Home | Community | Message Board


Reliable Spores
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Amazon Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
Protests against occupation?
    #2447894 - 03/18/04 04:44 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

How many of you are having protests in your cities on Saturday against the US occupation of Iraq? Will you go?
For me, personally, I don't think it is sensible, with the state Iraq is in right now, to just pull out everybody and say, "well we made a mess and now you can clean it up Iraqis..." But I certainly don't think that having US troops with a military/corporate agenda in there is the right idea. I would say UN... but after having spoken with some "experts" on the middle east (British/Pakistani writer Tariq Ali, for instance), I'm not sure... he said that the average Iraqi has a lot of hatred for the UN, because of sanctions.

So now I don't know what to think... still going to the protest in Bergen, but I'm supposed to hold a speech and am trying to figure out how I feel...

Any thoughts?


--------------------




Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Krishna]
    #2448006 - 03/18/04 05:00 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

How many of you are having protests in your cities on Saturday against the Iranian suppression of dissidents? Zero? I thought so.

How many of you are having protests in your cities on Saturday against the North Korean nuclear saber-rattling and murder of North Koreans? Zero? I thought so.

How many of you are having protests in your cities on Saturday against the terrorist attacks in Madrid? Zero? I thought so.

Looks like the weekend is free for partying, then. Good times, good times.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Phred]
    #2448018 - 03/18/04 05:02 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

*claps* Excellent question.


--------------------
Opinions are like assholes; everyone needs one or else they'd explode


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Krishna]
    #2448024 - 03/18/04 05:03 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Do you think that the majority of the Iraqi population is better or worse off due to the "occupation"?


--------------------
Opinions are like assholes; everyone needs one or else they'd explode


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Phred]
    #2448348 - 03/18/04 06:27 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

:thumbup:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Phred]
    #2448368 - 03/18/04 06:34 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
How many of you are having protests in your cities on Saturday against the Iranian suppression of dissidents? Zero? I thought so.

How many of you are having protests in your cities on Saturday against the North Korean nuclear saber-rattling and murder of North Koreans? Zero? I thought so.

How many of you are having protests in your cities on Saturday against the terrorist attacks in Madrid? Zero? I thought so.



Isn't that along the same lines as the anti-war sentiment that there are more dangerous dictators out there than Saddam and that we should be focusing on them instead? I believe when I brought up that argument, the response I got was somewhere along the lines of "We'll get to them later." I guess the same response can be said here.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Krishna]
    #2448371 - 03/18/04 06:35 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Poll: Iraqis say life better now

"A majority of Iraqis believe life is better now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a poll by broadcasting organizations released to coincide with the first anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion.

And almost half -- 49 percent -- of those questioned believe the invasion of their country by U.S. and British troops was right, compared with 39 percent who said it was wrong.

The poll -- the first nationwide poll in Iraq since the war -- was commissioned by ABC of the U.S., Britain's BBC, Germany's ARD and Japan's NHK.

Some 57 percent of respondents said life was better now than under Saddam, against 19 percent who said it was worse and 23 percent who said it was about the same.

Iraqi people appeared optimistic about the future, with 71 percent saying they expected things to be better in a years time, six percent predicting it will be worse and nine percent the same."
_______________________________________________

this is why nobody ever takes the anti-crowd seriously these days. jeeze.  the removal of saddam hussein and fostering of democracy in iraq is one of the few good things going on in the world these days. ask an iraqi. shit...  :shake:

how about protesting the occupation of cuba, north korea, iran, china, or any of the other dozens of countries held hostage by oppressive, unelected regimes?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Krishna]
    #2448616 - 03/18/04 07:50 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

If there was I assure you I would be there. Only I would be protesting the protestors.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: ]
    #2448849 - 03/18/04 08:38 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

A majority of Iraqis believe life is better now than it was under Saddam Hussein...

New Poll: 99% of the families of American soldiers who were killed say that life was better when their brother/father/son was alive.

