Ehh.....what? Helloooo, democracy?
The War again
- Thread starter Montez
- Start date
point is, the way the US handled Iraq, seems to give them to power to rage war against any country of their choise.
"Dur...er...you have terrorists living in your country. Me SMASH!!!"
they just create some false evidence, some officials who state that the evidence is true and bang! you have a war. now i don't know about you guys, but i find this extreamly disturbing.
"Dur...er...you have terrorists living in your country. Me SMASH!!!"
they just create some false evidence, some officials who state that the evidence is true and bang! you have a war. now i don't know about you guys, but i find this extreamly disturbing.
Every war the US has ever faught (exept the WW, and the civil war) is disturbing.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
*pops knuckles*
Power and major utilities are all up and running. The private sector is kicking back into ful force. Construction continues daily. And in the time since the occupation, only 12 Iraqis have been killed in friendly-fire incidents, as opposed to the thousands that were being beaten, tortured, and raped while Saddam and his sons were still in power.
The average Iraqi feels that the US occupation is better than they used to be, but still resent the US for being an occupying power.
Exactly. Democracy is an increadibly fallible system. If people can vote whichever way they want, then corruption and misdirection of resources are bound to occur. Democracy only works until people figure out that they can vote for the people that will give them the most money.
False evidence? No evidence presented by the administration was false, or at the least completely fabricated.
Not sure what you mean by "disturbing," but to address this...
The Revolutionary War:
Colonists were tired of being treated like Second Citizens by their British overlords and rebelled for the sake of greater rights.
When it was clear that the British wouldn't grant them those rights, the Colonies had no choice but to unite against the English for the sake of what they felt were inalienable rights.
The War of 1812:
Numerous trade disputes arose between the US and England. British naval units were kidnapping American merchant men and claiming they were English deserters. This wasn't good for the American economy, as it was developing a bolstering trade economy.
War was declared against the British, and fought for 3 years. Besides the British burning down Washington DC, nobody had any significant victories with the exception of the Battle of New Orleans. Which occured 2 weeks after the peace treaty was signed. Though it did prevent the British from seizing the most important port in the country.
The War of Mexico:
Disputes over the annexation of the Republic of Texas and territory control between Texas and Mexico ignited this conflict. After the siege of Mexico City, the Mexican government capitulated and set the Mexico-Texas border at the Rio Grande, and also gave up vast amounts of territory that would become Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
The Spanish-American War:
Sparked by the supposed sabotage of an American dreadnought in Havana, this was a pretty pointless war. American casualties in Cuba outnumbered those of the Spanish. But American tenacity still rooted out all Spanish defenses.
Naval victories in the Pacific secured the Phillipines, Guam, and Midway for the US by the war's end.
Cuba was granted its independance, and the acquisition of Pacific territories made the US a superpower.
The Korean War:
Threatened by their Communist brothers, South Korea was almost completely overran by Soviet equipped North Koreans. Actions by the United States and UN soldiers pushed the North Koreans all the way back to China. Chinese interference caused the war to turn into a grinding stalemate, however, and a still-ongoing cease fire was enacted.
Nowadays, South Korea is a significant asian economic power, while their neighbors to the North are slowly starving to death.
Vietnam:
By request of the corrupt South Vietnamese government, the US attempted to stop North Vietnamese aggression.
Despite continuous military success, the news media showed the war unfavorably. Thousands of soldiers were killed for a war people felt we had no business fighting. After a gradual American withdrawal, a cease-fire was enacted. After the end of the cease-fire, South Vietnam was conquered in a matter of weeks.
You're probably more familiar with recent wars.
Gustav_Drangeid said:
Power and major utilities are all up and running. The private sector is kicking back into ful force. Construction continues daily. And in the time since the occupation, only 12 Iraqis have been killed in friendly-fire incidents, as opposed to the thousands that were being beaten, tortured, and raped while Saddam and his sons were still in power.
The average Iraqi feels that the US occupation is better than they used to be, but still resent the US for being an occupying power.
Exactly. Democracy is an increadibly fallible system. If people can vote whichever way they want, then corruption and misdirection of resources are bound to occur. Democracy only works until people figure out that they can vote for the people that will give them the most money.
False evidence? No evidence presented by the administration was false, or at the least completely fabricated.
Not sure what you mean by "disturbing," but to address this...
The Revolutionary War:
Colonists were tired of being treated like Second Citizens by their British overlords and rebelled for the sake of greater rights.
When it was clear that the British wouldn't grant them those rights, the Colonies had no choice but to unite against the English for the sake of what they felt were inalienable rights.
The War of 1812:
Numerous trade disputes arose between the US and England. British naval units were kidnapping American merchant men and claiming they were English deserters. This wasn't good for the American economy, as it was developing a bolstering trade economy.
War was declared against the British, and fought for 3 years. Besides the British burning down Washington DC, nobody had any significant victories with the exception of the Battle of New Orleans. Which occured 2 weeks after the peace treaty was signed. Though it did prevent the British from seizing the most important port in the country.
