Diplomacy, UN, etc

[stu]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
How anybody can say this war is immoral is beyond me. Sounds to me like you wouldn't cross the street to help somebody, because 'its not my problem'

Panama. Nicaragua. Afghanistan (the first time). Cuba. El Salvador. Korea. Vietnam. Venezuela.

 

[Tom]

rofl

 

[Testin da Cable]

The name change was criticized by one young man in a House cafeteria.

"That's completely ludicrous to me," he said.

my faith in america restored

 

[lynchet]

Munkey:

of course. their islamic. they cant POSSIBLY have a normal government

That is not what I said at all. I sincerely hope they do end up with a fair and representative government. My point was that with the current general view of Islam in that region towards America I don't believe the people would ever support a puppet government put in place by the USA and as in any country once the governmental system loses credibility and revolution is in the air then its the perfect chance for more nutters to move in on power.

 

[stu]

How do you know what "Islam" thinks of the West? Because of what Fundamentalists like Bin Laden and tyrants like Hussein do? Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are about as representative of Islam as the IRA are of Catholicism. And Hussein is about as representative of Islam as Stalin was of Christianity. All religions have their fringe elements, and they usually represent the very opposite of what that religion stands for.

America is actually generally very well respected amongst the Arab community. Obviously with what is happening recently that will have taken a downturn, but that is not simply because America is 'sorting out' Iraq. It is because of the continuing support for Israel by America, *whilst* then claiming to interfere in Iraq for a dozen reasons all ignored in Israel. Sort out the Middle East peace process, make good on the promise to the Iraqi people made 10 years ago by Bush Snr, and you'll find most people in Iraq just want to get on with their lives as peacefully as possible. Easy really.

 

[lynchet]

Well I guess the only answer to that is - I hope you are right but I'm afraid I don't believe that you are.

America isn't that well respected and I still stand by the claim that the Iraqi people won't tolerate an American puppet government, thus opeing the way for the fringe groups ---- after all its often the fringe groups who win out as they are so focused and dont care what they do to succeed.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by quige
It's the possible flouting the democratic outcome of the UN process by two of the "biggest" proponants of the democratic system, that would in my opinion shift it towards the immoral end of the spectrum.

As opposed say, to Russia vetoing the conflict because it has outstanding financial interests with Iraq, or France because they just like being awkward ?

 

[xane]

Originally posted by stu
How do you know what "Islam" thinks of the West? Because of what Fundamentalists like Bin Laden and tyrants like Hussein do? Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are about as representative of Islam as the IRA are of Catholicism. And Hussein is about as representative of Islam as Stalin was of Christianity. All religions have their fringe elements, and they usually represent the very opposite of what that religion stands for.

Many people regard Iraq as "islamic fundementalist", nothing could be further from the truth, there are as many varieties of Islam as there are countries that have it as a religion, and just being a fundementalist does not mean you are in league with other fundementalists, take Al-Quaeda, bitterly opposed to the Saudi government, two extremist groups who don't exactly get along.

Iraq is basically an ultra-nationalist government, irespective of its religion, it will kill and persecute as many people as it can to dominate the region in the name of Saddam and his political motives, it has caused countless deaths of muslims and occupied two islamic sovereign states in the process, it is the nationalistic interests of Iraq that make it a danger to peace in the region.

Of course the fundementalists will see that differently, they'll take any excuse to blame the western governments.

 

[Kempo]

robin cook just resigned :/

 

[Wij]

The little ginger knobber

 

[bodhi]

Originally posted by Shocko
Everyone also forgets that Blair is a twat and disobeyed his people. Surives, and his political carreer manages to stay afloat. Twat

I can't believe I'm about to jump to Tony Blair's defence here, but shocko you are talking absolute bollocks. How has he "disobeyed his people"? You honestly think the tree huggers are in the majority in this country?

The biggest demonstration so far was 200,000 people iirc. Out of 56 million +. Now considering most of the demonstrators don't have jobs (or soap for that matter but I digress), its probably mostly the same people turning up to each of these protests. So at the absolute maximum, there's probably about a million people tops, who actively don't want a war against Iraq. 1 out of 56 is not a majority, no matter what spin you or the Daily Mirror put on the numbers.

 

[bodhi]

Originally posted by rynnor
Still history teaches us that all empires come to an end - in another ten or twenty years I hope to see a united Europe on top of the heap.

Am I the only person who finds this a scarier prospect than the US calling the shots? On the one hand you have the US, a country who likes bullying smaller nations most of the rest of the world doesn't care about, and on the other hand, you have a country that wont let its citizens eat straight bananas or Tomato Ketchup.

 

[Munkey-]

The only reason there is a large sense of hostility to the USA out here is because of its current actions at the moment. It's a bully, has no regard for the rest of the world and they are arrogrant bastards.