New Poll: 100% of the Iraqi civilians who lost children from coalition bombings say that life was better when their sons and daughters were alive.

New Poll: 100% of the Iraqi civilians who lost limbs from coalition bombings say that life was easier with four useful limbs.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Swami]
    #2448907 - 03/18/04 08:47 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Source? :smirk:


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2448939 - 03/18/04 08:54 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

New Poll: 100% of the dead Iraqi civilians, international journalists and American soldiers declined to comment.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Swami]
    #2449011 - 03/18/04 09:11 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

New poll, 100% of iraqis from saddams torture camps agree that life is better when you arent tortured.
New poll, 100% of the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of iraqis who would have eventually been killed by saddam now wont be killed, far outnumbering those who were killed.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2449054 - 03/18/04 09:21 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Dear Black,

Saddam did his most numerous slaughter decades ago when he, George senior and Rumsfeld were "buddies". At the time there was not a single whisper from Washington on Human Rights violations, so apparently that is NOT the reason that we invaded.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Swami]
    #2449065 - 03/18/04 09:23 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

I never said that the reason we invaded iraq was to liberate iraqis, or to prevent iraqi deaths. It was just a bonus to the invasion


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Swami]
    #2451155 - 03/19/04 10:31 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Swami]
    #2451217 - 03/19/04 11:06 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Saddam did his most numerous slaughter decades ago when he, George senior and Rumsfeld were "buddies".

Amen.

All the mass graves found have been dated from the 80's when Reagan and Bush were sucking Saddams cock, or post-gulf war when Bush encouraged the Shiites to rebel, then let Saddam abuse the no-fly zone to slaughter them with helicopter gunships. A weak Saddam was seen as the better alternative.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Swami]
    #2451246 - 03/19/04 11:27 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Swami said:
Dear Black,

Saddam did his most numerous slaughter decades ago when he, George senior and Rumsfeld were "buddies". At the time there was not a single whisper from Washington on Human Rights violations, so apparently that is NOT the reason that we invaded.




Key word most, and with libya in charge of human rights violations in the the gay UN, whos to say if he slaughtered more people that the UN would have done shit about it?


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2451880 - 03/19/04 03:41 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

First there was the Iraq / Iran war of which there was no Washington mention of human rights violations. In fact, we supplied Iraq with many of their weapons including those we now deem morally unacceptable.

The first Gulf War was about Kuwaiti oil. No mention then of the fact that Kuwaitis were slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields and that Saddam got a verbal go ahead from the US ambassador to take action.

Prez Bush stated that we were protecting the democracy of Kuwait. As Kuwait is a monarchy, was he merely ignorant or a liar? Either is unacceptable in a world leader.

During that war we used Syria as an ally in order to have flyover space. Syria is one of the top human right's violators according to Amnesty International and other watchdog organizations. No mention then of Syria's human right's violations.

Then - ALL OF A SUDDEN - the USA is the moral watchdog of the world. Which is why we went into Iraq - not!

No wait, it was about terrorism and 9/11. No that can't be it because:

Bush: No Proof of Saddam Role in 9-11
By Terence Hunt
The Associated Press

Wednesday 17 September 2003

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 ? disputing an impression that critics say the administration tried to foster to justify the war against Iraq.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

The president's comment was the administration's firmest assertion that there is no proven link between Saddam and Sept. 11. It came after Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) on Sunday clouded the issue by saying, "It's not surprising people make that connection" between Saddam and the attacks.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #2451940 - 03/19/04 04:12 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

whos to say if he slaughtered more people that the UN would have done shit about it?

Well Bush and Reagan did absolutely fuck all about it when Saddam was busy slaughtering. They were so close to him it was dubbed "the love affair".


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2452025 - 03/19/04 04:36 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Okay, I was referring to what could have happened, you are referring to what happened in the past, two different things.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2452059 - 03/19/04 04:48 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

silversoul7 writes:

Isn't that along the same lines as the anti-war sentiment that there are more dangerous dictators out there than Saddam and that we should be focusing on them instead?