The War of Mexico:
Disputes over the annexation of the Republic of Texas and territory control between Texas and Mexico ignited this conflict. After the siege of Mexico City, the Mexican government capitulated and set the Mexico-Texas border at the Rio Grande, and also gave up vast amounts of territory that would become Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
The Spanish-American War:
Sparked by the supposed sabotage of an American dreadnought in Havana, this was a pretty pointless war. American casualties in Cuba outnumbered those of the Spanish. But American tenacity still rooted out all Spanish defenses.
Naval victories in the Pacific secured the Phillipines, Guam, and Midway for the US by the war's end.
Cuba was granted its independance, and the acquisition of Pacific territories made the US a superpower.
The Korean War:
Threatened by their Communist brothers, South Korea was almost completely overran by Soviet equipped North Koreans. Actions by the United States and UN soldiers pushed the North Koreans all the way back to China. Chinese interference caused the war to turn into a grinding stalemate, however, and a still-ongoing cease fire was enacted.
Nowadays, South Korea is a significant asian economic power, while their neighbors to the North are slowly starving to death.
Vietnam:
By request of the corrupt South Vietnamese government, the US attempted to stop North Vietnamese aggression.
Despite continuous military success, the news media showed the war unfavorably. Thousands of soldiers were killed for a war people felt we had no business fighting. After a gradual American withdrawal, a cease-fire was enacted. After the end of the cease-fire, South Vietnam was conquered in a matter of weeks.
You're probably more familiar with recent wars.
I was thinking of Post-WWII wars, as before WWI *most* of the wars could be justified by self-defense. In agreeing with him, I took "disturbing" to mean risking and wasting people's(soldiers) lives in wars of questionable merit, wars which were in no way related to the defense of the US against an enemy.
welsh
Junkmaster
Gustav_Drangeid said:
Why not just take it up a notch and say that every war that has been fought has been disturbing. However, the causes of wars might not be.
Again, I would argue that we need to consider the circumstances before the war.
The US had basically three choices-
(1) end the sanctions- allow Iraq to rebuild militarily (and the evidence does indicate that he would have rebuilt his WMD program if sanctions were lifted) and allows him to stay in power. Loss for the US, probably destabilization of numerous oil producing countries because the Iraqis would probably have glut the market with oil.
(2) Keep the sanctions- allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power, and lets be honest, the guy did break about as many resolutions as the UN came up with. A rather brutal man, killer of thousands of his own people, who enjoyed torture, repression, etc. IN other words, do nothing and let many suffer.
(3) Take out Saddam and replace him with a new regime.
I have serious questions about the way the occupation is going and the process of rebuilding. There are a lot of things about how this war was initiated that I don't like.
But at the same time the occupation is quite young and tensions are still quite hot. To do this job quick, and get the US to withdraw fast, would probably only create a worse situation in the short and medium term.
Now I can understand many folks saying, "Oh shame shame, America, you imperialist big bully, for conquering another country."
And I will even go so far as say, yes, its all about oil.
But really, which major country can you name that doesn't have a share of blood on its hands.
And lets not forget, stability in the middle east and the flow of oil serves the interests of not only the US but every other major country that profits from globalization (meaning Europe, China and Japan). So while american and iraqi blood is being spilled, you are profitting from it.
While I know it's better than under Saddam, it definitely isn't as good as it could be. With soldiers looting houses, people never seeing their belongings again, and people getting beaten up just because noone can understand Iraqi.(Or is it Farsi? meh)
Ahem, you do realise that the UN is a democratic organisation, to which the USA committed oneself, and where the USA agreed to abide by anything it says? In other words, the USA needs UN persmission before starting a war(yes, it does. Honestly), and when the UN decides the USA shouldn't go to war FOR WHATEVER REASON, the USA should obey. Obviously, it didn't, simply because it couldn't care less. Bush thought UN backing would be nice, and when he didn't get it, he just ignored the UN. Now, whatever you say, that is injustifiable.
Now, if the UN were to obey whatever side YOU choose, then the UN would have no power left and it may as well be called USA. Why? Because if it wouldn't do what the majority of it's members want, why the hell would those members ever want to be members? And moreover, why would the UN then even exist?
Oh yeah? Well, I for one STILL haven't seen even a SHRED of evidence about anything.
Now, welsh:
While I do agree that Saddam is a bad man, who should probably have been removed from power, I absolutely do not agree with the way things are going. First of all, the USA did everything while ignoring the UN. Secondly, it invaded a country for the following reasons:
1) Bush has a hard-on for Saddam(seriously, Bush really has a problem with Saddam).
2) Oil.
And then the US claims it does it for weapons of mass destruction, now, I'm no politicologist but I DO know this:
-When a country has potentially devastating weapons, but knows that it'll be completely destroyed when using them, they are not a threat.
-When that very same country is attacked, you leave it no option but to use those weapons. Thus, you just created a much more dangerous situation.
-When you do not know for sure that that country has weapons, do not atack the country, or at least do not say you're doing it because of those (non-existant) weapons, because if they're not there, you will look like an idiot.
Now it's all fine and dandy that we're benefitting from the oil that has been freed up as well, but I didn't WANT to benefit from it. I wanted Bush to leave Iraq alone, because what he was doing was immoral and stupid.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Sander said:
I haven't heard about those incidents, even with the increadibly negtive American media. Where did you hear about this?
