Iraqi protest - Veterans for Peace

Those numbers are statistics based on the sum of the killings during his whole 24 year reign, the 70/day thing is an average which comprehends peaks such as wars and genocides.
Saddam had a gun up his ass before the coalition attack, weapons and civil rights inspectors everywhere. Impossible of him to start any war or genocide without being wiped out with worldwide unilateral support.

On the same scheme, you could take the millions of people dead in WW1 and WW2, add other homicdes and executions, divide them by the whole 20th century and come up with the conclusion that 150000 people were killed every year during the last century.
 
600,000 of the deaths were civilian executions. If you divide that by the 8,000 odd days in power, then you get the 70 deaths per day, thats why I used the lower figure.
 
arent Americans people who are for world democracy? free people and all that?

even i will admit that bush is somewhat of an religious zelot, but the Iraqis where living under a dictatorship, and living in constant fear for their lives, isnt that enought reason to go to war?

yes their mabe no connections to Osama, but terror is terror and saddam WAS terrorising his people.
 
bob_the_rambler said:
arent Americans people who are for world democracy? free people and all that?

even i will admit that bush is somewhat of an religious zelot, but the Iraqis where living under a dictatorship, and living in constant fear for their lives, isnt that enought reason to go to war?

yes their mabe no connections to Osama, but terror is terror and saddam WAS terrorising his people.
Are you seriously suggesting that what Bush did was fine, since now Saddam is gone??
Shame on you! In the process of removing Saddam from power (which is good) he:
A) Blatantly ignored international laws.
B) Made a mockery out of the UN Security council and the UN itself.
C) Fed lies to the public.
D) Got people to believe those lies and turn against everyone who dared question them.
E) Kicked around a bunch of human basic rights (although this has little to do with Iraq itself. PATRIOT act and such).

Therefore, what Bush did was wrong, bad and stupid.
 
Sander said:
bob_the_rambler said:
arent Americans people who are for world democracy? free people and all that?

even i will admit that bush is somewhat of an religious zelot, but the Iraqis where living under a dictatorship, and living in constant fear for their lives, isnt that enought reason to go to war?

yes their mabe no connections to Osama, but terror is terror and saddam WAS terrorising his people.
Are you seriously suggesting that what Bush did was fine, since now Saddam is gone??
Shame on you! In the process of removing Saddam from power (which is good) he:
A) Blatantly ignored international laws.
B) Made a mockery out of the UN Security council and the UN itself.
C) Fed lies to the public.
D) Got people to believe those lies and turn against everyone who dared question them.
E) Kicked around a bunch of human basic rights (although this has little to do with Iraq itself. PATRIOT act and such).

Therefore, what Bush did was wrong, bad and stupid.
All of which to, you know, get rid of a genocidal dictator, and turn back the tide of despotism in the middle east. Worth it.
 
All of which to, you know, get rid of a genocidal dictator, and turn back the tide of despotism in the middle east. Worth it.
Yes. It would've been worth it had he actually used that argument. But, he hasn't used that argument.

The point is that international laws have been proven to be powerless. Bah. They are not laws anymore, they are the random whims of those in power.
 
im willing to look past the false evidence of WMDs in iraq, we cant change something thats already done. for progress sake life must go on.
the USA has thruout history helped, and led troops to remove dictators, ww1 ww2 as examples. not to mention that the US broke off from tyranny in the revolutioary war.
the removal of saddam will in time help stabilize some of the many conflicts in the middle east.
im not saying that its gonna be easy, but we have started something that needs to be finished. the US needs support not protests. the sooner we stabilize iraq the better, the more the world crys about the removal of saddam the more foreign islamic terrorists move in to cause trouble
 
Sander said:
A) Blatantly ignored international laws.
B) Made a mockery out of the UN Security council and the UN itself.
C) Fed lies to the public.
D) Got people to believe those lies and turn against everyone who dared question them.
E) Kicked around a bunch of human basic rights (although this has little to do with Iraq itself. PATRIOT act and such).

A) International Law? Where is that written? I would like to look it up to see if what you say is true. The UN? That is where international law is held?

B) The UN is crap. They are only good for a money whirlpool. The UN, while admittedly doing good deeds in helping 3rd world nations develop, and providing for improved quality of life worldwide, has virtually no power in settling worldwide disputes. It has no imperative to hold up its charter or laws. The Security Council Resolutions are so worthless they are laughable. The problem they have is the lack of force. Also, the problem they have is they call them Peacekeepers. The Blue Helmet Brigade.

Dictators like Hussein, people like Hamas, the IRA, whatever else, they do not respect weakness. The only thing that these sorts of people respect is strength. The UN is weakness incarnate. Not in philosophical sense, but in the physical sense. They bow to force. That is why I do not respect the UN in the realm of maintaining peace between bitter nations.