So the antiwar protestors have actually held protests against these dangerous dictators? When and where? I have to admit I missed them.

I believe when I brought up that argument, the response I got was somewhere along the lines of "We'll get to them later." I guess the same response can be said here.

You miss the point. The protest Krishna refers to is not against a dangerous dictator. It's against those who removed one.

As for the timing issue, let's remember the ex-dictator Hussein was deposed a year ago and captured three months ago. Isn't that enough time to organize a few protests against the remaining ones?


pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Swami]
    #2452128 - 03/19/04 05:11 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Swami writes:

In fact, we supplied Iraq with many of their weapons including those we now deem morally unacceptable.

And those would be?

No mention then of the fact that Kuwaitis were slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields...

Was slant-drilling? This has been proven rather than merely alleged by Hussein? Source, please.

And if we are to excuse the invasion and takeover of another country in order to settle a cross-border resource dispute, better hope the Canadians don't get too pissed over fishing violations.

...and that Saddam got a verbal go ahead from the US ambassador to take action.

1) The ambassador has denied doing any such thing.
2) Even if the ambassador had said that the US had no interest in disputes between Arab nations, that doesn't excuse Hussein's action. It was hardly a "go ahead".

No wait, it was about terrorism and 9/11.

Iraq was known to harbor terrorists. Not every terrorist organization in the world was involved in 9/11.

And the deposition of Hussein by force was due to Iraq's refusal to abide by any terms of the 1991 conditional ceasefire.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 24,448
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 49 minutes, 47 seconds
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Swami]
    #2452465 - 03/19/04 06:54 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Swami said:
Dear Black,

Saddam did his most numerous slaughter decades ago when he, George senior and Rumsfeld were "buddies". At the time there was not a single whisper from Washington on Human Rights violations, so apparently that is NOT the reason that we invaded.





So your arguement isn't that it should not have been done, but that it should have been done sooner.

I agree.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Phred]
    #2452473 - 03/19/04 06:57 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

As far as the US relationship with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, when Iraq DID have chemical weapons and used the regularly, see:
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

Iraq acquired chemical weapons with the cooperation of "foreign corporations". I haven't found references as to what specific companies supplied raw materials to Iraq, but given the relationship between Iraq and US at the time (early 80s), it is not too far fetched to believe that some of those companies may have been American. American corporations ceartainly supplied conventional weapons to Iraq, with the cooperation of the government.


pinksharkmark said:
"And the deposition of Hussein by force was due to Iraq's refusal to abide by any terms of the 1991 conditional ceasefire."

Two points:

First:
The question of whether the 1991 ceasefire was conditional is not so much a question of motivation as it is of legality in the context of the UN.

Members of the Bush administrations' stated motives for attacking Iraq were that they posed a clear and imminent threat to the security of the United States. I have covered those arguments in my post "Why the Iraq war was a mistake".

That Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease fire was not in itself sufficient cause to bear the costs of another war without the additional motivation of a threat to American national security.

Instead, it serves as a legal excuse to conduct the war without violating the UN and without an additional UN resolution sanctioning the war.

Second:
The 1991 cease-fire was NOT conditional.

The 1991 cease-fire came into effect with UN resolution 687, which also set forth inspection requirements that were accepted by Iraq.
However, nowhere in resolution 687 does it state that the cease-fire was conditional upon Iraq's compliance with the inspection requirements.
In fact, it specifically states, in paragraph 34:
"The Security Council. . .
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."
In other words, further action was needed from the Security Council to make the war in Iraq legal under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire.
See UN resolution 687(1991):
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

In order for a second Iraq war to be legal under the UN, another resolution was needed.