Would you care to show me where it says that the United States has to adhere to all decisions made by the UN?
Don't you understand? The UN HAS no power left. Mostly because it never did. US defiance of the UN and its incapability of enforcing its own resolutions illustrates it for the hollow organization it is. If you want the UN to have power, then you should grant its member nations the right to enforce its own resolutions.
So the UN shouldn't have to enforce its own resolutions if nobody feels like it? If they don't ave to enforce one resolution, why should they enforce any others? The UN has no convictions.
We've found labs and documents which chronicle inventory and the progression of their Chemical Weapons program. Though we haven't found any WMDs, we have found evidence that they were in development. And if Iraq DIDN'T have WMDs, then why would Saddam say he did have them? As a bluff? Well I guess we called it.
And why shouldn't we have a problem with Saddam? The existence of the Ba'ath part in Iraq is forcing us to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraqi aggression, which causes the Saudi citizens to resent American occpation forces.
It'll take years before any amount of oil we get from Iraq covers the overall costs of the war and the reconstruction effort. We already get all the oil we need from Venezualia and domestically, why do we need oil from Iraq?
Yet it didn't stop Saddam from using them on the Kurds. There are more clandestine ways of using WMDs without using your own military.
Besides, Saddam shouldn't have WMDs or a WMD program period.
That, or it'll make Saddam look like a liar. Why would Saddam tell us he had WMDs if he didn't?
Well, its too bad that you were benefitting from the oil then. Before the war that is.
welsh
Junkmaster
Well I agree with you Sander on a lot of points, and its perfectly fine that you don't want that.
In fact I think its great that lot of people went out to protest the war. Thank God that most of us are peace loving.
I also think that the idea of weapons of mass destruction was contrived to gear the US up for the war, to get public support for the conflict and now the idea is that, since we are in it, we got to finish the job.
That the idea was contrived is not unusual. This kind of thing has been happening in a variety of guises across the world.
The same logic was used to tell the Dutch in its hey day that it was going out and conquering the world for the spread of christian values. For the French it was to spread french values of liberty, fraternity, etc. For the Spanish it was Catholicism, for the Brits it was the "white man's burden of spreading christianity," for the Japanese it was ending European imperialism and uniting Asia, for the Chinese it was spreading communism, leading the counter revolution and getting rid of capitalist imperialism, for the SOviets, it was more of the same. Germany- blood and iron, etc.
It's a rather nasty world, and people lie. Just like the French are lieing today about their stand being moral - bullshit- it's about profit.
The moral arguments of politics may appear in the front seat, but its really the real economic and power driven goals that shape the policies.
Honestly, we are not getting much news in the US about the war, and that's troubling to me. Not much news, not much analysis. We hear each day an American gets killed. Today we heard that AMerican are attacked about 25 times per day. We have no idea how many americans have been wounded.
I find this disturbing because I like to think that in a democracy I am entitled to transparency of government.
Bush did have a hard on for Saddam, and its about oil. I think its about oil policy for the next 30 years, and I hope that its about keeping the oil issue safe and out of great power conflicts while viable substitutes are found.
I hope its not just so that oil companies can make a buck as can their automobile manufacturing allies. But I am not that convinced.
The issue of WMD in Iraq is essentially over. the question now is state reformation and construction and the shape of the modern persian gulf.
To cry over the war happening is just foolishness at this point. We can all bash Bush. I also think its important that the American people think carefully about their president if they decide to reelect him. Perhaps they should also think about how their fears got in the way of better judgment and let this thing go the way it did. This war is a consequence of 9/11, but also about the manipulation of a people's fear to do some very nasty real politics.
And while you can say that you are glad you 'didn't' want that, I think you need to think carefully about what oil means to your country. In the short term it means items are cheap, that jobs are had, that the quality of life for your country improves. For those in power it means they get to stay in office because the better your quality of life, the more likely they will be reelected. It means less danger of inflation, it means less unemployment and more money to be spent on growing the economy than being sent off to some third world dirt pile run by some power hungry dictator who gets his jollies out of torture and rape.
SO yes, you can say, you didn't want that. But what about the rest of it.
If you want to be cruel you can say that all the war really meant is that you saved maybe a few dollars when you fill up your gas tank.
Maybe. But the reality is that every human life has a dollar value. SOme lives are worth more than others, that's why wrongful death judgements have different amounts.
How many dollars have been saved at the gas pump? This is the benefit. A certain number of lives are lost in the middle of the desert and a certain value of weapons and logistics are lost (and will be replaced by tax dollars). This is the cost. Does the benefit outweigh the cost, or does the cost outweigh the benefit?
That's probably the bottom line.
And yes, its a damn cold calculation.
In fact I think its great that lot of people went out to protest the war. Thank God that most of us are peace loving.
I also think that the idea of weapons of mass destruction was contrived to gear the US up for the war, to get public support for the conflict and now the idea is that, since we are in it, we got to finish the job.
That the idea was contrived is not unusual. This kind of thing has been happening in a variety of guises across the world.
