It has begun

Re: *sigh*

dun make it so personal man~

 

Re: *sigh*

Monkfish, if you have a valid point then I would suggest backing it up with actual fact. Some type of documentation to at least moderately validate your point would be better than the nationalistic racism that you are spouting off with your argument being basically if CNN says it, then it's got to be true. Quit reading the ticker on the bottom of MSNBC and do some legwork, before you don't have one to stand on. Peace.

 

Re: *sigh*

Josh,
You should reread the 1st paragraph of GE's reply to you, perhaps take a walk to Starbucks and think about what he means by your lack of an argument. The fact that America backed the foundation of the UN and its ideology (which is a well known fact and needed not to be reminded) has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. IF ANY… you should logically question why the UN opposition even with the heavy US influence with in. Don’t waste your argument, the time and energy of the people here by questioning the obvious. If you can justify bombing and killing of people to yourself because “American is the strongest so we can do whatever we want.†or if you are a patriot and be willing to defend America’s stance regardless of right or wrong, then fine. Don’t drag in more garbage just because other people do not agree with you.

And before you make any more statements about how to play the war of “gameâ€Â, do some traveling and get a grip of the rest of the world first. To an American a Tomahawk cruise missile is just money; to an Iraqi it’s 1000 lbs bomb of destruction to the country they’ve built, to the family they’ve raised. Thousands of Iraqis men, women, and children are dead, and thousands more will die. Who is America to free them like this while raising the American flag in their country?
It’s argument like this or the lack of that makes the rest of the world think Americans are ignorant.

 

Re: *sigh*

Why are there mass reports of uprising of the Iraqi people then, reported on all news networks. Why is Husseins national guard kidnapping women and children, and telling their husband they will all be exicuted if they do not fight against the Americans? If we are causing such wanton destruction, shouldn't they be gleefully joining up to fight against the United States?

Where did I EVER say, "america is the strongest, so we can do what we want, blah blah blah." I have never made such an argument, and even as I sit here and argue a point I don't even fundimentally beleive in, I know enough not to make such a stupid argument. Hitler built up Germany and we caused thousands upon thousand of civilian casualties, that was justified. While Saddam is by no means a Hitler, the house he has built is not one of or for the Iraqi people, it is one for Saddam and only Saddam.

 

Re: *sigh*

Alright, I'll be the first to admit I may be lacking in evidence, I could find it but I really can't be bothered - besides in all fairness I've seen no evidence that contradicts what I've said.
In regards to the issue of legality of the war, two people on a message board with little to no knowledge of international law (which seemingly doesn't exist according to schaede) aren't gonna resolve it, we're just gonna go round and round in circles.

I don't hate nations, I don't hate American people, what I do hate are governments (which includes my own) that have the attitude of 'we can do whatever we feel like doing' - which then resides in the minds of their people.
I hate the fact that we live in false democracies that claim to be for peace and freedom but their actions contradict what they preach - and no-one seemingly does anything about it.

I hate people's short sightedness over all issues, not just in regards to war on Iraq. Nobody ever thinks long term, nobody ever considers the bad consequences, only the good consequences.

If you can't see the hypocrisy that surrounds both our governments in abundance, then maybe I should give up and become a mindless robot like everyone else.

 

Re: *sigh*

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

 

Re: *sigh*

First off, what the fuck does quasi-legal mean? In my experience something is either legal or illegal, there is no inbetween. That way, you're a lot more likely to avoid having a two tier justice system.

Secondly I watched the BBC news that had two lawyers whose specialties are in international law (both British), one said the declaration was legal, the other opposed - on the basis of both their arguments I formed my own opinion, which I'm fully entitled to do. You listened to one person's opinion then merely adopted it as your own - good for you.

Thirdly where the hell did I say mistakes don't happen in war? At the very least the Coalition forces could admit to making a mistake, instead of palming it off on Saddam, or saying its the Iraqi's fault for putting weapons there.
Besides just because 'there's always casualties in war' doesn't mean I should just accept it when it happens. It doesn't mean there should always be casualties in war, does it?
And don't bother replying with 'they're doing all they can to reduce casualties' because its bullshit. If they truly did all they could to avoid civilian casualties then logically thinking, there would be no war, or at the very least not drop bombs.

