You’re going to play the “suffering Jews” card as an excuse for apartheid? What a joke.
Is it your position that Israelis have a right to take whatever land they want? Do they have a right to kill any Palestinians who stand in their way?
**The stated reason for the invasion was imminent threat via WMDs. **
You got it half right. There was never any mention of an imminent threat.
**Any alleged violations by Iraq of UN Resoloutions are for the UN to deal with as a complete body, not for the US. Bush is not the sheriff and he does not havethe authority to unilaterally (and arbitrarily) go around enforcing resolutions whenever it serves his political purposes. It’s also contradictory to try to enforce UN Resolutions (which is NOT what Bush said he was doing…that was just an extra piece of shit he threw at the wall that didn’t stick) by violating the UN Charter.
**
It is likewise not only contradictory, but damaging to your credibility, to promise serious consequences and not deliver.
Either the US is going to recognize the UN as an authoritative body or it isn’t. We can’t say that Iraq has to conform to UN authority but the US doesn’t
The US does not, neither does any other nation. In the case of Iraq, it was not just the UN that they had obligations to. The US spent much blood and money defeating Iraq after they invaded Kuwait, and they agreed to get rid of their WMD, among other obligations, as a condition to end that war. They never kept their agreements, the US had every legal right to resume hostilities.
**But hey, if we’re going to be enforcers for the UN, then shouldn’t we be invading Israel?
**
Because most resolutions that you interpret to be against Israel are actually two-sided resolutions, and it makes no sense to attack all the parties to the conflict. Secondly, even the ones that are solely against Israel do not call for any action, but are merely condemnatory resolutions. By contrast, most of the resolutions against Iraq promised real consequences for failure to comply.
**By WHAT definition. Because you can steal something, that makes it yours?
**
Was it Jordanian? Is it Palestinian? Who do you think the land belongs to? I’m not going to go where 1stChristian is going and call it Israeli, but I do think that since the land is disputed that both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to live there. I oppose the official settlement policy of Israel, but I fully support the right of individual Jews, especially those with a family history in places like Hebron and Nablus, to move there.
It doesn’t matter who controlled it 2000 years ago. That was then, this is now. Ancient claims mean nothing
If 2000 years doesn’t matter, does 35? How long does Israel have to control it for the Arab claim to be “ancient” and “mean nothing”?
It may also interest you to know that the archaeological evidence shows that there was no time in history when all of Palestine was a wholly Jewish state. The united kingdom of David and Solomon is mythology not history.
It hasn’t been a wholly Arab state in something like 800 years.
Cynic, apartheid? You make me laugh my man, you make me laugh! Show me one Arab country w more individula rights for the citizens than what the Arab minority has in Israel, w Arab PM’s and Gov Minister. Don’t go so low, pls, as to put things in my mouth and accuse me of things I will never agree w, pls. But I am, definitely so, going to play the “suffering” Jew to make myself a country, a place to put my head and sleep in peace, once and for all, in 2k yrs. No one , but no one,will gonna derail me from this path.
Do you know that there are, admittedly few, yet, but there are, Arabs in IDF, the Israeli army even the Air Force? Druz’s as generals, Arabs w a living standard that will make your jaw drop? Show me one Israeli Arab who will agree to move to the “future” Palestinian state, one!! You won’t find such a one!
Man, admit for once that you just don’t know enough to judge the Jews, the Israelis and the conflict they so painfully live in for one hundred yrs, now. In spite of all this, the Israelis are in the forefront of the humanity, in almost eevry domain you would care to mention. Ask me and I’ll tell you. You’d be amazed.
Semantic weaseling. They may not have used the words"imminent threat" but they damn sure told us that Iraq had WMDs armed and ready to fire at the US…IOW, an imminent threat. That was the only legal justification that the US could have used and that’s why they fabricated bogus WMDs.
Who are you talking about, the US or the UN? If you’re talking about the former then the US has no right either to “make promises” or to “deliver” on them. If you mean the UN, well that’s basically just tough titty. The US has no authority to enforce UN Resolutions, period. It’s irrelevant how frustrated some retarded cowboy becomes if the rest of the world shows no interest in his election campaign.
Yes they do. They signed the treaties they are bound by them. That’s the way it works.
Yes it is.
That’s just too damn bad for the US. GWI did not imbue the US with any special authority to invade other countries for no reason.
Which they obviously did.
Cite? Where are those WMDs?
Nope. "fraid not. The only legal justification for an invasion would have been self defense. The US had no such justification and they had no authority to enforce UN Resolutions while simultaneously pissing all over the UN Charter.