The same logic was used to tell the Dutch in its hey day that it was going out and conquering the world for the spread of christian values. For the French it was to spread french values of liberty, fraternity, etc. For the Spanish it was Catholicism, for the Brits it was the "white man's burden of spreading christianity," for the Japanese it was ending European imperialism and uniting Asia, for the Chinese it was spreading communism, leading the counter revolution and getting rid of capitalist imperialism, for the SOviets, it was more of the same. Germany- blood and iron, etc.
It's a rather nasty world, and people lie. Just like the French are lieing today about their stand being moral - bullshit- it's about profit.
The moral arguments of politics may appear in the front seat, but its really the real economic and power driven goals that shape the policies.
Honestly, we are not getting much news in the US about the war, and that's troubling to me. Not much news, not much analysis. We hear each day an American gets killed. Today we heard that AMerican are attacked about 25 times per day. We have no idea how many americans have been wounded.
I find this disturbing because I like to think that in a democracy I am entitled to transparency of government.
Bush did have a hard on for Saddam, and its about oil. I think its about oil policy for the next 30 years, and I hope that its about keeping the oil issue safe and out of great power conflicts while viable substitutes are found.
I hope its not just so that oil companies can make a buck as can their automobile manufacturing allies. But I am not that convinced.
The issue of WMD in Iraq is essentially over. the question now is state reformation and construction and the shape of the modern persian gulf.
To cry over the war happening is just foolishness at this point. We can all bash Bush. I also think its important that the American people think carefully about their president if they decide to reelect him. Perhaps they should also think about how their fears got in the way of better judgment and let this thing go the way it did. This war is a consequence of 9/11, but also about the manipulation of a people's fear to do some very nasty real politics.
And while you can say that you are glad you 'didn't' want that, I think you need to think carefully about what oil means to your country. In the short term it means items are cheap, that jobs are had, that the quality of life for your country improves. For those in power it means they get to stay in office because the better your quality of life, the more likely they will be reelected. It means less danger of inflation, it means less unemployment and more money to be spent on growing the economy than being sent off to some third world dirt pile run by some power hungry dictator who gets his jollies out of torture and rape.
SO yes, you can say, you didn't want that. But what about the rest of it.
If you want to be cruel you can say that all the war really meant is that you saved maybe a few dollars when you fill up your gas tank.
Maybe. But the reality is that every human life has a dollar value. SOme lives are worth more than others, that's why wrongful death judgements have different amounts.
How many dollars have been saved at the gas pump? This is the benefit. A certain number of lives are lost in the middle of the desert and a certain value of weapons and logistics are lost (and will be replaced by tax dollars). This is the cost. Does the benefit outweigh the cost, or does the cost outweigh the benefit?
That's probably the bottom line.
And yes, its a damn cold calculation.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Sander said:
No, it IS powerless. If its members don't have the convictions to enforce their own resolutions, then it has no power, and never did. If you honestly believe in the UN, then you should threaten to cut off trade ties with America for defying it. But you can't, because the EU relies too heavily on America for trade, so it would damage your economy too much to punish America.
I'm gonna make a law that says stealing gas is illegal. Somebody steals his neighbor's gas, and the neighbor calls the cops. The cops don't arrest the gas stealing neighbor, because they feel that they shouldn't have to. If nobody is going to enforce a law, then what the fuck was the point in making it?
Regardless of whether a law can be changed, still doesn't mean that it shouldn't be enforced. Why do you think the Untouchables and Eliot Ness are so admired? They were enforcing the prohibition laws. Sure the laws were repealed, but that still doesn't mean that what Al Capone was doing wasn't illegal. If you make a law, you HAVE to enforce it, otherwise you're telling people that they don't have to obey any laws, because it may or may not be enforced. Nobody has any convictions left.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91044,00.html
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/971203_sites.htm
Even when that problem stems from threats against National Security?
No, see, we HAVE oil. We don't NEED oil. Why now would we invade Iraq for oil if we have no need of it?
Have you seen evidence that he DOESN'T have them? Why would the Iraqis continuously defy UNSCOM and not reveal any evidence of a reduction of their weapons programme if they didn't still have WMDs? If they didn't have them, then why not give proof of destruction, and end the whole charade?
Agreed, but that's partly the USA's fault, so the USA should try to do something about it, instead of demolishing it's power even further(Besides war-power, it still does have quite some power, the security council doesn't however).Bradylama said:
There is still the right to not do anything about it. When they made the resolution they were thinking one thing, NOW they were thinking another thing. Does that mean that one must follow the first thing? NO!
That's not true. The convictions are still there, they just changed.
All I see there is either speculation or the possibility of Saddam one day restarting his program. That is no proof that he was an actual threat.
What bloody threats against your national security? That's just bull, and it's starting to piss me off. Saddam WAS no threat to the USA's national security. It's that simple, there is absolutely no proof for ANY connections with terrorists, and try as they might, noone found out anything about Iraq and 9/11 either. Furthermore, pre-emptive strikes are NOT good. because the excuse of a pre-emptive strike can then be used to justify anyting.
Let's see, what is better, having the oil you need, or having MORE oil. Oil can do a LOT for the economy of a country, and more oil is ALWAYS better than less oil.