Sorry for turning a small point into a huge deal, but I (and I think I speak for quite a few people) am kind of annoyed by now with the constant citing of international law, and the duties of the UN, and the responsibilities of all nations to respect the etiquette of international bullshit.

I'm not condoning Bush's actions in the least. The points C-E are spot on. Exactly.

But there are some things that bother me:

1. States that actively bully and invade others, due to the massive prowess of military power (USA)
2. States that do not respect anything other than (it has gotten to the point of military) force (Iraq)
3. States that use terrorism (blatant disregard for peace) to achieve their ends (Hamas, Israel, IRA)
4. States that believe in nothing other than talking, and international law, and general gayness: (The Netherlands, apparently) (yes, I know you have troops there. I am making an exaggeration here.) (and Switzerland. They're always neutral)

Number one corresponds to abuse of power.
Number two corresponds to irrational disregard for temerity.
Number three corresponds to irrational disregard for human life.
Number four corresponds to irrational disregard for necessary action.

What is the solution then? How do we achieve balance? How do we prevent states from becoming this way, or further solidifying their positions in these philosophies?

Here is one: stop with all the political bullshit and rhetoric.

Agree? Disagree?

EDIT - I don't think people like Bob the rambler should be exposed to the truth. Those people need the rhetoric and the bullshit.
 
Bob, if you go back you will find that, despite my criticisms of Bush to the contrary, I wasn't exactly against the idea of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. I went so far as to argue that even if the goal is not spreading democracy in the middle east, the issue of oil politics for the long-term was worth it. I never bought the WMD argument nor the ties with Osama. Pretty Machiavellian, to be honest.

But my problem with Iraq has a lot to do with how it was done and how it was sold.

As a member of a democratic state you are entitled to some rights. Primarily, that the government is to serve your interest. The government should be honest with you. You should be allowed to expect that the government tells you the truth. You are entitled to hold a government accountable when it lies, and in going to war, the government should have integrity to let the people make an informed decision.

We were lied to and manipulated into war, and that's bullshit. We are paying a price for that war and those deeds. I am pretty convinced there was no plan for the peace and I think that, given the real concerns of this administration (the fight against terrorism) that this war was a distraction.

We have not "defeated" terrorism yet, and perhaps created more terrorism in the process. We have not been welcomed as liberators of oppression but are seen as new imperialists. We, who fought imperialism, who convinced most of the colonial power to give up their colonies after World War 2, are now in the business of empire.

This is not what Bush tried to sell me in the last election. This was not the campaign promise. I was lied to and cheated, and that pisses me off.

We went from having the sympathy and care of the world to being seen as the next great threat to world peace in some corners.

And what has happened-
We have had tax cuts to the wealthy, making them richer and have given them more incentive to support the party that protects their interest (Republicans). We have seen no great improvements in social services of quality of life, in fact we have lost jobs- the middle class continues to die out why the upper classes continue to get smaller, but richer, and the weak continue to be marginalized. The relative wealth enjoyed by some comes at the expense of opportunity for those wilth little to begin with. The people who lost jobs are not the rich, but poor and middle class. The people who are getting shot in Iraq are mostly of the poor and middle class, even if the oil policy rewards the wealthy in the long-term. At in the meantime our air gets polluted, our schools fall behind, our society gets divided.

Our society is being divided, by religion, by "gay rights", by affirmative action, by abortion- why? Because the best way for a leader to stay in power is by dividing those who might be against him.

There is a reason why GB has $200 million in campaign funds while the democrats have only $80 million.

This is the society being created, mostly without us being aware of it.

Frankly, I am in that poor- middle class category and I can't afford this guy for another four years.

Now we are at the point where we are about to elect the man who will lead us for the next four years. We can have the one who lied to us and got us into a war or the other guy.
 
im willing to look past the false evidence of WMDs in iraq, we cant change something thats already done.
And that is your fault, and the fault of many.
I don't want the USA to retreat from Iraq, it would do more damage than good (although I would like to see the UN take over). But you CANNOT look past past offenses and lies.

the USA has thruout history helped, and led troops to remove dictators, ww1 ww2 as examples.
...

WHAT BULL!!
Historical ignorance.
A) WW1 was not about removing a dictator, it was a war about many things, but it was not a war of removing a dictator. Gah!
Plus, the USA got involved because of self-preservation.
B) WW2 was, surprisingly, not about removing dictators either. Yes, the wars were fought against dictators, but they were about self-preservation, and anger.
After all, if the USA is so anti-dictator, why are there so many dictatorships about which nothing is being done?

not to mention that the US broke off from tyranny in the revolutioary war.
So? Does this give it a right to invade other countries? Shut up, please.
the removal of saddam will in time help stabilize some of the many conflicts in the middle east.
im not saying that its gonna be easy, but we have started something that needs to be finished.
And I never denied that.
Plus, capitals would make your text easier reading.
the US needs support not protests.
Bull. Protests are part of ANY healthy society.
the sooner we stabilize iraq the better, the more the world crys about the removal of saddam the more foreign islamic terrorists move in to cause trouble
More bull. Crying about removing Saddam has no causal relationship with terrorist attacks whatsoever.