Fourthly, if I hate America its because your government (past and present) has given me enough reason to do so. Let's see there's the Kyoto Agreement, the complete disregard for human rights with that concentration camp down at Git-Mo Bay, not to mention the BLATANT attitude of 'we're the (self-proclaimed) greatest nation in the world, we do as we please'. Whilst all the while they claim to be for peace and freedom.
Oh, by the way, America pulled out of the league of nations /versus/images/graemlins/frown.gif when it actually was America's idea in the first place.

Now, I can't do anything to cure your blind and ignorant love of America, that is just an issue you will have to work out on your own.

 

Re: *sigh*

Shadowdean, if you're being told of mass reports of civilian uprisings, then I'm afraid you're being lied to. This simply is not happening.

The Iraqis are responding with a mix of gratitude, resentment, distrust, and hatred. For example, there's the story yesterday of food and water being handed out to civilians. In the American media, we see the pictures of the people clamoring for the food, but only that. In the Guardian UK, you read the whole incident, where people are angry and frustrated; and when gunfire erupts again, the soldiers have to leave.

Saddam is, of course, a terrible tyrant; no reasonably intelligent human being would deny this. The trick is that many of us felt that way back in the '80s, when he was being actively supported by the Reagan Administration.

I suspect your access to media is the key. Don't watch TV -- they're just insulting your intelligence. Listen to the BBC, read the Guardian and the Independent, read the Washington Post and the NY Times. Then check out sites like Cursor, which keeps a lowdown of important stories. Keep informed from those sources.

 

Re: *sigh*

"Quasi-Legal" is a term used when something doesn't necessarily fall on either side of a law or set of rulings. It's the "Gray Area" that many businesses and individuals exploit until a court of law or governing body clearly states how it is no longer legal or that it is legal.

Listening to 2 people doesn't mean you're more informed than someone who has only listened to one. It just means you are "potentially" more knowledgable. Although, I suspect that both parties involved here need more information to really create a sufficient amount of knowledge on the subject at hand.

Now you're just coming off blatantly ignorant. The coalition forces are working their best at keeping civilian casualties down. If they weren't then this situation would be resolved as all we would do is send in the USAF and BRAF and carpet bomb the place. The amount of targets hit versus the amount of collateral damage is quite well done currently. It always sucks when innocent people die in war, but when your enemy puts them in harms way then you sometimes do not have a choice. Complete pacifism doesn't win wars. A Nobel Peace prize isn't going to help you in a fight unless you hit the other person with it. Diplomacy failed. Now you have to deal with the consequences.

All nations do whatever benefits them the most. Britain, France, Germany, USA, Russia, etc. are all the same way. This war in my opinion is about control of resources. The US and UK want controlling rights to the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. The UN wants it for themselves. France, Germany, and Russia get a tremendous amount of oil from Iraq and they do not want the US/UK rationing out what they can have.

----------

Now about your hatred for the US. I can't change your mind and honestly don't care to. Although, I will offer an opinion on your points for your hatred.

The Kyoto Agreement was introduced to cut down the amount of emissions to help curb Global Warming. The US and several other countries wanted to ammend it to help keep themselves from losing economically. The agreement was cutting many countries by a staggering 10%+ on greenhouse gases, but allowing other countries like Norway, Australia, and Iceland to increase their emissions by those same amounts if I remember correctly. The US fought back saying this would cause many companies to move to the lower emission countries and their respective country would lose a great deal of revenue due to this. This would mean many Canadiens, Americans, Japanese, and several European nations would have higher unemployment, lower revenue, and result in a probable decline in import/export goods. Bad business.

Git-Mo Bay (Guantanamo Bay Naval Station) is a holding area for Al-Quaida and Taliban prisoners captured in Afghanistan. These are people who have fought against, killed troops/civilians, or otherwise impaired our ongoing campaign against terrorism. Eventhough they are not covered by the Geneva Convention we are making sure that they are properly taken care of. Several concerned world associations have been given permission to inspect their conditions and as of yet have found none. The early problems was when they were kept in improperly ventalated storage crates until proper buildings could be constructed. They are not correctly POW's, but Afghanistan's ruling party has given us permission to detain them as terrorists.

While I agree that we US citizens and our great nation suffer from ego. We are not the only nation that does. France thinks they are a cultural mecca, England thinks it *IS* the worlds history, and Asia thinks the rest of the world should go away. The US is one of the youngest nations and has some of the highest political ability in the world. We are every nation on one continent. If the US was such a horrible place, then we wouldn't have the highest immigration % on the planet. Our problem is we try and help too many people, but don't help ourselves enough. Maybe some day that will change.