You're turning it upside down. HE doesn't need to provide proof, YOU do.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Sander said:
??? Its our fault for being so powerful? Its our fault for practicing capitalism? If that's not your argument, then are you saying that its America's fault for exposing the UN as a farce?
You don't get it do you? If you make a law, you HAVE to enforce it. There is no "right" in not doing anything about it. If an existing law is still around, either repeal it, or enforce it. So either pull out the resolutions that Saddam must provide proof of his destroyed weapons programs, or make him provide proof with the threat of force. You can't just talk your way out of every situation, sometimes you have to show a little muscle to get things done.
Changed into what? Looking the other way because you're getting oil from Iraq? That was the exact problem with American Law enforcement during Prohibition. They had no duty, they had no convictions. That's why the Untouchables are such icons.
So you don't think that forcing us to occupy Saudi Arabia was a threat to our security? Like I've said hundreds of times now?
This whole thing has gone on for 12 years. In 12 years Saddam provided no evidence of a destroyed weapons programme.
Then your understanding of economics isn't what it should be. A surplus of oil is bad for American oil companies, since if gasoline prices were too low, oil companies would have to increase costs and cut workers.
Uh, no. That's the whole point of the war. If Saddam has refused to provide sufficient evidence of a destroyed weapons programme for 12 YEARS, then war is the only option. He refuses to show us that they're destroyed, so he must have them. That's the logical conclusion.
If you're content with sitting on your ass and waiting for people to comply with you, then you've got another thing coming.
No, it's the USA's fault that they defied the UN by attacking Iraq.
No.You.Don't. When a country makes a law, noone can force THAT COUNTRY to actually abide it. Yes, it may be better if that country would, but that does NOT give ANOTHER country the right to enforce the law FOR THAT COUNTRY.
No, I sure hope you know that there are plenty of other reasons NOt to want war, because I don't care one bit for the oil that comes from Iraq, and I did NOt want war either.
Actually, you said it once. And noone FORCED you to do it, you did that out of your own free will because you like Saudi Arabia(or it's oil).
And the USA hasn't provided evidence for an existing weapons programme. \Moreover, there WAS progress, and Saddam was cooperating more and more just before the USA invaded Iraq.
Surplus of oil means better international trade possibilities.
Again: there was progress right before the invasion.
welsh
Junkmaster
OK couple of quick points-
(1) the UN is not a democracy. It never was and it wasn't designed to be.
At the time of the UN being created most of the world wasn't democratic as we understand democracy today. In fact most of it was colonies. Furthermore, there were painful efforts to bring the USSR into the organization. The USSR wouldn't have gone with the organization if it was a "federal" body or a democratic one.
The organization form of the UN can be attributed to a number of important international precedents. One of these was the Concert of Europe, basically an organization of the great powers of Europe in the effort to stop the spread of war and to act collectively to prevent conflicts. This is why the UN Security Council only sits 15 and why only the permanent members have the veto.
The other influences were the Hague Conventions- Here it was open to every country to come together and discuss ideas and principles. One sees this in the General Assembly. But General Assembly resolutions are not law, but really just proclamations of general principles.
Other bodies- the International Court of Justice was a holdover from the prior international court. The Secretariate was the administrative body. Bureaucratic bodies came in response to different goals. For instance the International Postal Union set a precedent for such bodies as the United Nations Environmental Program, etc.
(2) To say that the United States didn't have legal authority to act is actually the subject of debate. Under Res 660 it seems to give implicit authority to the US to take what means necessary to insure compliance with UN resolutions. UN resolutions are law. Thus the Charter gives the UN the body to make decisions, and Res 660 allowed the US to act.
While I will agree that it might be a stretch (something President Bush did with regard to Congress as well) to say that he broke the law isn't quite right either. For the US the position was merely that we had the authroity to act independently, but we would rather have done that in conformity of everyone else.
The others didn't want to act, so the US did. Resolutions have now been enforced in addition to being proclamated.
There is nothing explicit that says, at least that I have seen posted on this thread, that the power granted under Res 660 had been repealed either. In fact it looks like 660 was very much still the rule. Thus the US has authority to act even if the Security Council disagreed.
And that's part of the nature of the Security Council. Ideally they all agree to act. Sometimes they don't. Since there was no agreement on a new resolution, the old resolution was still binding.
(3) Saddam Hussein would have gone sooner or later. It was inevitable. Bush makes this declaration recently in Australia and, as much as I hate to admit it, agree with him. Sooner or later the fellow would have been forced out. I think it had to do with the longevity of prior sanctions. But actually, I seriously doubt that the US would have tolerated Saddam's sons for being the new bosses in Iraq.
(4) Moral issues need to have some gradation of comparison.
Now the US gets a lot of shit for not intervening when people what them to intervene (Liberia, Rwanda, and for a long time in former Yugoslavia). Then when the US does intervene people scream that it's imperialism. Ok, but the US is still a sovereign power and historically has used its military power when it has wanted to to serve its own general interests.
The US interest in the Persian Gulf is oil. Do we get all that oil? No. Does it matter? No. The oil fuels the industrial machine behind globalization and we require that the fuel tap be kept on.