A) International Law? Where is that written? I would like to look it up to see if what you say is true. The UN? That is where international law is held?

B) The UN is crap. They are only good for a money whirlpool. The UN, while admittedly doing good deeds in helping 3rd world nations develop, and providing for improved quality of life worldwide, has virtually no power in settling worldwide disputes. It has no imperative to hold up its charter or laws. The Security Council Resolutions are so worthless they are laughable. The problem they have is the lack of force. Also, the problem they have is they call them Peacekeepers. The Blue Helmet Brigade.
Yes, international law is generally kept by the UN.
And point B you make is extremely valid. And has become valid DUE TO the invasion of Iraq. If not even the strongest power in the world and practically its originator obeys the UN, who will?

Dictators like Hussein, people like Hamas, the IRA, whatever else, they do not respect weakness. The only thing that the sorts of people the UN tries to deal with respect is strength. The UN is weakness incarnate. Not in philosophical sense, but in the physical sense. They bow to force. That is why I do not respect the UN in the realm of maintaining peace between bitter nations.
But if not even the "modern" nations will stand by its own resolutions and human rights, then why would the terrorists do such a thing?

4. States that believe in nothing other than talking, and international law, and general gayness: (The Netherlands, apparently) (yes, I know you have troops there. I am making an exaggeration here.) (and Switzerland. They're always neutral)
Who ever said I only believed in that?
All I have said is that the USA has made a mockery of international law, and the UN. Two basic principles of modern international society. That should never have happened.
 
Sander said:
And point B you make is extremely valid. And has become valid DUE TO the invasion of Iraq. If not even the strongest power in the world and practically its originator obeys the UN, who will?

I think it was slipping long before that: the situations in Africa in the 90s, and the past few years. The Balkans. NATO had a lot of problems with the Balkans. I think the UN was five times slower and less efficient in dealing with that situation. Not to mention slower.

But if not even the "modern" nations will stand by its own resolutions and human rights, then why would the terrorists do such a thing?

That's a really good point. That's why force is needed. And the ability to adapt, and make up the rules as we go along. Not in the bad sense.
 
I think it was slipping long before that: the situations in Africa in the 90s, and the past few years. The Balkans. NATO had a lot of problems with the Balkans. I think the UN was five times slower and less efficient in dealing with that situation. Not to mention slower.
Yep. But it does not make the UN bad in itself, it makes the situation of the UN bad.
Seriously, the UN could be a lot better. The principles are good. Just not its actions.

That's a really good point. That's why force is needed. And the ability to adapt, and make up the rules as we go along. Not in the bad sense.
This is true, and this is part of the reason why the UN does need to change.
One thing, though. Make up the rules as we go along is a bit....bad. The UN would probably need a constitution and such, to at least keep it within boundaries.
 
Well, not to derail things too terribly, but the UN is by definition toothless because it does not have the mandate to enforce its own resolutions. In essence it can only suggest an equitable arrangement and hope that countries abide by that suggestion.

The only way the UN will ever be anything but marginalized is if it is given (or takes) the power to enforce its resolutions.

But the UN is not useless. It provides a legitimate forum for resolving international grievances and coordinating worldwide issues. Personally, I think the UN should stick to humanitarian and international treaty issues and stay out of enforcement of anything. By involving itself in things like Iraq it is setting itself up for failure and marginalization. It should only delve into enforcement when it has something to enforce with.

but I digress...
 
Well, not to derail things too terribly, but the UN is by definition toothless because it does not have the mandate to enforce its own resolutions. In essence it can only suggest an equitable arrangement and hope that countries abide by that suggestion.
Not true. The security council has the power to enforce its own mandates.
 
Sander said:
Not true. The security council has the power to enforce its own mandates.

With economic sanctions, terse words and stern glances, sure. But how many times have economic sanctions compelled a nation to fundamentally change its ways? N. Korea, Iran, Libya, S. Africa, Iraq etc all just became international pariahs and havens for illegitimate business and/or terrorism. I hate to admit it, but it was only after W's war that Libya began to change; UN sanctions didn't and never will.
 
Actuially UN Security Council Resolutions, under it's Chapter 7 powers, are considered to be mandatory law. It was a UN Security Council Resolution that empowered the US to invade Iraq (even if that's perhaps a generous read of the provisions).