Nothing in the UN Security Resolutions against Iraq gave any authority to the US to unilaterally enforce them either. If we can ignore the soecifics of one set of resolutions why can’t we ignore another set?
Yes and yes. Some of it anyway.
Which land are you talking about? I’m not talking about all of Palestine, just illegal settlements. It doesn’t matter who the land belongs to, the point is that it doesn’t belong to Israel and those settlers have no right to steal it.
I dispute the ownership of your hosue. I say it’s mine. I guess we both have a right to live there.
And if that includes stealing land legally owned by someone else?
Longer than 35 years. Let’s go the other way. What’s the minimum amount of time after I occupy your house and kick you out at gunpoint that the house becomes mine and your claims are ancient history. One year? One month? Ten minutes?
It hasn’t been a wholly Arab state in something like 800 years. **
[/QUOTE]
So what? When did I say that Israel should be one Arab state? I’m just talking about illegal settlements. I was addressing 1stChristian’s argument that Israelis are entitled to take whatever they want because of specious claims about an “ancient homeland.” My point was that Palestine never was a totally Jewish homeland.
It amazes me that you would think that because someone doesn’t share your views, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Sure you want to continue with these ad hominem attacks? 
Yes he did! He ordered the murder of thousands of people! Hussein was a really really bad man! This everyone* agrees on so I do simply not understand why people keep bringing it up. Are you seriously proposing that there is someone here who doesn’t think Saddam was a very Bad Man™? This must be a Straw Man.
If I had seen on the news 10 months ago “Delta Force sniper assasinates Saddam” I would have been going “Woo-hoo! Bout damn time that bastard got it!”. That a ruler happens to be an asshole does however not neccesarily justify other nations to attack and occupy the country, or to steal their resources but that’s pretty common when occupying a country so I won’t make a big deal out of it.
Anyway, this incredibly stupid tactic of talking about how bad Saddam was was old and boring months ago and it is not getting any fresher. The reasons stated for the war on Iraq was not that Saddam was a menace to his people, but that he was an imminent threat to the US, which would have been a legit casus belli, had it been true. This whole “Iraqi Freedom” thing was the third excuse made up after the first two were found out to be lies. I’ll refresh your memory, they were the imminent threat of WMD’s and the Links with Al-Q.
So you actually agree that GWB lied in order to start a war? And you’re ok with that since it turns out that Saddam is a bad guy? By the way, I always “admitted” that Saddam was a murdering madman, even when the US was supplying him with the tools for his murders.
Whoa! Hold your horses! France and Germany was “bankrolling his government”?! Cite?
And you are aware that the US supported and supplied Saddam up until the point where he attacked Q8? I mean he didn’t turn into a murdering madman overnight you know, he was killing people way before he started hurting US’ financial interests in the region.
And I am sure I could round up a couple of thousands of Christian Americans that advocate nuking the whole Middle East and killing every last Muslim. From that does not follow that Christians and Americans have declared war on Islam. There’s got to be at least a couple of million American muslims, that I am confident have not declared war on the US. I heard Michael Jackson converted, he hasn’t started building missile silos on his ranch has he?
When people start using the “tyrant” excuse to occupy other countries, it is all about to go pear shaped. This is why we have international laws. With your system, I should go knock off everyone that I thought was an asshole. The law however, does not support that. Which, might I add, is a good thing, since peoples definition of “bad guys” has a tendency to vary quote a bit.
And not to be mean or anything, but you know who set up Noriega in the first place, right?
That’s not true. Right now, the living standard of Iraqis are a lot lower then they were before the war. Actually, the biggest part of the population in a country is usually not effected that much by the standard “tyranny”, compared to how much they are effected when their country is attacked. Sure, in the long run the result can be better, but the US record of nation building so far is not very impressive. Noriega was mentioned before, Afghanistan who is slipping back into control of the warlords is a more recent example.
I’m a big fan of democracy and I think it would be lovely if every country in the world was a thriving and dynamic democracy. I don’t think that there is only one way to achieve it though (actually, I know this for a fact since history has shown it to be true). Reform tends to be better then revolution, but even revolution is better then the force of a foreign aggressor. So far the US isn’t looking too good. They went to war on trumped up reasons, lying not just to the rest of the world but to its own citisens, their motives are far from altruistic I suspect, and their record so far when it comes to establishing stable and humanitarian democracies is abysmal. It seems more like “Might is right, we take what we want and make up some excuses or diversions for the home crowds”. I hope I am being cynical.
There is no debatable content in this post. It’s just a lot of special pleading and confusing internet shorthand.
I’m serious about the shorthand. I’m having trouble deciphering it. Could you just speak plain English?