Just for the record the US was never a member of the LoN. Without the failure of the LoN we would not have the UN today. The US wouldn't take part originally, because we wanted countries to be able to handle themselves while we worked at fixing our own problems. That all changed about 20 years later.

Now get over yourself. It's ok to have national pride, but don't be such an ass about it.

 

Re: *sigh*

All media is marred by nationalism. The BBC is not exempt. Watch/read everything you can get your hands/eyes on and make a decision for yourself. Never accept any media blindly, becuase you're doomed to failure at the intelligence and reasoning level.

 

Re: *sigh*

2 cents -

Monkfish has a good point about it being illegal to declare war unless it's clearly a case of self defense.

Others have made the good point that you should cite sources if you're going to make that kind of bold assertion. I agree. I also agree Americans don't know enough about international law, but that's the way it is for now. Anyway, monk should probably have done the digging himself, but three minutes of Google research brought me to:

"In 1945, war was declared an unacceptable way to settle political differences, and was made illegal, except in the case of self-defense. States retain the right to defend themselves, individually or collectively, against attacks on their independence or their territory, in response to a (legal or illegal) use of force. The United Nations Charter allows member States the use of force in collective action to maintain or restore international peace and security, as a form of self-defense."

This is a summary of one of the major tenets of International Humanitarian Law, a collection of about 30 treaties (including the geneva convention) which have been ratified by a large number of countries.

One way the US has squirmed around the question of law is to not declare war, but rather to cite resolutions passed on september 14th that allow them "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" responsible for the Sept. 11th attacks.
If you're not in a legal state of war, Geneva convention doesn't apply.
By fabricating links between the September 11th attacks and Saddam Hussein / Iraq... the US has a legal excuse to wage war and ignore any claims that they're violating International Humanitarian Law.

2 more cents - Yes the legality of this war is up for debate, but it's a moot point. If there were a courtroom and lawyers, then we'd see Sam Waterston easily shoot down the US's it-was-in-self-defense ploy. Then there'd be some cello music and the US would be hauled out of the courtroom by a burly bailiff. In reality there's no mechanism in place for enforcement of these treaties, so all we can do is yap about it after the fact. A million people might want to play judge, jury, and prosecutor, but nobody wants to be the bailiff.

 

Re: *sigh*

I admit to being ignorant to the term quasi-legal and would like to thank you for clearing that up, it seems you don't particularly agree the term should exist and nor do I.

In regards to me supposedly claiming to know more about international law than Shadowdean, that was not my intention. My intention was to show we both took our opinions from somewhere else, and that we both know next to nothing about international law.

Yes I concede complete pacifism doesn't win wars, but it does avert the loss of innocent life - remember I am against this war. Also I don't believe diplomacy failed, i think it wasn't given enough time to work.

"All nations do whatever benefits them the most. Britain, France, Germany, USA, Russia, etc. are all the same way. This war in my opinion is about control of resources. The US and UK want controlling rights to the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. The UN wants it for themselves. France, Germany, and Russia get a tremendous amount of oil from Iraq and they do not want the US/UK rationing out what they can have."

I couldn't agree more.

How many times do I have to say it - I DO NOT HATE AMERICA.
I may disagree with US policies but I do not hate anyone for it. And even after reading the information you supplied about Git-Mo, which I'm thankful for, I still believe its wrong to detain people indefinitely without trial - also there is no guarantee there aren't innocent people being detained there.

You're right, the majority of English people would agree England is the world's history - I personally don't agree with this, I think we're the bastards of history with our imperialism etc. etc. I have no national pride by the way.

As I was taught it was because the US didn't join the LoN was the main reason why it failed.

Still, I defend my right to be an arse /versus/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

Re: *sigh*

[ QUOTE ]
Shadowdean said:

Why are there mass reports of uprising of the Iraqi people then, reported on all news networks. Why is Husseins national guard kidnapping women and children, and telling their husband they will all be exicuted if they do not fight against the Americans? If we are causing such wanton destruction, shouldn't they be gleefully joining up to fight against the United States?

