Yep, technically speaking it is clean. Meh, of course, that doesn't mean that it's justifiable(in my eyes) or good.
The War again
- Thread starter Montez
- Start date
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Sander said:
Sure it can. Simply create a resolution that repeals a previous one.
The thing is, that Resolution 660 is still standing. And therein lies the problem.
welsh
Junkmaster
Oh no, I hope I didn't kill this thread.
There are other issues to be considered-
For example, should the US launch a preemptive war?
Wasn't this an abuse of Res 660?
What about the reconstruction. SHould the US get out now or should it hang on? How long?
There are other issues to be considered-
For example, should the US launch a preemptive war?
Wasn't this an abuse of Res 660?
What about the reconstruction. SHould the US get out now or should it hang on? How long?
No.
Yes.
Get out and let the UN get it's hands on it.
And yes, Brady, you're right, they could've done that. The fact that they didn't speaks about how divided the UN is(or could be). But doesn't this say something about the workings of the VETO system? And does this then give the USA the "right" to actually do something about it? I feel that they technically did have the right, but that it was also a bullshit war.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
welsh said:
Depends on whether or not the reason was justifiable. Or whether or not you can classify it as a pre-emptive war, considering there's been a 12 year buildup to it.
Perhaps. But then perhaps its better that somebody do something about it than just let it sit as a useless piece of legislation.
I for one don't think the UN or the US should dictate how to reconstruct Iraq. It seems to me that the Iraqis should be able to choose whether they want American or UN aide, or if they want to do the whole thing themselves.
In any case they'd still be receiving money from us to aide the reconstruction.
12 years build-up or not, it still is pre-emptive(at least in supposed motives as claimed by the government).
Yes, but I think that it's more important that the UN Security Council is restructured(liek Kofi Annan wants).
That's the problem, they can't really choose for it now, since the country is still in relative chaos. WHat I think should happen, would that the UN is to take control, and then start handing control over to Iraq, but faster and better than the USA has been doing.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Sander said:
The UN can't just magically do things "faster and better" than the US.
I do feel however that countries which contribute troops to the Peacekeeping Corps like India have more experience in an occupation role. The reason we're having so many problems is because American troops aren't experienced at all in occupying a nation in turmoil. Its been a gigantic learning experience for the US military. And I don't think anyone has had any experience reconstructing a modern nation.
UN help would be appreciated, but we can't just snap our fingers and pull out all our influence. We've staked too many resources and lives on this to just give up.
Yes, Brady, but I'm quite convinced that it'd be better for everybody if the UN came in:
-YOu'll probably have less antipathy.
-The occupying role should disappear while the restrucutring role should become more apparent if a completely international force is present instead of a mainly American one.
-The UN has more 'right" to do that than the USA, since the UN is an actual international body, rather than just another country.
-Hopefully, with an international force, things such as suicide will dissappear, although that isn't certain.
Those are just several arguments.
-YOu'll probably have less antipathy.
-The occupying role should disappear while the restrucutring role should become more apparent if a completely international force is present instead of a mainly American one.
-The UN has more 'right" to do that than the USA, since the UN is an actual international body, rather than just another country.
-Hopefully, with an international force, things such as suicide will dissappear, although that isn't certain.
Those are just several arguments.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Sander said:
From normal Iraqis, yes. But if the suicide bombings against UN buildings are any indication, UN peacekeepers are going to have just as much problem with guerilla fighters as the US. Even more since they'd have to adhere to UN rules of engagement rather than military ones.
The occupying role can't dissapear so long as the Ba'ath party is still fighting in Iraq. Or at least until we can train a new Iraqi military.
The vast majority of the UN had nothing to do with ousting the Ba'ath party. What gives them the "right" if they didn't do any of the work?
Like suicide bombings? Seriously doubt it. (see above)
Well, I agree that antipathy won't dissapear, but less is still better than more.
And the occupying role will dissapear, simply because there was no invasion. I know it really sin't that simple, but it will make a difference.
Furthermore, the UN has more right to take control over Iraq, or at least say how it should be governed in the future because it is an international organisation, and not a single country that is going for it's own profit.
And I was talking about soldier suicide.
And the occupying role will dissapear, simply because there was no invasion. I know it really sin't that simple, but it will make a difference.