- Except Saddam I guess… and maybe some of his buddies.
yrs - years, pls - please, q - question
Cynic, my friend you are a bit confused, here, really, due respect, no hard feelings.
Cynic, I tried to tell you that the apartheid notion can not be farther from the truth as in Israel. I won’t go so far as to say that the arabs are treated as perfect equals there, sadly, but they enjoy an incomparable better life than their brothers in the other Arab countries.
**Semantic weaseling. They may not have used the words"imminent threat" but they damn sure told us that Iraq had WMDs armed and ready to fire at the US…IOW, an imminent threat. That was the only legal justification that the US could have used and that’s why they fabricated bogus WMDs.
**
That was never said either. They said Iraq could deploy battefield weapons in 45 minutes.
**Who are you talking about, the US or the UN? If you’re talking about the former then the US has no right either to “make promises” or to “deliver” on them. If you mean the UN, well that’s basically just tough titty. The US has no authority to enforce UN Resolutions, period. It’s irrelevant how frustrated some retarded cowboy becomes if the rest of the world shows no interest in his election campaign.
**
The UN, and the US for participating in making empty threats.
**Yes they do. They signed the treaties they are bound by them. That’s the way it works.
**
Ah, kind of like all those treaties promising to respect freedom of religion? Please. Nations sign feel-good treaties all the time with no intention of ever implementing them. Real treaties are almost never negotiated through the UN, but bilaterally or multilaterally outside the UN. It is an unspoken assumption that everything done through the UN, at least in the present, is purely symbolic. The rare exceptions are Security Council resolutions that are backed by the threat of force from the US. Even then, it’s just the US using the UN to gain symbolic legitimacy for military actions.
**Yes it is.
**
We didn’t shed our young people’s blood for the UN, sorry.
**Which they obviously did.
**
No, they didn’t. The cease-fire agreement did not merely call for us to not be able to find WMD. All forbidden weapons, WMD or otherwise, had to be fully accounted for, and destroyed under international supervision. It was understood clearly that Iraq could not simply say, “We destroyed them”. They were ordered to have them destroyed by UN inspectors precisely to avoid any accusations that they were hiding anything. Even if you believe Saddam destroyed his WMD AFTER going through the trouble of jerking UN inspectors around for seven years, he was still in violation of his obligations for destroying them in secret where they could not be verified. He couldn’t even provide any documentation that they were destroyed.
**Nope. "fraid not. The only legal justification for an invasion would have been self defense. The US had no such justification and they had no authority to enforce UN Resolutions while simultaneously pissing all over the UN Charter.
**
The UN charter is already drowned in an ocean of urine. How many nations keep it’s human rights rules? How many nations have violated its rules on waging war? Every single permanent Security Council member for starters, and the US was the LAST to break that rule, when they invaded Grenada in 1983. Prior to that, the Soviet Union had invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia, China had invaded Vietnam in 1978, and Britain and France had invaded the Suez. As I’ve said, no one takes UN rules seriously except as a way to restrain other nations. The US is just as hypocrtiical as everyone else about this.
**I dispute the ownership of your hosue. I say it’s mine. I guess we both have a right to live there.
**
Nice try, but home ownership is established by a clear set of laws. International law regarding the Occupied Territories is muddled, to say the least. The land is in a limbo, it has no status. Jordan has given up all rights to it, so at least now we are down to two parties left to argue over it.
**Nothing in the UN Security Resolutions against Iraq gave any authority to the US to unilaterally enforce them either. If we can ignore the soecifics of one set of resolutions why can’t we ignore another set?
**
If we ever decide to invade Israel, I don’t think the UN is going to stop us. It certainly hasn’t stopped less powerful countries from trying it several times, has it?
**And if that includes stealing land legally owned by someone else?
**
I have never heard of any individual settlers doing this. The only taking of land I know of is for security purposes, such as building this fence of theirs, or in furtherance of the official settlement policy. As I said, I oppose this. But if an individual Jew wants to buy a piece of land in the West Bank, and the Arab owner wants to sell it, no third parties have the right to say otherwise.
Let me take your house analogy a bit further. Let’s say you took my house and for whatever reason, the authorities tell me tough luck. Perhaps you are good friend of a Senator or something. Now, if I’m prone to fighting to get it back, I’ll storm the house and drive you out. If I’m a Palestinian, I go get some explosives, strap them to myself, and head down to the disco to kill other people.
And you are aware that the US supported and supplied Saddam up until the point where he attacked Q8?