The problem with economic sanctions is usually a lot more complex than a lot of people really get. But sanctions have worked before- one has to be careful on how they are applied.

As for the UN being toothless, not quite. Remember it was a UN resolution behind Persian Gulf War 1 ('82) and the Korean War. It was also UN forces that held together the Congo during that crisis, deployed to stop Rhodesian attacks in Botswana, are guarding the line in Cyprus, kept the peace in Suez for a long time, and numerous other actions.

UN action is often peacekeeping and transitionally. It provides services that no other organization or country should do and often quite successfully.

That said, the UN was also created with certain mandates- primarily by powerful countries at the end of World War 2 and was also a political compromise of it's time.

Bashing it for what it has failed to do is unfair if it's failures were beyond the organization's scope or purpose. It was a creature built with significant constraints. But for what the organization was designed to do, it has done a pretty decent job.

I seriously doubt we could make a new UN today or a better one.
 
Whoa, hey, I'm not trying to bash the UN!

First: Are you referring to the first gulf war? In that case, the UN resolution gave legitimacy to the operation, but did not coordinate or directly provide for its enforcement.

And while UN resolution may be mandatory law, the only method the UN has of directly enforcing them is through sanctions. And besides, how many UN resolutions sit unfulfilled, especially ones involving the US?

I must profess partial ignorance about Botswana, Congo, and Cyprus. But my point is that these actions were only undertaken because nations donated military assets to the process and it was in their self interest. More importantly the UN has a hard time enforcing resolutions if powerful nations do not want to abide by them. And not just because they often have a veto, but because UN sanctions and enforcement are limited in their scope and can seldom affect larger nation's policies.

However, the UN does have many vital uses. I'm pointing out how the UN mandate does not coincide well with its ability to enforce. I again submit that the UN would be better off focusing on economic and international treaty realms than delving into things that require military enforcement-something that the UN is at the mercy of its member nations for.

Nor do I submit that the UN could be replaced with something better today; just that it could do a better job and garner more legitimacy by focusing its efforts on different goals. This statement is even more true in todays world that is not polarized between first and second world groups (Soviet and American).
 
First: Are you referring to the first gulf war? In that case, the UN resolution gave legitimacy to the operation, but did not coordinate or directly provide for its enforcement.
No, he's referring to the second Gulf War.
Bush had a mandate to back him up, but really, it was only formal, the use of the mandate was to make sure noone could rightfully claim that they actually BROKE any laws.

Now, the UN is good at what it is supposed to do, and has done a lot of good things, but the main problem it currently has lies with the security council. The security council seems to be subject solely to the will of the USA, and, furthermore, it is undemocratic. The entire idea of vetos should be removed, IMHO.
 
Actually I am referring to both. The First Gulf War had a stronger UN mandate than the second. The problem with second was that the US felt the need to ask for a more updated mandate to crush Iraq but it had an old resolution supporting the sanction should Iraq be in violation of the resolution. So basically if Iraq broke the rules, and it did, than it was subject to getting it's ass slammed- and that's what occurred.

Iraq was supposed to comply, it didn't, it got crushed. The problem was that the resolution was damn old and there is no rule on "statute of limitations." But we have had this discussion elsewhere.

While the Security Council Resolutions do have binding affect of law (because as a treaty the parties agree to be bound by Security Council Resolutions), Resolutions by the General Assembly don't carry as law but as declarations of policy. They don't really count.

As for military action- yes, most of the work is done ad hoc. But most military alliances and actions have been ad hoc. In most cases one or two great powers have allied a group of states together to get something done. The cases of alliances made institutionalized are few- NATO and the Warsaw Pact are probably it. if the Allies and Axis powers were pretty ad hoc arrangements.

But the UN does have a system of military interaction and planning. Formally, provisions exist in the UN Charter, and occassionally there are moves to make an independent UN rapid reaction force for crisis situations. But remember, the UN is not soverign, and it relies on the forces of soveriegn states. Militaries are prized positions of a state- why flagged vessels are entitled to certain legal rights that other vessels are not. And no one wants the UN to have it's own military.

(So for those of you who don't know- the whole black UN helicopters planning to take over the US thing is complete nonsense).

THe problem is that the UN system of military cooperation have never been implemented- why- major power differences. It was supposed to. Kind of like the military staffs of the Allies getting together to make formal plans. Could you imagine the Soviets and Americans cooperating during the height of the Cold War?

What you have though is a system in which countries dedicate forces to peace keeping operations, and often are rewarded for that. It is fairly formal due to regularized practices. So it's not that bad a system. The problem is that sometimes countries with vested interests volunteer their forces (Australia sends its troops to East Timor) or no one volunteers (and why so few soldiers went to Congo).
 
Back
Top