However, since the US has a veto to any UN resolution, this is not very relevant, because there is no way that the UN can pass a resolution condemning any US action. In other words, the US can violate the UN charter on the flimsiest excuse, because the UN has no real power over the US.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2452478 - 03/19/04 06:59 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

And I'm sure many third world countries of the world would love it if we took over the world and gave our "freedom" to everyone. Sure, everyone knows we're not exactly free to do what we want, but it is better than many others have it. Does it mean we should, just based on that? Definitely not. Why? It's not US business. Why does everyone come crying to the US when they have a problem? Why should the US lose their soldier's lives and spend billions just because the Iraqis wanted to be free from Saddam? (This wasn't the reason we went in anyways.) If they really were that oppressed, they should stick together and rebel, not become dependent on other countries.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Phred]
    #2453009 - 03/19/04 10:44 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Iraq was known to harbor terrorists. Not every terrorist organization in the world was involved in 9/11.
Which was why Bush declared NO link to 911 in the quote supplied. :rolleyes:

And the deposition of Hussein by force was due to Iraq's refusal to abide by any terms of the 1991 conditional ceasefire.
Which was why Bush has kept the non-stop chant going of "It's for the Iraqi people!"

No, it was because of UN violations. Even though the US has committed more UN  violations, but that is somehow, irrelevant.

If there was no imminent threat from Iraq (which Colin Powell freely admitted there wasn't), and no link to 911 (which Bush and Cheney admitted), and not for the Iraqi people as history has shown, and not because the US respected the UN, then what was the urgency?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Edited by Swami (03/20/04 04:15 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2453390 - 03/20/04 02:31 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

So your arguement isn't that it should not have been done, but that it should have been done sooner.

Sure. If Bush had invaded Iraq in 1988 to protect the Kurds after Halabja at least it would have been understandable.

Unfortunately of course he didn't. The year after the gas attack he gave Saddam a billion dollar loan.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: phi1618]
    #2453399 - 03/20/04 02:34 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

However, nowhere in resolution 687 does it state that the cease-fire was conditional upon Iraq's compliance with the inspection requirements.

More than that, all it states is Iraq must "accept" the terms.

I wonder how the neocons would feel if Iraq had launched an attack on Israel for their UN violations?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: phi1618]
    #2453555 - 03/20/04 04:29 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

phi1618 writes:

Iraq acquired chemical weapons with the cooperation of "foreign corporations".

Incorrect. Iraq acquired laboratory equipment and chemicals with the cooperation of foreign corporations. So did the Dominican Republic. One country used them to make nerve agents designed to affect humans. The other country used them to make pesticides.

American corporations ceartainly supplied conventional weapons to Iraq, with the cooperation of the government.

Conventional weapons? Name one. America supplied no tanks, no artillery, no jet fighters, no rifles, no ammunition, to Iraq.

The 1991 cease-fire was NOT conditional.

The 1991 cease-fire came into effect with UN resolution 687, which also set forth inspection requirements that were accepted by Iraq.
However, nowhere in resolution 687 does it state that the cease-fire was conditional upon Iraq's compliance with the inspection requirements.
In fact, it specifically states, in paragraph 34:
"The Security Council. . .
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."
In other words, further action was needed from the Security Council to make the war in Iraq legal under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire.
See UN resolution 687(1991):


I can't tell you what a pleasure it is to have a discussion with someone who has actually read the relevant material.

Unfortunately, your statement is incorrect.

687 is in fact a conditional ceasefire agreement in the classic and historical sense of the term. Conditional ceasefires existed long before there was such a thing as the UN. The fact that it is also recorded as a UN resolution doesn't alter the essential nature of the agreement -- it is first a ceasefire, and second a UN resolution.

Reread article 34 and you will see it says nothing more than that the Security council reserves the right to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the agreement. If Hussein had done what was required, the further steps would have been -- do nothing.

In order for a second Iraq war to be legal under the UN, another resolution was needed.

Incorrect. See above.

However, since the US has a veto to any UN resolution, this is not very relevant, because there is no way that the UN can pass a resolution condemning any US action. In other words, the US can violate the UN charter on the flimsiest excuse, because the UN has no real power over the US.

