|
 Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
 Re: Protests against occupation?  [Re: silversoul7]
#2452059 - 03/19/04 03:48 PM (20 years, 1 month 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
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Swami]
#2452128 - 03/19/04 04:11 PM (20 years, 1 month 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
--------------------
|
 Baby_Hitler
Errorist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,652
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 minutes, 52 seconds
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Swami]
#2452465 - 03/19/04 05:54 PM (20 years, 1 month 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.
--------------------
This space for rent
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Phred]
#2452473 - 03/19/04 05:57 PM (20 years, 1 month 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.
|
 Ravus
Not an EggshellWalker
Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#2452478 - 03/19/04 05:59 PM (20 years, 1 month 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.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Phred]
#2453009 - 03/19/04 09:44 PM (20 years, 1 month 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. 
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 03:15 AM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#2453390 - 03/20/04 01:31 AM (20 years, 1 month 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.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: phi1618]
#2453399 - 03/20/04 01:34 AM (20 years, 1 month 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?
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: phi1618]
#2453555 - 03/20/04 03:29 AM (20 years, 1 month 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
--------------------
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 20 years, 30 days
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: phi1618]
#2454119 - 03/20/04 11:48 AM (20 years, 1 month 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.
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 20 years, 30 days
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Swami]
#2454125 - 03/20/04 11:50 AM (20 years, 1 month 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.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
#2454151 - 03/20/04 11:59 AM (20 years, 1 month 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.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Xlea321]
#2457818 - 03/21/04 04:14 PM (20 years, 30 days 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."
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: zappaisgod]
#2459195 - 03/22/04 12:02 AM (20 years, 30 days 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)
|
Siphersh
Self-proclaimedhuman
Registered: 10/12/01
Posts: 120
Loc: Hungary
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Phred]
#2461346 - 03/22/04 06:47 PM (20 years, 29 days 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.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Xlea321]
#2461445 - 03/22/04 07:25 PM (20 years, 29 days 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.
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: zappaisgod]
#2462424 - 03/22/04 11:55 PM (20 years, 29 days 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.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Phred]
#2463473 - 03/23/04 10:47 AM (20 years, 29 days 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.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: Krishna]
#2463512 - 03/23/04 11:05 AM (20 years, 29 days 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.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Protests against occupation? [Re: phi1618]
#2463533 - 03/23/04 11:12 AM (20 years, 29 days 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
--------------------
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder 
Cultivation Supplies 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
zorbman
1 2 all )
Cannashroom
Xlea321
Worf