Does anyone see that this situation can be likened to the events leading up to World war one with the leauge of nations?

what goes around comes around

 

[Lester]

It's immaterial now. Diplomacy is over.

 

[Quige]

Originally posted by xane
As opposed say, to Russia vetoing the conflict because it has outstanding financial interests with Iraq, or France because they just like being awkward ?

Actually somone was telling me today that France buys most of it's oil from Iraq, which, if true, maybe kinda explains their position.

But of course no one is lily white in all this ...

Maybe we need to look at this VETO business if the UN as any sort of 'democratic' government of countries is to carry on with any strength. Really, why should a handful of the countries that make up the UN get to VETO stuff if the majority vote on stuff.

I also think they, the US, would do more of a service to the world if they spent a little more time addressing the Israel/Palestinian issues then this "War on Terror" that's led them to this position of 'needing' to sort Iraq out. But that might actually be addressing the actual reasons we have the terrorists in the first place, so I don't expect that's all that likely.

About as likely it seems as waiting for politicians to start addressing the crime rate by tackling the levels of poverty, and asking why people become involved in crime, rather than just trying to lock up more people after the crime has happened.

But, again, I'm not against going in and sorting Saddam out, and letting the people have a chance to put in place a democratic government of their devising, it's just that I question why it has to be now, why the inspectors aren't to given more time, when we've waited all this time already.

I also, when I hear the promises of how we'll help sort the county out afterwards, am minded of the situation in Afghanistan, where certain areas are now under the control of factions almost as extreme as the Taliban, and how the lives of women and girls, denied even an education, hasn't much improved, despite our 'help' rebuilding.

 

[bodhi]

</random thought>


The last time the French asked for more proof it came marching into Paris behind a Swastika.






I hope someone invades France again :/

 

[Shocko]

That is such a peice of American propaganda Bodhi. Typical of an American [attempted] joke, it's also wrong. If you think back to your history lessons(or maybe the last time you watched the discovery channel if you're a bit boring ), you might remember that France actually declared war on Germany in WW2, and not the other way around

Americans, fucking thick tbh.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by quige
why the inspectors aren't to given more time, when we've waited all this time already.

Why should they be given more time? Saddam has had 12 years to come clean, you might remember (or you might not) that it was Iraq that kicked them out in the first place!

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by Shocko
Americans, fucking thick tbh.

Have you actually been to the USA? I doubt it. Don't generalise about a people you don't know. Most Americans are definitely not thick.

They are a bit fat though.

 

[Shocko]

Wrong Tom. In 1997, the Inspectors withdrew themselves. It is a fact, that they withdrew of their own free will, so that America could bomb the shit out of the country.

If you're going to use propaganda and lies, at least try getting it off someone other than an American, because they can't even come up with very good lies

 

[Daffeh]

/me puts on his pro-war t-shirt

 

[Quige]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
Why should they be given more time? Saddam has had 12 years to come clean, you might remember (or you might not) that it was Iraq that kicked them out in the first place!

Well I guess that's a fair point if true. On the other hand most of the rest of the world seem prepared to wait a little bit longer until the inspectors themselves say that they aren't going to find anything else. It's another month or so and then the inspectors would have reported ... probably saying that Iraq can't account for the distruction of all the stuff we sold him, then we go to war, Saddam gets sorted, everybody's happy, and the UN get's to continue as our hope for peaceful co-existence.

And yes it has been 12 years, and maybe we shouldn't have turned away and left him in power then, but why did we let him chuck out the inspectors 12 years ago if that's the case... why didn't we force him to accept them back in. We'd just beaten his ass in the Gulf War. We could've gone back or put the pressure on more at anytime. But no, it waits until the US needs a scapegoat to pick on.

It's just that it seems to me that the whole situation has been stoked up by the US over the last 6 months or so, just so it can go strut it's stuff, and reclaim it's stolen mojo.

It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and seems an unseemly way for a 'christian' county to be behaving.

 

[Tom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_timeline/html/inspectors_barred.stm

Shocko, you were 4-5 when the first Gulf War took place. I was 18, watching live on CNN as the first airstrikes went in. Use your internet search engine with more care in future.


Oct. 29, 1997 Iraq demands US members of UNSCOM leave Iraq; all UNSCOM inspectors withdrawn (13Nov).
Nov 13, 1997 All UNSCOM inspectors withdrawn from Iraq, but allowed back later that month.
Sept, 1998 UNSCOM Inspector Scott Ritter resigns. Initially claims that US/UN did not act to help UNSCOM investigate suspected Iraqi weapons sites, later claims that the entire inspection program is unwarranted and Iraq has no WMD.
October, 1998 UNSCOM report shows Iraq has weaponized VX agent despite Iraqi dentials.
Nov 1, 1998 Iraq halts cooperation with UNSCOM.
Nov 15, 1998 US aborts missile strike after Iraq agrees to cooperate with UNSCOM.