I don't give two shits bout the UN. The UN is not required to validate the concepts of war, invasion, defeat, surrender, ceasefire, resumption of hostilities.

Here's what happened -- a dictator conquered a peaceful neighboring country. He was asked to leave by friends of the conquered country. He didn't. He was told if he didn't leave, he'd be driven out. He was driven out. He was told if he did certain things, troops would refrain from entering his country and continuing their operations until he was deposed. He did exactly none of those things. Troops then entered his country and he was deposed.

That's it, that's all. The only thing that made this process different from numerous other essentially identical past tales from history was the length of time between the signing of the ceasefire and the resumption of hostilities. If it had been twelve days rather than twelve years, no one would have found anything the least bit remarkable about the situation. At least no one with more than a casual knowledge of the history of warfare.

...the UN has no real power over the US.

The UN has no real power over anyone. It was certainly amply demonstrated it had none over Hussein.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: phi1618]
    #2454119 - 03/20/04 12:48 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

phi1618 said:
Iraq acquired chemical weapons with the cooperation of "foreign corporations". I haven't found references as to what specific companies supplied raw materials to Iraq, but given the relationship between Iraq and US at the time (early 80s), it is not too far fetched to believe that some of those companies may have been American. American corporations ceartainly supplied conventional weapons to Iraq, with the cooperation of the government.




So?
Quote:


The question of whether the 1991 ceasefire was conditional is not so much a question of motivation as it is of legality in the context of the UN.




The UN doesn't decide legality, the world court does, and fuck them too, honestly. We can withdraw all support for the UN, the World Court, and see how long they last.
Quote:


That Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease fire was not in itself sufficient cause to bear the costs of another war without the additional motivation of a threat to American national security.




If we are in a fight because you owe me five dollars and I am winning the fight, and I say "i'll stop kicking your ass if you pay me the five dollars", then you say "OK", and you don't pay me, you are reverting back to the actions that were pre-agreement, meaning I'd kick your ass again.
Quote:


Second:
The 1991 cease-fire came into effect with UN resolution 687, which also set forth inspection requirements that were accepted by Iraq.
However, nowhere in resolution 687 does it state that the cease-fire was conditional upon Iraq's compliance with the inspection requirements.




From http://www.themoderntribune.com/un_resol..._-_iraq_wmd.htm

Quote:


Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons,





And ..
Quote:


8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;




So, in fact, the resolution does deal specifically with the inspection.
Quote:


33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);



Also, I think that Alex said somewhere earlier that SAddam and Co didn't ACCEPT this agreement, which they definatly did.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Swami]
    #2454125 - 03/20/04 12:50 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Swami said:
No, it was because of UN violations. Even though the US has committed more UN violations, but that is somehow, irrelevant.




Please cite all US violations of UN RESOLUTIONS. Thanks.
Quote:


If there was no imminent threat from Iraq (which Colin Powell freely admitted there wasn't), and no link to 911 (which Bush and Cheney admitted), and not for the Iraqi people as history has shown, and not because the US respected the UN, then what was the urgency?




Because SAddam was not abiding by a UN resolution that stopped the fight, ergo, the fight was back on.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2454151 - 03/20/04 12:59 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of

Read it carefully. Iraq shall unconditionally "ACCEPT". They accepted it.

Also, I think that Alex said somewhere earlier that SAddam and Co didn't ACCEPT this agreement, which they definatly did.

No, I never said that. You seem incapable of understanding the point. The UN ceasefire says the Iraqis must ACCEPT the terms of the aggreement. Iraq did this.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2457818 - 03/21/04 05:14 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

I don't think you have the slightest clue of legal language. You are positively Clintonian. "That depends on what the meaning of "is" is."