Does it matter? You bet. Most of you are too young to remember this, but about 30 years ago from this month, the Arabs turned off the oil tap, and that led to a crisis in the US and Europe that reverberated for a good decade. Most of the countries of the world are still suffering from that policy (oil shocks from the arab world led to borrowing to pay for oil, led to the debt crisis of the 1980s).
Only an idiot does not learn from history.
SO yes, the oil is the central policy, because its what keeps our industrial societies working, and that industrial society keeps us happy. US= first world nations, not the US per se.
So the US has stuck its nose in Iraq, hopefully because it wants to stabilize the oil situation for the next 30-50 years. Does that matter. Look at China and realize that they are growing at a rate of 8% a year while our oil supplies are running down. That the Chinese will be eating oil is the same as the rest of the world- making oil more valuable.
Look at Saudi Arabia- and remember that 15 out of 19 of the hijackers in 9/11 were Saudi. Look at Central Asia, where the Chinese, Russians, Americans, Europeans, Iranians and muslim fundamentalists are playing the political game. Everyone wants a piece of Central Asia- because everyone knows their economic lives depend on it.
Now lets look at Iraq again. One of the largest oil suppliers has its output cut because of Sanctions. If the oil is released it could moderate oil prices and oil demand.
But to do that we need to remove the prick who is running the country and his sons too. So lets call it weapons of mass destruction (which we know he wants but can't get) and at the same time lets get rid of him, because he's really a repressive prick that no one likes.
That's the game.
(1) the UN is not a democracy. It never was and it wasn't designed to be.
At the time of the UN being created most of the world wasn't democratic as we understand democracy today. In fact most of it was colonies. Furthermore, there were painful efforts to bring the USSR into the organization. The USSR wouldn't have gone with the organization if it was a "federal" body or a democratic one.
The organization form of the UN can be attributed to a number of important international precedents. One of these was the Concert of Europe, basically an organization of the great powers of Europe in the effort to stop the spread of war and to act collectively to prevent conflicts. This is why the UN Security Council only sits 15 and why only the permanent members have the veto.
The other influences were the Hague Conventions- Here it was open to every country to come together and discuss ideas and principles. One sees this in the General Assembly. But General Assembly resolutions are not law, but really just proclamations of general principles.
Other bodies- the International Court of Justice was a holdover from the prior international court. The Secretariate was the administrative body. Bureaucratic bodies came in response to different goals. For instance the International Postal Union set a precedent for such bodies as the United Nations Environmental Program, etc.
(2) To say that the United States didn't have legal authority to act is actually the subject of debate. Under Res 660 it seems to give implicit authority to the US to take what means necessary to insure compliance with UN resolutions. UN resolutions are law. Thus the Charter gives the UN the body to make decisions, and Res 660 allowed the US to act.
While I will agree that it might be a stretch (something President Bush did with regard to Congress as well) to say that he broke the law isn't quite right either. For the US the position was merely that we had the authroity to act independently, but we would rather have done that in conformity of everyone else.
The others didn't want to act, so the US did. Resolutions have now been enforced in addition to being proclamated.
There is nothing explicit that says, at least that I have seen posted on this thread, that the power granted under Res 660 had been repealed either. In fact it looks like 660 was very much still the rule. Thus the US has authority to act even if the Security Council disagreed.
And that's part of the nature of the Security Council. Ideally they all agree to act. Sometimes they don't. Since there was no agreement on a new resolution, the old resolution was still binding.
(3) Saddam Hussein would have gone sooner or later. It was inevitable. Bush makes this declaration recently in Australia and, as much as I hate to admit it, agree with him. Sooner or later the fellow would have been forced out. I think it had to do with the longevity of prior sanctions. But actually, I seriously doubt that the US would have tolerated Saddam's sons for being the new bosses in Iraq.
(4) Moral issues need to have some gradation of comparison.
Now the US gets a lot of shit for not intervening when people what them to intervene (Liberia, Rwanda, and for a long time in former Yugoslavia). Then when the US does intervene people scream that it's imperialism. Ok, but the US is still a sovereign power and historically has used its military power when it has wanted to to serve its own general interests.
The US interest in the Persian Gulf is oil. Do we get all that oil? No. Does it matter? No. The oil fuels the industrial machine behind globalization and we require that the fuel tap be kept on.
Does it matter? You bet. Most of you are too young to remember this, but about 30 years ago from this month, the Arabs turned off the oil tap, and that led to a crisis in the US and Europe that reverberated for a good decade. Most of the countries of the world are still suffering from that policy (oil shocks from the arab world led to borrowing to pay for oil, led to the debt crisis of the 1980s).
Only an idiot does not learn from history.
SO yes, the oil is the central policy, because its what keeps our industrial societies working, and that industrial society keeps us happy. US= first world nations, not the US per se.
So the US has stuck its nose in Iraq, hopefully because it wants to stabilize the oil situation for the next 30-50 years. Does that matter. Look at China and realize that they are growing at a rate of 8% a year while our oil supplies are running down. That the Chinese will be eating oil is the same as the rest of the world- making oil more valuable.
