (again IMHO). But I believe you are incorrect about any action against another state being illegal if not sanctioned by the U.N. The international principle to establish the legality of any given action is whether it was justified by the necessity to protect one's own territorial integrity. By standing international law, this principle has been the accepted standard among European nations for several centuries. The U.N. has only as much legitimacy as the sovereign states give it, unfortunately. So whether the U.N. sanctions a given war, it is still legal under international law if it is "just" under the above standard.
Which means that, in the case of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it is highly questionable that we have any argument to legitimize the attack as "just." This is precisely why the Bush administration placed such a high premium on the connection with terrorism -- they were trying to draw upon the territorial integrity argument. Unsuccessfully, obviously in the opinions of many. But that is the reason for the attempt to connect it thus.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