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #2459195 - 03/22/04 01:02 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

No zappa, they choose words very carefully in documents like this. Once the Iraqi's "accept the terms" the ceasefire comes into place. You may not like it but that's the way it is under international law. It's how you stop lunatics like Bush going to war whenever they want (unfortunately not this time)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSiphersh
Self-proclaimedhuman
Registered: 10/12/01
Posts: 120
Loc: Hungary
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Phred]
    #2461346 - 03/22/04 07:47 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

How many of you are having protests in your cities on Saturday against the Iranian suppression of dissidents? Zero? I thought so.

How many of you are having protests in your cities on Saturday against the North Korean nuclear saber-rattling and murder of North Koreans? Zero? I thought so.

How many of you are having protests in your cities on Saturday against the terrorist attacks in Madrid? Zero? I thought so.

Looks like the weekend is free for partying, then. Good times, good times.

pinky




What sense would it make, to protest against the actions of another country or terrorist group than the own? Do you think, the North-Korean leadership will say: "oooh, the American hippies are protesting against our ways, let's do something, quick, quick!"?

But your own government should be ready to pay attention to your protesting against its actions. The question about US. foreign policies and global stategy is not about other powers' actions in the world, but the question is what the USA does or doesn't do about it.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2461445 - 03/22/04 08:25 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

So all that was required was that Saddam Hussein receive the document? No action was required?

Newspaper headline today "Tens of Thousands Protest Worldwide"

The lunatic was authorized by several hundred other lunatics. See Congress. See other coalition members.

YOU are the lunatic fringe.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #2462424 - 03/23/04 12:55 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

So all that was required was that Saddam Hussein receive the document? No action was required?

Yep. All that the UN resolution stated was Iraq must "accept" the terms of the ceasefire. That's international law.

It is up to the UN to decide what action is appropriate after that.

The lunatic was authorized by several hundred other lunatics. See Congress.

But not by the UN. It's no use abiding by the UN and saying "Iraq won't obey the UN" when it suits you and then ignoring the UN when it suits you. That's the way of the fucking lunatic.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Phred]
    #2463473 - 03/23/04 11:47 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

pinksharkmark:
Here's what happened -- a dictator conquered a peaceful neighboring country. He was asked to leave by friends of the conquered country. He didn't. He was told if he didn't leave, he'd be driven out. He was driven out. He was told if he did certain things, troops would refrain from entering his country and continuing their operations until he was deposed. He did exactly none of those things. Troops then entered his country and he was deposed.

He was asked to leave by the UN, in Resolution 678:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm

The only part of any UN resolution authorizing force against Iraq is this:
The security council. . . 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Here is the cease-fire in 687:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

Although there were many other resolutions in 687, there was no indication that once cease-fire, once enacted, would be negated by violations of the other parts of 687. It is not the role of member-states to enforce the Security Councils resolutions without authorization.

Without authorization from the UN Security council, and lacking a self-defence justification, the US was in violation of article 2 of the UN charter ( http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm ).

Art. 2 The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article I, shall act in accordance with the following Principles: . . .

4. 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.


Your indication that the UN resolutions are secondary to military precedent ignores the (theoretical) role of the UN. The 1991 war in Iraq was a matter of the US enforcing UN security resolutions, using the authority granted in 678. With the passage of resolution 687, this authority expired. The fact that Iraq remained in violation of this resolution, and other UN resolutions, did not authorize further action by member-states against Iraq. Without explicit authorization from the security council, or a valid self-defence justification, the US was in violation of international law.

In practice, the UN has be clearly demonstrated to be impotent, little more than a forum for international discussion.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Krishna]
    #2463512 - 03/23/04 12:05 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

It seems to me that international opposition to the war in Iraq may be motivated more by a desire to restrain the US than horror over the fairly clean war that occured.
If any pre-WW2 European power had the overwhelming military advantage that the US has today, they probably would have used it to conquer territory and wring concessions or tribute from their rivals.

The existence of nuclear weapons, which make any victory in a large-scale, unrestrained military conflict innevitably Pyrrhic, is more of a restraint than any international organization. Also, there is a notion, true or not, that the US is an unusually moral and disciplined super-power (by historical standards, at any rate.)