Where did I EVER say, "america is the strongest, so we can do what we want, blah blah blah." I have never made such an argument, and even as I sit here and argue a point I don't even fundimentally beleive in, I know enough not to make such a stupid argument. Hitler built up Germany and we caused thousands upon thousand of civilian casualties, that was justified. While Saddam is by no means a Hitler, the house he has built is not one of or for the Iraqi people, it is one for Saddam and only Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

The news of the uprisings just like the news of the chemical/biological plant being used for WMD´and the use of SCUDS has been disproven by the pentagon itself.
The Shiíte leader in exile in Iran himself said there was no uprising in Basra and that he advises the US to leave Iraq as soon as Saddam is gone becouse they have not forgotten what happened after the 91 uprising(The US in 91 after driving Iraq out of Quwait promised backing for a popular uprising against Saddam, in the north Kurds and in the South Shiíte´s heeded that call only to be left with no US backing in overthrowing Saddam and getting killed by the thousands, the US did nothing to save their lives.

 

Re: *sigh*

A recent update on CNN has said that it has been confirmed that Saddam has used at least 2 missiles that were in violation of UN rulings. One hit Kuwait that was at 198km range, another hit troops in Iraq that was at 159km, and another was shot down by a patriot missile at 140km (predicted range of 175km). Take that as you will.

 

Re: *sigh*

[ QUOTE ]
CreeD said:

2 more cents - Yes the legality of this war is up for debate, but it's a moot point. If there were a courtroom and lawyers, then we'd see Sam Waterston easily shoot down the US's it-was-in-self-defense ploy. Then there'd be some cello music and the US would be hauled out of the courtroom by a burly bailiff. In reality there's no mechanism in place for enforcement of these treaties, so all we can do is yap about it after the fact. A million people might want to play judge, jury, and prosecutor, but nobody wants to be the bailiff.



[/ QUOTE ]

I know, thats why I tried to get off that issue and concentrate on what should or is most likely to happen after the conflict.

 

Re: *sigh*

you said: "Saddam is, of course, a terrible tyrant; no reasonably intelligent human being would deny this. The trick is that many of us felt that way back in the '80s, when he was being actively supported by the Reagan Administration."

The problem is with people like Saddam, much like Hitler, Noreiga, the Shaw, etc..appeasement is rarely a successfull option.

FOR the record: I have been opposed to the war in the manner in which has been gone about. Creed can verify that from our conversations and he is free to ask my friends around campus that next time he comes down. I do not believe rushing off to do battle is the way to solve the worlds problems. I do believe Sadda is a problem and has to be delt with. I believe the real threat of force behind any diplomatic solutions had to be present. I do belive that we needed more time. I do beleive, if we are going in there, that the United States is doing this for oil, but also to help the Iraqi people. I do believe we are being as carefull as possible to keep civvy casualties to a minimum. If we were not, we would just bomb the crap out of them.I do believe we have good intentions for the Iraqi people, albiet a bit misguided. We have a massive humanitarian aid machine in work, howeve we do not have any plans (That I know of) to stick around help help form a more stable goverment. I do believe that it is semi-wrong for us to say a dictatorship is not a valid goverment. Fuck, look at china, we sure as hell started licking their balls. Israel, due to its nature, is probally the only country that is able to maintain a democracy in the region due to the fact it is NOT a religion controlled nation. The other nations have a history of dictatorships, its hard to change that in a few months. (Jordan could very well see a form of democracy in the next 20-50 years). My main problem with this war is not so much the waging of it, but again - the manner in which we have done so. BUsh wanted a war, bush got a war.

 

Re: *sigh*

Obviously, that was the point to my post. The problem with the average American is that they do accept everything so blindly. Of course, only 11% actually read a daily newspaper. Almost 90% are getting their, um, information from the broadcast and cable networks, whose performance thus far has been mediocre at best -- blind, pro-White House propaganda at worst.

The BBC certainly reports from their point of view, but they didn't gain their worldwide reputation for nothing. And their coverage of this war has been far more honest and refreshing than US media. But that's what we get when five corporate behemoths own everything.

 

Re: *sigh*

I don't trust media at all. They're all shady in my opinion.

 

Re: *sigh*

Talking about the media, I thought it was interesting about America wanting control of what media reports come out of Iraq. At this time America is only letting "Embedded" reporters into Iraq to go with the troops, which basically means that they report only what America lets them report, and they can be told to go home by the US at any time.

Of course this means that the US have some control over what is seen on the news services, but what I found more interesting was the missile that hit the broadcasting system for Aljazeera, and (unconfirmed) reports of missiles being aimed where the new broadcasting antenna system etc. has been set up. I think after the Arab television networks show pictures of captured soldiers the US wouldn't want them reporting what they couldn't control.

 

Re: *sigh*

Psychological Warfare starts with good propoganda. If you control the media, then you have a very good advantage in creating doubt and hope.