Look at Saudi Arabia- and remember that 15 out of 19 of the hijackers in 9/11 were Saudi. Look at Central Asia, where the Chinese, Russians, Americans, Europeans, Iranians and muslim fundamentalists are playing the political game. Everyone wants a piece of Central Asia- because everyone knows their economic lives depend on it.
Now lets look at Iraq again. One of the largest oil suppliers has its output cut because of Sanctions. If the oil is released it could moderate oil prices and oil demand.
But to do that we need to remove the prick who is running the country and his sons too. So lets call it weapons of mass destruction (which we know he wants but can't get) and at the same time lets get rid of him, because he's really a repressive prick that no one likes.
That's the game.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Welsh cleared up most things pretty well, but I'd at least like to address this:
Then what is the point of the UN if it can't force member nations to abide by its doctrine? That's the very reason the League of Nations was a failure. The only reason the UN has lasted this long is because it has its own peace-keeping force, and the world was working on a bipolar power scale (Nato and Communists) instead of a multi-super power political scene.
Sander said:
Then what is the point of the UN if it can't force member nations to abide by its doctrine? That's the very reason the League of Nations was a failure. The only reason the UN has lasted this long is because it has its own peace-keeping force, and the world was working on a bipolar power scale (Nato and Communists) instead of a multi-super power political scene.
Well, if it had to stay with it's own resolutions, then it could never change it's mind, now could it? yes, that is weakening it's own position, yes, that's bad for the UN, but does that give the US the right to enforce rules for the UN(Let's just ignore that resolution 660, because that would make this too easy. 
)? No.
)? No.
welsh
Junkmaster
Actually the UN does not have a peacekeeping force of its own but relies on member nations to contribute. The blue helmet peace keepers are also ad hoc contributions from nations.
Makes sense really. There is no draft, no conscription and no professional UN military force.
As for what keeps countries from following the law, well now that's an interesting problem.
You have basically a conflict of two different values. One of them is the notion of the sovereign state, the other is the mandatory condition of law.
The notion of the sovereign state comes from the origin of the Westphalian system. Basically its the notion that no country is higher in power then your own. That no one can tell you what to do or how to do it, and that you can run your country as you see fit. Within your soveriegn jurisdiction, the sovereign (usually the sovereign state) is the final vestige of power. THis is a consequence of the 30 Years War, perhaps one of the first real World Wars in human history.
The notion of sovereignty used to be deemed absolute in law. It was never absolute in reality, and has been in decline since the Second World War. But generally speaking the notion of sovereinty is found in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter that basically says within your jurisdiction, no one can fuck with you.
Soveriegnty has two dimensions- one is internal. Within your boundaries you can do as you want. The other is external. As an independent country you are an equal to all other countries in law. This notion is seen in practice at the General Assembly where Sao Tome can sit next to the US and they are both equals. This is not the case in the Security Council where relative power makes some countries permament members with veto power and other states visiting member representatives chosen by a consensus from the General Assembly.
So now if everyone is equal and doesn't have to follow any law but their own, how does international law work.
Surprisingly most of the time. 95% of the time most of the countries comply with international law. There is an awful lot of international law out there and if a country were not to follow international law, no one would trust it.
But because there is no one enforcer and the systems of application are fairly undeveloped, International law can be seen as primitive law.
What does that mean. Well imagine a tribe full of about 100 tribals and no chiefs. If there weren't some basic rules of behavior they woudl all kill each other over girls, food, huts, spears, etc. But there are rules of behavior that most of them follow most of the time. Why, because everyone is better off cooperating than disagreeing.
SO what happens when someone breaks the law? Well under that circumstance, there is no normal all-powerful muckity muck to make the law work. You can't make a sherriff the powerful one because he would use his power to screw everyone over. So everyone comes together and agrees to do something, or not. If they agree, the law breaker is punished in a way fitting tradition or the decisions of the tribe. If they don't punish him, than everyone else sits back and wonders if they can get away with breaking the rules.
This is why international law is troublesome. For example to sit at the ICJ (International Court of Justice) you have to get the country to consent to the ICJ's jurisdiction. For there to be an international criminal court that can prosecute without that permission causes all sorts of problems. Why? Because being soveriegn means you don't have to accept anyone else's law but your own. However, usually you elect to follow it. So, unlike common law, past decisions of the ICJ are not binding on future cases. See how complicated it gets?
However, things are a bit different at the Security Council. Because everyone signs the Charter, they basically agree. It's a treaty, and like a contract, if you sign it you are bound to it. This is a basic rule that everyone agrees with. If you sign a contract you are bound to it. So the UN Charter is considered to be law applicable to those who signed it (and maybe customary law to those who didn't - although that's debatable).
Now in the Charter it says that the Security Council can make decisions on behalf of international peace and security under Chapt VII powers. Furthermore these are considered binding on all other countries. So its law with a power behind it- that power being the Security Council. The Security Council has Chapt VI powers too, but that's different. The point is that there is a power that is capable of enforcing the law, and since you signed the contract, you are bound to do what that power says you should.
If the UN Security Council were to enforce these rules all the time it would cause a lot of trouble. People disagree. So when the world is divided and that comes up in the Security COuncil (like in the Cold War) not much gets done.