Nonetheless, there has to be some degree of insecurity in nations faced with the overwhelming gap in military strength between the US and any rival, accompanied by a desire to restrain the US "hard-power" with diplomatic influence and "soft-power".

In this recent war, the US is internationally percieved as having been very pushy, proceeding against international oppinion. In an historical context, this is ridiculous - when has a sovereign nation, backed by all the necessary military might, ever been detered by "international oppinion"?
However, there is a hope or dream that the modern era can be distinguished by the death of realpolitik, that the world can come together and cooperate in a nonhostile, though competitive, manner, and that international organizations like the UN (or Leage of Nations) will help to achieve this goal through regulating conflict between the nations.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: phi1618]
    #2463533 - 03/23/04 12:12 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

phi1618 writes:

Your indication that the UN resolutions are secondary to military precedent ignores the (theoretical) role of the UN.

Of course my "indication" ignores the role of the UN, theoretical or otherwise. Why shouldn't it?

The theoretical role of the UN is completely irrelevant to the right of a country to repel invaders, to ask for assistance in repelling invaders, to aid another country in repelling invaders. Further, the UN need not be involved in the signing of ceasefires. The involved factions have the right to do that whether the UN says they can or not; whether the UN grants its imprimatur of "legality" or not; whether the UN spends the following dozen years wringing its hands and sending mighty "frown beams" of disapproval towards Iraq or not.

In practice, the UN has be clearly demonstrated to be impotent, little more than a forum for international discussion.

Indeed. It has also been demonstrated to be corrupt, biased, and a false provider of "respectability" for the most repressive and murderous kleptocracies on the planet. Why then is so much weight given to their blathering?

The legality of the resumption of hostilities has absolutely nothing to do with the Bizarro World of the UN, but only with common sense. Hostilities were paused in order to give a belligerent time to comply with the conditions of a ceasefire. When it became abundantly clear the conditions would never be met, hostilities resumed. Game over, case closed. What's so hard to understand?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Phred]
    #2463549 - 03/23/04 12:22 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Of course my "indication" ignores the role of the UN, theoretical or otherwise. Why shouldn't it?

You shouldn't because the US involvement in Iraq was initially a matter of enforcing an UN resolution and assisting the UN in assisting Kuait to repel invaders. Additionally, the more recent war was, to a degree, a matter of the US enforcing UN resolutions in Iraq.

I agree that the UN is far from perfect, but you can't ignore the fact that it was intimately involved in these preceedings from the begining, that it has a charter which forms part of international law and regulates member states, and that the US violated that charter by attacking Iraq last year without authorization from the UN security council.
This charter is part of international law. By violating the charter the US violated international law.
What's so hard to understand?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: phi1618]
    #2463608 - 03/23/04 12:50 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

phi1618 writes:

You shouldn't because the US involvement in Iraq was initially a matter of enforcing an UN resolution and assisting the UN in assisting Kuait to repel invaders.

No, the US was acting (along with several other nations) as an ally of Kuwait. The US would have assisted Kuwait whether the UN had made any resolutions condemning Iraq's actions or not.

.... and that the US violated that charter by attacking Iraq last year without authorization from the UN security council.

Have you read Resolution 1441?

This charter is part of international law. By violating the charter the US violated international law.

"International law"? There is no international law. There are various treaties, conventions, agreements, and accords -- none of which are binding upon anyone other than the signatory nations, and often (in practice) not even then.

What the UN has to say about this is entirely beside the point, so when I note that the UN has passed no resolution condemning the US for finishing what should have been finished back in 1991 I do so as an aside rather than to make any particular point.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Phred]
    #2463703 - 03/23/04 01:29 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

pinksharkmark:

Have you read Resolution 1441?