Furthermore, the UN has more right to take control over Iraq, or at least say how it should be governed in the future because it is an international organisation, and not a single country that is going for it's own profit.
And I was talking about soldier suicide.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
I dont think anyone should listen to what you are saying until you get a clue about the area.
I am a teenage American, and I fuking know what they speak.
The people of Iraq have not spoken anything resembling Farsi anywhere sense the fall of the Sassanids in the early 7th century. THey spoke Assyrian, some of them still do (dont buy that 1% crap either), they, like every nation between Morocco, Somalia, Georgia and Turkey speak ARABIC due to the Abbasid and Ummayad caliphates.
'duh.
What the bloody hell does not knowing what the inhabitants of a nation speak say about your ability to speak about it when it comes to occupation and things like that? When you have something to say, post then, don't just post because you noticed something silly.
Now i think we should calm down here before briosfreak comes by and say something along the lines of:
Thats enough and since I love you all I will shut this thread down.
Well the UN is an organisation that is created for the purpose of maintaining peace while the US i a country created to look after its own people best interest. Now who would you trust more?
Thats enough and since I love you all I will shut this thread down.
Well the UN is an organisation that is created for the purpose of maintaining peace while the US i a country created to look after its own people best interest. Now who would you trust more?
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
It shows that the only thing you listen to is proporganda on the subject. You might read Chomsky, or God forbid Tariq Ali, but your understanding of the area is less then skin deep. Truth is, geography and history do matter. If you knew anything about the history of Iraq, you would realize that the Baath party was founded as a Vichy puppet during the short lived Vichy occupation of Syria. It was very litterally National Socialist. You would understand that the Saddam regiem was the worst of the decade outside of Rwanda and the Balkans.
If you knew anything about the modern history of the mid-east, you would understand that the entire area needs a major democratic and capitalist (or, more likely, an Anwar Sadat like Democratic Socialist) movement in order for the people to be happy.
Also, just so someone doesnt kick me in the pants, I know that some parts of Iraq where heavily Persian up until the 80s, they where never a majority or that important.
I love you guys, and I think this thread's gone far enough.
Ehehehe, just kidding.
CC, the way you use the emoticon is really provocative, I hope you know that. Show a little respect.
Sander...So Dutch
Ehehehe, just kidding.
CC, the way you use the
emoticon is really provocative, I hope you know that. Show a little respect.Sander...So Dutch
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Sorry about the :ROFL: ,but anyone who lives within a thousand mile radius of Detroit should know what language is spoken in Iraq.
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
Constipated relax a bit, you also say many silly things and you don`t see us laughing about them ok?
Go on, it`s an interesting discussion, with many valid points, please don`t derail it.
Go on, it`s an interesting discussion, with many valid points, please don`t derail it.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Sander said:
No, it won't make a difference because its not that simple at all. Ba'athist rebels are fighting for the re-instatement of the Ba'athist party. It doesn't matter who's in the country, as long as somebody other than the Ba'athists are in control of Iraq, the Ba'athists are going to keep fighting.
It won't matter who's reconstructing a country, it won't matter so long as it gets reconstructed. What you fail to realize is that nobody has a "right" to anything.
What soldier suicide?
EraserMark
First time out of the vault
The UN is that 80 year old company Vice president that uses his mouse as a footpedal, but he gives out the best Secret Santa gifts and is a sweetheart that boosts office morale.
Having the US troops that are there already put on fashionable blue helmets isn't going to change a single thing. Honestly does anybody think the UN peacekeeping effort isn't going to be majority American?
The UN should do what it does best and stay out of peacekeeping and focus on national rebuilding.
Frankly it is sad we still cling to the shred of hope that the UN is. There are fond memories and great things that came out of it once, but it needs massive retooling and reconstuction and this should happen every 10-30 years. A new dynamic organization structure.
Something as simple as an electoral college system for voting in Security Council members would be a huge overhaul and could be very effective.
International law is pretty meaningless.
Having the US troops that are there already put on fashionable blue helmets isn't going to change a single thing. Honestly does anybody think the UN peacekeeping effort isn't going to be majority American?
The UN should do what it does best and stay out of peacekeeping and focus on national rebuilding.
