 |
| |
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
Saddam wants to stay in power. So, what? |
saddam has proven himself to be a burden on his people and the entire area. even though, as you claim, iraq was an almost developed country in 1990, it was, and still is a very oppressive one - and while it had a great economy, it's freedom and democracy were non-existent.
any person would choose personal security (being sure he won't be kidnapped by secret police) over economic success (being 1st world country).
quote:
Saddam wants Wommdies. So, what? |
The UN (international community ) decided wommdies are a no-no, especially for countries who like to randomly expand their borders, or employ wommdies in battle.
quote:
He doesnīt *have* them, he just *wants* them, but even if he *had* them: So, what? |
UN says he had them, and since then they couldn't find out what happenned.
Judging by Saddam's nature it would be a better guess that he hid them, instead of destroying them. This is what Iraq must prove - that they indeed destroyed everything.
Knowing that he wants them - assures us that even if he did destroy them, he will eventually try to get them again.
quote:
All his neighbours say they donīt feel threatened. |
Look at the facts:
Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and until recently, Jordan, are all cooperating with efforts to disarm Iraq. That means that they are feeling threatened.
quote:
So it is *you* who is failing to answer the *one* question that matters: Why is the security of Israel our business? |
Who said anything about Israel?
When in the last 30 years have Iraq attacked Israel except 1991?
In the contrary - during 1991 to 1998, Iraq have several times, secretly offered several peace treaties to Israel (recently uncovered by Maariv newspaper).
However, being able to look beyond actions and find patterns - I can see that this offer was merely strategical. He wanted peace with Israel, to get stronger politically - not for the sake of peace, but rather as a temprary means of accumulating power (peace with Israel would change balance of power, and would get Iraq out of sanctions etc).
But let me answer your question: The world should take care of Israel's security, because that's the duty of the UN - to solve conflicts between nations and provide security and peace to all nations.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Look at the facts:
Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and until recently, Jordan, are all cooperating with efforts to disarm Iraq. That means that they are feeling threatened. |
They do this because the US wants it, and the US is the boss: its the same thing as when Israeli leaders do what the Us demands: it does not mean that the leaders agrees, it just means that the leader would rather take the action than threaten the vital link to the US. And all these states are doign what theyc an to keep the whole "democracy" thing from being to harmful to themselves: specially if the Shia get too much power.
The reason to invade Iraq has nothing to do with WMD or the UN, or any of that. The individuals who created this policy think that by getting rid of Saddam all of a sudden all the problems int he ME (including the one in Israel_palestine) will solve themselves) and that by showing the US fist, everyone will fal in line and play nice. It is trully suing force to try to shape the world, and the ME. I doubt highyl that it will work, but that ius the reason, not anythign said in any UN resolution, or whether Iraq is a threat (it isn't).
As such, 1938 has no meaning to the situation, and neither does 1956. The US isn';t doing it for imperialistic reasons, it is doing it for evanelical reasons. I can think of no good historical precedent of any kind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
UN never hold up any theory about a right to pre-emptive action. Quite to the contrary.
According to the UN Charter, it is Iraq whose security has been threatened. |
tsk tsk tsk
UN charters needs to be enforced. Otherwise the UN has no use.
Iraq is suspected of having WMDs and is failing to cooperate with UN. This must have consequences.
quote:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." |
The purposes of the UN include securing peace, civil rights, self determination and so forth - Saddam's behaviour has proven to be a risk all those, and he fails to comply with UN orders.
quote:
It is clearly the US that are in violation. |
Not at all.
US temporary violation of order and of iraqi self-rule will instill civil rights, lessen military threat from iraq, instill democracy. all proper UN values.
According to your own logic, it was wrong for the US, UK, France and USSR to "impose" their rule on germany. Yet this gave only good results and Germany is now a leading economy and among the most peaceful and unthreatning countries in europe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:26
|
|
Thanks for your long reply, I know see the contents hidden in your first post.
France or Germany (almost all the political spectrum agrees there on the Iraqi matter) do not have any immediate fear of massive terror attacks. It is however acknowledged an American attack on Iraq will increase the resentment towards the West generally (and America and Israel being first targets) in the Arabic population.
It is by no means the first motivation of France and Germany's refusal to go to war : getting cheap internal support, showing who's boss within the EU, protecting oil deals, simply opposing the US for the heck of it, acting on the sake of pacifist principles, you name it. There are plenty of reasons why France and Germany do not want to go to war.
In Munich, the only reason not to go to war was an extreme fear of repeating the slaughter which took place 20 years before, and the idea giving in to Hitler would avoid it.
There is much difference between the Realpolitik played today by France and the near hysteria that characterized Munich. The risk of increased terrorism sure plays some part in the global anti-war move, but is definitely not the main reason, not even one of the first reasons.
Yes, Saddam's Iraq strives to be the leading power of ME. Like Syria. Like Iran. Like the US. It doesn't mean Iraq can achieve it. 38's France and Britain appeased Hitler because Hitler looked like being able to conquer Europe. I don't see Syria, Iran or Turkey appeasing Iraq now. I don't even see Quwait appeasing Iraq now. No one is womplying to Saddam's demands (if there are any), because no one fear him outside of Iraq anymore.
quote:
In the 1930s , Hitler demanded to develop a strong army. He demanded for sanctions to be lifted.
England saw Hitler beginning to develop weapons which he was not allowed to have and chose to look the other way. France is attempting to do the same thing. |
Why did France co-write resolution 1441 which demands Iraq to accept the return of beefed up inspectors on its territory, then ?