Uh, yeah, with computers and unarmed helicopters. Where do you think he got all those AK-47s, Mig fighters, Roland anti-aircraft missiles, Mirages, Scuds, T-72 tanks…?
**When people start using the “tyrant” excuse to occupy other countries, it is all about to go pear shaped. This is why we have international laws. With your system, I should go knock off everyone that I thought was an asshole. The law however, does not support that. Which, might I add, is a good thing, since peoples definition of “bad guys” has a tendency to vary quote a bit.
**
The guys that we knock off, there is never a dispute about how awful they are. The dispute is with the methods. We aren’t talking about Jacques Chirac or Nelson Mandela here. We are talking about the worst of the worst. And in a world where there is no police force, vigilantism is the only way to fight this kind of thing. You may not like it, but that’s reality.
**And not to be mean or anything, but you know who set up Noriega in the first place, right?
**
Yep,. which gave all the more moral obligation to set right what we made wrong, didn’t it?
Knocking off bad guys like Allende and replacing them with good guys like Pinochet? Methods are important. Your arguments could be used to support everything from vigilantism to dictatorship and murder, and has.
And, there is a “police force”. GWB just didn’t agree with the way the police was handling it, so he gathered a lynch mob. I am sure there are plenty of lynch mobs in the history of mankind that has lynched perfectly guilty and “bad” people, that still doesn’t make me support the lynch mobs.
Then you and Homer Simpson agree, two wrongs makes a right.
I’d like to know if you stand by your previous remarks on Palestinians or if that was just something you splurted out in the heat of rethorics. I find it highly offensive, and I am sure my Palestinian friends would too if they saw it. I just wanted to give you the benefit of doubt.
**Knocking off bad guys like Allende and replacing them with good guys like Pinochet? Methods are important. Your arguments could be used to support everything from vigilantism to dictatorship and murder, and has.
**
We are speaking of military action here, not supporting one side over the other in internal politics. WE didn’t knock off Allende. Chileans did that, with our support.
**And, there is a “police force”. GWB just didn’t agree with the way the police was handling it, so he gathered a lynch mob. I am sure there are plenty of lynch mobs in the history of mankind that has lynched perfectly guilty and “bad” people, that still doesn’t make me support the lynch mobs.
**
There is not. When the UN wants to take action, it has to deputize whatever nations are willing to participate, even though the UN charter says that all nations must help enforce UN resolutions when asked to do so. Not many people want to dwell on the fact that Germany was violating the UN charter by refusing to give any support whatsoever to a war even if it was approved by the UN.
**Then you and Homer Simpson agree, two wrongs makes a right.
**
Leaving the man we put in charge to continue to terrorize his people is the second wrong. Taking him out is not.
**I’d like to know if you stand by your previous remarks on Palestinians or if that was just something you splurted out in the heat of rethorics. I find it highly offensive, and I am sure my Palestinian friends would too if they saw it. I just wanted to give you the benefit of doubt.
**
If they support the methods the militant arm of the PLO and Hamas use, then it certainly applies to them. Fight the occupation, not innocent teenagers at pizzerias, and I’ll take it back.
You said “The guys that we knock off, there is never a dispute about how awful they are.”. How is it relevant whether it is a military strike or a covert operation organised by the CIA? It isn’t. The interesting part was the definition of “bad guy” and “good guy”. In this case the US gvt decided that Allende was a bad guy and Pinochet a good guy (based on their economical interests, Allende was a socialist and Pinochet extremely right-wing economically). I am not comfortable with a single nations economical interests deciding who is good or bad, especially not if that nation is prepared to unilaterally act on their decision. I know that that may very well be a fact, but that doesn’t make it right.
In the analogy used I think the UN fits the idea of “police” even though the analogy isn’t perfect. The fact that they have to “deputise” isn’t relevant. The fact is that there is and was laws that applied, just because the biggest policeman of the bunch decides to ignore them and (maybe) gets away with it, doesn’t mean they don’t exists, it just means they were ignored. I’m also going to have to ask for a cite on the allegations against Germany, that is not how I recall it.
With regards to Palestinians. that’s not what you said.
I find that a racist blanket generalisation, and a highly offensive one too. The Palestinians I know are no more likely to strap explosives to their chest then you or I am. Since you didn’t retract your statement I’ll just assume that it is a signature of your way of thinking, which makes it less attractive to debate with you (since we can’t agree on very basic premises).
**You said “The guys that we knock off, there is never a dispute about how awful they are.”. How is it relevant whether it is a military strike or a covert operation organised by the CIA? It isn’t. **
Once again, we didn’t knock Allende off. The Chilean military did it. We supported it, but we were not the decisive element.