 

[Quige]

Has anyone else read the leaked email from a reporter to her freinds talking about the recent World Econimic Forum. I found it quite an interesting read since it perports to relate the mood amoungst the movers and shakers of our world, especially in relation to the current Iraq crisis.

http://www.topica.com/lists/psychohistory/read/message.html?mid=1711891071&sort=d&start=4389

Just was going to quote a few of her impressions, but suddenly found I'd almost selected the whole thing ... restraint.

- If the U.S. unilaterally goes to war, and it is anything short of a quick surgical strike (lasting less than 30 days), the economists were all predicting extreme economic gloom: falling dollar value, rising spot market oil prices, the Fed pushing interest rates down towards zero with resulting increase in national debt, severe trouble in all countries whose currency is guaranteed agains the dollar (which is just about everybody except the EU), a near cessation of all development and humanitarian programs for poor countries. Very few economists or ministers of finance predicted the world getting out of that economic funk for minimally five-10 years, once the downward spiral ensues.

- The Middle East situation has never been worse. All hope for a settlement between Israel and Palestine seems to have evaporated. The energy should be focused on placing painful financial pressure on all sides in that fight, forcing them to the negotiating table. Otherwise, the ME may well explode. The war in Iraq is at best a distraction from that core issue, at worst may aggravate it. Jordan's Queen Rania spoke of the "desperate search for hope.

- US unilateralism is seen as arrogant, bullyish. If the U.S. cannot behave in partnership with its allies -- especially the Europeans -- it risks not only political alliance but BUSINESS, as well. Company leaders argued that they would rather not have to deal with US government attitudes about all sorts of multilateral treaties (climate change, intellectual property, rights of children, etc.) -- it's easier to just do business in countries whose governments agree with yours. And it's cheaper, in the long run, because the regulatory envornments match. War against Iraq is seen as just another example of the unilateralism.

These WEF folks are freaked out. They see very bad economics ahead, war, and more terrorism. About 10% of the sessions were about terrorism, and it's heavy stuff. One session costed out what another 9/11-type attack would do to global markets, predicting a far, far worse impact due to the "second hit" effect -- a second hit that would prove all the world's post-9/11 security efforts had failed. Another costed out in detail what this, or that, war scenario
Would do to spot oil prices. Russian speakers argued that "failed nations" were spawning terrorists --- code for saying, "we hate Chechnya". Entire sessions were devoted to arguing which poses the greater asymmetric threat: nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

 

[Shocko]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]

Nov 1, 1998 Iraq halts cooperation with UNSCOM.
Nov 15, 1998 US aborts missile strike after Iraq agrees to cooperate with UNSCOM.

Where's your quote from? You see, my websearching revealed:

Russia, meanwhile, joined Iraq in accusing former chief inspector Richard
Butler of provoking the Desert Fox strikes of December 16-19, 1998 with
false reports of a lack of Iraqi cooperation with his arms panel.

Butler pulled out his UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) from Iraq on December
15, 1998, without consulting the major powers in the Security Council.

I was pretty young during the Gulf War, but i can clearly remember Desert Fox. The Inspectors were not expelled - They got out themselves so that the US could bomb the shit out of Iraq. Are you surprised that Iraq didn't let them back in again?

 

[Munkey-]

I actually do know quite a few americans, from forums and from the American school here.

and out of the ones here......i only know about four "booksmart" people. the rest being utter retards.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

War is shit.

Why bother?

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

Originally posted by Wazzerphuk
War is shit.

Why bother?

Scarily enough... what he said!

TBH, the way this is going... I can see some bad shit happening between the UN and US/GB/Spain.

 

[doh_boy]

Originally posted by old.D0LLySh33p
Scarily enough... what he said!

TBH, the way this is going... I can see some bad shit happening between the UN and US/GB/Spain.

nah the way I see it is that the Un will disband and all the good it does will go with it. Maybe not straight away but this shows that the powerful countries don't have any respect for the diplomatic process and come to the table with a 'you must all agree with me or I'm taking my ball home'. Not just US/GB but the anti-war countries france etc are doing it as well.

The UN might not be perfect but its all we got, for the time being.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by Shocko
Where's your quote from?

http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqtimeline.htm

I don't want this to turn into a petty flame dispute.

The bottom line for me is not if this can be morally justified (which I believe it can), but the end result - Iraq without Saddam would be a better place.

FYI, I think that the Iraqi generals know that Saddam is finished, and as soon as they get the chance, they will either surrender, or do the job themselves.