I agree France got dragged in this matter which was restarted by the Bush admin after 12 years of sleep. However, the diplomatic line of France is clear, even if hypocritical : Iraq must be disarmed, but we must look for peaceful ways before attacking, and should attack only when peaceful ways are exhausted.
Yes, France considers war to be an option in the crisis (unlike Germany). Simply, France wants to avoid it if possible, most probably because an American attack against Iraq will hurt its interests. Very different from the 30's, right after WWI was dubbed "la der' des ders", the last of the lasts.
quote:
he stated his state of mind via a double in the CBS interview quite clearly. |
OK then, I was wrong. I believe you, but I couldn't find the latest Saddam's interview (granted I didn't search much  . Could you give me a link please ? I'm interested in this interview, and I've read only comments about it so far 
Lastly, do you really believe there has been a real willingness to solve the Iraqi issue these last 12 years ? Gepap talks about containment, and these inspections and sanctions seemed to be what it was about. The world let Iraq rot in the meantime, and inspections were obviously biased into pointing Saddam has huge amounts of bacteriological weapons, even if there was no sound evidence of them.
Our tools to find a peaceful solution were sanctions starving Iraqi people and sham inspections. I hardly call it an active search for a peaceful solution. I'm not saying it's all US' fault : simply, nobody cared about the aftermath of the war, and we only care about it now.
As such, it is not unreasonable to say all peaceful solutions have not been explored. The search for a peaceful solution can come from the genuine belief one is possible.
This has nothing to do with appeasement where negociators brokered peace to save their hides.
As for your questions :
Saddam wants WMD. I don't see anything in his character which contradicts that. His megalomania and his willingness to be the great power of the Arab World (didn't he want to unite Arabs btw ?) obviously means he wants to have them. I am much less sure of his ability to have his wishes granted. Very different with Hitler.
By the same token, Saddam has proven expansionism. He was spanked by the UN (which has done its mission of avoiding a disruption in the border intangibility). And by the same token, he seems now unable to satisfy his expansionist apetite with his rag-tag army.
No, France and Germany do not broker peace for fear of the lives of their citizens. Hence, they are not appeasing.
Saying so would assimilate any attempt to solve a problem peacefully to "appeasement". It would be equivalent to saying negociation is for wimps and cowards.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
Irrelevant.
The Law is not 'whatever leads to good results, in the opinion of the tougher guy'. The Law is the letter of the Law.
The UN Charter (at least theoretically) is the Law. The US are preparing to break it. Sophisms donīt get you anywhere.
|
tsk tsk tsk
The law requires use of force to enforce it. Since the UN doesn't have "policemen" it requires single nations to take upon themselves the responsibility.
Just as a policeman is entitled to sometimes invade your privacy and often take away your freedom. "why should a policeman take care of Siro's safety" you ask - because safety is one of the rules we want to enforce. To do that, you sometimes use tough measures against people who break the law.
Now, the UN, lately, have been not enforcing it's decisions, which is bad. It hasn't been forcing it's decision on Iraq, but also on US, Israel , Syria, and tons of other countries.
This is bad. And no one is willing to do anything about it.
I'm happy that at least some of the decision, now get backup from the US. Suddenly the UN asks the US to stop enforcing UN deicision too.
It's like the UN asks to be irrelevant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Comrade : I thought you were used to it, thanks to Dino, Spiff, Ge, Che, Shi, Jaguar etc etc etc. Does anyone here consider you make valid arguments (just one) ? |
Che often makes valid arguments, so I would be surprised if he didnīt recognize mine.
The others you mention rarely say anything that isnīt confused (or plain wrong), so I would be surprised if they *did* agree with me on something.
I think among the Euros more than a few quietly agree with me, you are the only one who explicitly doesnīt.
But, however that may be, being right is not a question of vote count, anyway. You confuse being right with being popular.
Being right is about being able to say, at a later date: 'I told you so'. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I read your link.
I disagree with your definition.
Terror is using mass killing targetted at innocent people, not implicated in making or executing political decisions.
Guerilla or Partisans, are legitimate in my view to assassinate military and political personnel.
|
Whether you consider it legitimate to assassinate politicians or not, does not exclude it from the definition of a terrorist act- it is using the means of terror (violence, intimidation, murder) to seek to rule or effect changes to government or policy (or achieve any other objective). A guerrilla action would be a small unit of the Palmach or Haganah attacking regular Arab armies or British armed forces in the run up to the war for Israel's independence- it would not be massacring unarmed villagers at Deir Yassin, for instance, or launching Katyushas into a kibbutz's school room.
I would refer you to any standard English dictionary- the word guerilla derives from the Peninsula War in Spain, where the British regular forces were aided by irregular units of Spanish fighters who fought the French occupying forces.
'Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
terrorism: "...the systematic use of terror or unpredictable violence against governments, publics, or individuals to attain a political objective. Terrorism has been used by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and ethnic groups, by revolutionaries, and by the armies and secret police of governments themselves."
Terrorism is defined in the U.S. by the Code of Federal Regulations as: "..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorists:
Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
International terrorism involves violent acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which the perpetrations operate or seek asylum.'
http://www.terrorismfiles.org/encyc.../terrorism.html
Your definition of guerilla would make the assassination of Caesar and of Martin Luther King 'guerilla' actions- which they clearly were not.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-02-2003 06:18
and thus is a legitimate target for a resistance movement.
I think i'm starting to communicate with him somehow
Nor do I think 'everybody' disagrees with me. Itīs just the (half a dozen or so) usual suspects that always disagree with me, and they have a few things in common: All of them (except you) are Americans, and all (including you, I feel) are of the somewhat unprincipled persuasion.
|