**I am not comfortable with a single nations economical interests deciding who is good or bad, especially not if that nation is prepared to unilaterally act on their decision. I know that that may very well be a fact, but that doesn’t make it right.
**
It wasn’t economic interests, but geopolitical interests. Allende was moving towards a dictatorship that would be anti-Western and pro-Soviet, like Castro’s Cuba. Faced with the lesser of two evils, we chose the lesser. In the long run, it worked out for the better. Chile would not today be the freest, most prosperous nation in South America if Allende had been allowed to take over the country.
I find that a racist blanket generalisation, and a highly offensive one too
I should have said Palestinian militant. I apologize.
I think we can pull it off, and I think we should. Unfortunately, I don’t think Bush has anything as grand as world domination in mind, but I think this would be a good time for it, and it may be our last chance before another superpower pops up.
The USA is the logical choice as the rulers of a one-world government. We have obviously shown the most success, leading the world financially, militarily, and economically. We may not have the best human rights record, but we are better than most of the other serious contenders. Most importantly, we have shown the ability to integrate people of diverse cultures into our nation.
Holy…
So it was better to assasinate a democratically elected president and replace him with a dictator who (we know) ended up murdering thousands and thousands of civilians, because the democratically elected one could have taken Chile in an “anti-Western and pro-Soviet” direction (ie: They were “commies”).
I am sorry but I am baffled. If that actually represents your ideas of what is good and bad, then it only reinforces what I said earlier. Politics like this is a much bigger threat to democracy then suicide bombers.
**So it was better to assasinate a democratically elected president and replace him with a dictator who (we know) ended up murdering thousands and thousands of civilians, because the democratically elected one could have taken Chile in an “anti-Western and pro-Soviet” direction (ie: They were “commies”).
**
Democratically elected means nothing when the elected leader starts abrogating the Constitution he was elected under. And once again, WE didn’t do it. Chileans did it. We just chose to support them as the side most favorable to our interests. We have tolerated many leftist governments, provided they respect the rights of their citizens and not commit theft, as in stealing foreign property without compensation. Allende had gangs of brownshirts in the streets killing and intimidating opponents. The nation was falling apart. It was all over whether we took a side or not.
How did Allende abrogate the Constitution? Also, do you mean to say that a democratically elected leadership can not change the law?
Er. The assasination by CIA of Rene Schneider. US economic blockade of the country. Funding the military and oppositional political groups (such as the fascist PyL). Propaganda through CIA-linked media etc etc. That’s not a passive approach. The US didn’t actually go into Chile and kill Allende, but they did pretty much everything except just that.
And here you hit the mark in my opinion. My bolding. Allende nationalising Chiliean industries with American interests/owners.
Cite? Unless you ment to say “Pinochet” I’m going to need a cite for this allegation.
The US was and is the biggest economy in the world. The economical blockade with the intention of “making the economy scream”, together with political subversion and sponsoring of terrorist groups as well as oppositional parties can not under any circumstances be characterised as taking a passive role and picking a side after letting them handle it internally. The US saw its economical interests threatened and took action.
I have never met anyone from Chile who wouldn’t have prefered Allende to Pinochet, and aside from the minority that profited from Pinochets opression I doubt there is anyone. How can you claim that it was for the best of the people of Chile what happened? How?! In fact, why do you make this claim?
It is obvious even if I only go by what you say, that the US did what it did because its economical interests were threatened. To the US (meaning the Nixon government), their economical interests obviously outweighed the well-being of the people of a foreign nation. They would rather have a mass-murderer who made them money in charge then a democratically elected government that didn’t. That is the plain truth and I believe you agree with that, and probably think that is ok.
Then you have stipulated a moral system where self-interest is the only bar to which an action is held when valued. Do we benefit from this? If US makes an economical profit, the action is good, if it doesn’t, the action is bad. All through your arguments, this is the core. This is the basis of capitalism and it’s a proven system that works, unless applied on a grander scale. Before we move forward, will you acknowledge that this is your opinion. That a country is allowed to do whatever it can in order to protect and further its own interests? This is exactly what I think is wrong with the Bush regime and exactly why we need to uphold international laws and treaties.
Also, I think it is odd that you would try to argue that it was in the peoples (of Chile) best interest, since obviously, they don’t come into the equation. The only thing that matters is the US interests when judging whether it is right or wrong. You could just as well save you the trouble and say "Doesn’t matter if Allende was elected or what was best for Chile, the US did what was needed to protect their interests.** That is what the debate is now, and if you could conceede that the people of Chile was not best served by the change of regime then we could focus on teh core issue.
Don’t forget the anthrax.