Does 1441 authorize anybody in the use of force? It threatens "serious consequences", and offers that the Security Council will "remain siezed of the matter", but compare that to the text of 678:

The Security Council... 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Without the specificity of the above paragraph, any claim that the recent war in Iraq was legitamized by the UN security council under resolution 1441 is disingenuous.


International law"? There is no international law. There are various treaties, conventions, agreements, and accords -- none of which are binding upon anyone other than the signatory nations, and often (in practice) not even then.

See: http://www.un.org/law/
Or, if you don't like the UN, how about Nurenberg:
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/etinternationallaw/nuremberg.htm
Or the Geneva conventions?
These may qualify as "various treaties, conventions, agreements, and accords", but they are presumed to be binding on all nations.


As I see it, our disagreement can be broken down into at least three components:
Did the US violate the UN charter?
If so:
How does it matter to the UN?
How does it matter to the US?

On the first point, I have made my own argument, which is unaffected by 1441, and Kofi Anann made a statment supporting my position prior to the attack. See: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/sprj.irq.un/

On the second, it hurts the credibility of the UN as a real force in regulating and preventing international conflict, which was the core reason it was formed. From the very begining of the preamble of the UN charter:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind..."
However, as the above article notes, only 3 (Korea, 1991 Iraq, and Afghanistan) of 26 wars involving member nations of the UN were authorized by the Security Council, and in all three, the US sought UN backing for a military operation it led.

On the third, the only effect is on "world opinion". Clearly, no resolution censuring the US can ever be passed, and there is no military force to directly threaten the US. The only damage done to the US is done to its relations with other countries, and its overwhelming economic and military importance minimizes the significance of any change.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,244
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Siphersh]
    #2466495 - 03/24/04 04:37 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

What sense would it make, to protest against the actions of another country or terrorist group than the own? Do you think, the North-Korean leadership will say: "oooh, the American hippies are protesting against our ways, let's do something, quick, quick!"?




Allow me to paraphrase....
What sense would it make, to protest against the actions of another country or terrorist group than the own? Do you think, the American leadership will say: "oooh, the worlds hippies and peaceniks are protesting against our ways, let's do something, quick, quick!"?


Why oh why didn't people protest the Coalition going into Iraq? Oh.... wait.....


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSiphersh
Self-proclaimedhuman
Registered: 10/12/01
Posts: 120
Loc: Hungary
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2466623 - 03/24/04 06:59 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Good point.

Do you think that protests in foreign countries don't have any influence on the actions of the US government? I always felt that a so-called "democratic" country should not abuse its power to act as the government of the whole world, based on the consent of its own people.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,244
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Siphersh]
    #2467971 - 03/24/04 03:59 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Do you think that protests in foreign countries don't have any influence on the actions of the US government?



Little if any.


Quote:

I always felt that a so-called "democratic" country should not abuse its power to act as the government of the whole world, based on the consent of its own people.



Why just a democratic country?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Amazon Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* List of Iraqi academics assassinated during Occupation...
( 1 2 all )
Cannashroom 3,036 31 12/01/08 03:23 AM
by C.M. Mann
* Iran Will Allow U.N. Inspections of Nuclear Sites Zahid 653 3 10/23/03 12:50 AM
by Zahid
* international law crunchytoast 1,202 18 11/15/05 08:18 AM
by crunchytoast
* Smoke pot and protest ol' Bushy right the fuck out
( 1 2 all )
carbonhoots 2,879 33 12/26/04 07:35 PM
by ekomstop
* SIGN TO END THE OCCUPATION!!!!! TNT 592 5 10/03/02 01:08 AM
by Baby_Hitler
* Confusing Occupation With Liberation Zahid 342 0 10/25/03 02:07 AM
by Zahid
* Iceland protestors call for international protest ekomstop 781 2 02/20/05 08:24 PM
by ekomstop
* Bush apologizes to Hu for protester Baby_Hitler 804 7 04/23/06 09:57 AM
by fresh313

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,832 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Shroom Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.119 seconds spending 0.013 seconds on 15 queries.