So if you signed the Charter you are bound to it, and that includes the provisions saying that you are bound to follow what the Security Council says under Chapt VII.
Thus Res 660 raises some problems. For Res 660 grants member states to act in conformity of what the Security COuncil says, and so when Res 1441 says, Iraq will suffer grave consequences (sounds ambiguous?) and it says, remember Res 660, it begins to look like the US is playing by the letter of the law, even its a stretch.
But that also goes to another issue. That countries are willing to go to the Security Council, that the debates are still there, and that the US went to great pains to make a legal argument on behalf of its actions indicates that the UN and the UN system is significant. Whether it has teeth or not, people are willing to take great pains to appear to comply with the law.
Therein lies a hope for humanity.
Makes sense really. There is no draft, no conscription and no professional UN military force.
As for what keeps countries from following the law, well now that's an interesting problem.
You have basically a conflict of two different values. One of them is the notion of the sovereign state, the other is the mandatory condition of law.
The notion of the sovereign state comes from the origin of the Westphalian system. Basically its the notion that no country is higher in power then your own. That no one can tell you what to do or how to do it, and that you can run your country as you see fit. Within your soveriegn jurisdiction, the sovereign (usually the sovereign state) is the final vestige of power. THis is a consequence of the 30 Years War, perhaps one of the first real World Wars in human history.
The notion of sovereignty used to be deemed absolute in law. It was never absolute in reality, and has been in decline since the Second World War. But generally speaking the notion of sovereinty is found in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter that basically says within your jurisdiction, no one can fuck with you.
Soveriegnty has two dimensions- one is internal. Within your boundaries you can do as you want. The other is external. As an independent country you are an equal to all other countries in law. This notion is seen in practice at the General Assembly where Sao Tome can sit next to the US and they are both equals. This is not the case in the Security Council where relative power makes some countries permament members with veto power and other states visiting member representatives chosen by a consensus from the General Assembly.
So now if everyone is equal and doesn't have to follow any law but their own, how does international law work.
Surprisingly most of the time. 95% of the time most of the countries comply with international law. There is an awful lot of international law out there and if a country were not to follow international law, no one would trust it.
But because there is no one enforcer and the systems of application are fairly undeveloped, International law can be seen as primitive law.
What does that mean. Well imagine a tribe full of about 100 tribals and no chiefs. If there weren't some basic rules of behavior they woudl all kill each other over girls, food, huts, spears, etc. But there are rules of behavior that most of them follow most of the time. Why, because everyone is better off cooperating than disagreeing.
SO what happens when someone breaks the law? Well under that circumstance, there is no normal all-powerful muckity muck to make the law work. You can't make a sherriff the powerful one because he would use his power to screw everyone over. So everyone comes together and agrees to do something, or not. If they agree, the law breaker is punished in a way fitting tradition or the decisions of the tribe. If they don't punish him, than everyone else sits back and wonders if they can get away with breaking the rules.
This is why international law is troublesome. For example to sit at the ICJ (International Court of Justice) you have to get the country to consent to the ICJ's jurisdiction. For there to be an international criminal court that can prosecute without that permission causes all sorts of problems. Why? Because being soveriegn means you don't have to accept anyone else's law but your own. However, usually you elect to follow it. So, unlike common law, past decisions of the ICJ are not binding on future cases. See how complicated it gets?
However, things are a bit different at the Security Council. Because everyone signs the Charter, they basically agree. It's a treaty, and like a contract, if you sign it you are bound to it. This is a basic rule that everyone agrees with. If you sign a contract you are bound to it. So the UN Charter is considered to be law applicable to those who signed it (and maybe customary law to those who didn't - although that's debatable).
Now in the Charter it says that the Security Council can make decisions on behalf of international peace and security under Chapt VII powers. Furthermore these are considered binding on all other countries. So its law with a power behind it- that power being the Security Council. The Security Council has Chapt VI powers too, but that's different. The point is that there is a power that is capable of enforcing the law, and since you signed the contract, you are bound to do what that power says you should.
If the UN Security Council were to enforce these rules all the time it would cause a lot of trouble. People disagree. So when the world is divided and that comes up in the Security COuncil (like in the Cold War) not much gets done.
So if you signed the Charter you are bound to it, and that includes the provisions saying that you are bound to follow what the Security Council says under Chapt VII.
Thus Res 660 raises some problems. For Res 660 grants member states to act in conformity of what the Security COuncil says, and so when Res 1441 says, Iraq will suffer grave consequences (sounds ambiguous?) and it says, remember Res 660, it begins to look like the US is playing by the letter of the law, even its a stretch.
But that also goes to another issue. That countries are willing to go to the Security Council, that the debates are still there, and that the US went to great pains to make a legal argument on behalf of its actions indicates that the UN and the UN system is significant. Whether it has teeth or not, people are willing to take great pains to appear to comply with the law.
Therein lies a hope for humanity.
welsh
Junkmaster
Well Sander, you see you can't ignore Res 660 or the other ones, because that's were the power of individual members comes from.
SO you see, this war really is a clean up of the first one. It's just finishing up unfinished business.
SO you see, this war really is a clean up of the first one. It's just finishing up unfinished business.