Frankly it is sad we still cling to the shred of hope that the UN is. There are fond memories and great things that came out of it once, but it needs massive retooling and reconstuction and this should happen every 10-30 years. A new dynamic organization structure.
Something as simple as an electoral college system for voting in Security Council members would be a huge overhaul and could be very effective.
International law is pretty meaningless.
Well, CC, that's pure bull. No, I don't know the history of the Ba'ath party, nor do I know the general history of Iraq, but I don't really need that to be able to talk about what is happening NOW. If I were discussing what happened in the past, or that the mid-east would need a democratic government for the people to be happy(On which I disagree, but if you'd like to discuss it, start a new thread), then I would need to know such things, probably, but not in this discussion(and I haven't seen you post about it either), so please, shut up, or actually CONTRIBUTE.
Seriously, though: The USA is occupying the country, and so it is, in fact, a hostile force. It isn't actually being speedy with handing over control to the Iraqi people, and it isn't the friendliest nation around right now. If they were to hand over control to either the Iraqi people or to the UN, they would be at least showing that they are willing to do anything to rebuild Iraq, and they'd be showing that they were not staying there just so they could get their hands on the resources Iraq has. Basically, by allowing the UN to come in, they show that they have good intentions, and are more a rebuilding than an occupying force, because they allow an international organisation that is not going to be interested in it's own profit.
EraserMark:
I disagree, you should try to make a clear difference between the UN and the security council. The UN itself is far from useless, it's a wonderful organisation when it comes to anything but the security council.
However, the security council is bad, it'll need restructuring, it'll need to get rid of that bloody Veto(Although it's unlikely that that'll happen, since the veto-nations will just veto it), and it'll need to show that it can force it's members to do as it says. On that part, at least, I DO agree. But I do feel that do to it's major possiblities with anything other than the security council, it shoudl most definitely help a lot with rebuilding Iraq, and frankly, peacekeeping as well. SImply because they won't do a worse job at it than the USA, and because it can have some positive effects to have a really international force there, instead of a USA controlled one. And yes, that would make a difference. The majority of the soldiers may still be American, but by putting the UN, and not the USA, at the head of it, there is a change in attitude, at least from the side of the USA.
Oh, and international law is most definitely NOT meaningless, international law is pretty much a deterrent. When countries don't abide international law, they are shunned or excluded by the rest. SO it is effective...
Ofcourse, but the less resistance of the general people(Who do not agree with the occupying role of the USA even though they are happy with being freed), the less problems there will be.
That's very good, noone has a right to anything. So what's the USA doing there then?
Seriously, though: The USA is occupying the country, and so it is, in fact, a hostile force. It isn't actually being speedy with handing over control to the Iraqi people, and it isn't the friendliest nation around right now. If they were to hand over control to either the Iraqi people or to the UN, they would be at least showing that they are willing to do anything to rebuild Iraq, and they'd be showing that they were not staying there just so they could get their hands on the resources Iraq has. Basically, by allowing the UN to come in, they show that they have good intentions, and are more a rebuilding than an occupying force, because they allow an international organisation that is not going to be interested in it's own profit.
The soldier suicide I've been hearing aobut in the news for the past two weeks....
EraserMark:
I disagree, you should try to make a clear difference between the UN and the security council. The UN itself is far from useless, it's a wonderful organisation when it comes to anything but the security council.
However, the security council is bad, it'll need restructuring, it'll need to get rid of that bloody Veto(Although it's unlikely that that'll happen, since the veto-nations will just veto it), and it'll need to show that it can force it's members to do as it says. On that part, at least, I DO agree. But I do feel that do to it's major possiblities with anything other than the security council, it shoudl most definitely help a lot with rebuilding Iraq, and frankly, peacekeeping as well. SImply because they won't do a worse job at it than the USA, and because it can have some positive effects to have a really international force there, instead of a USA controlled one. And yes, that would make a difference. The majority of the soldiers may still be American, but by putting the UN, and not the USA, at the head of it, there is a change in attitude, at least from the side of the USA.
Oh, and international law is most definitely NOT meaningless, international law is pretty much a deterrent. When countries don't abide international law, they are shunned or excluded by the rest. SO it is effective...