Fair enough. Serbia/Kosovo is a good example. And the linked article is indeed interesting.
But, that said, do you honestly believe that our motivation for starting this war is out of concern for the Iraqi people?
The “we” involved there WASN’T the UN. It was NATO, spearheaded by the US.
And I quote from the article I posted, “Chapter Seven of the UN Charter says that nations may act collectively against what the charter calls “threats to international peace and security.” That chapter provides international legal justification for a group of nations to intervene to keep the peace.”
Therefore, the US would NOT be acting outside the sanction of the UN, and you’d have to be an ignorant fool to believe that Saddam doesn’t present a threat to international peace and security.
No. I believe our motivation for starting a war against Saddam is not any single, overriding reason, but rather a collection of smaller reasons leading to an unacceptable number of reasons to remove him from power. Humanitarian issues are one reason, economics are another reason, his likely possession of WMD and the threats to peace and security in the region they pose are another reason.
The sheer number of reasons to go to war to remove Saddam is in fact THE reason to do it.
UN vs. NATO, either way, it was with the backing of an organization of nations collectively, vs. the US alone or w/Great Britain. The collective vs. this big guy here and maybe his cousin.
RE: your take on the ‘US wouldn’t be acting outside the sanction of the UN’
w/o a resolution to that effect? so, for example, North Korea and Peoples Republic could decide that South Korea was a threat to international peace and security and the UN would be okey dokey with that? Really.
(re: the ‘ignorant fool’ gig - I agree Saddam’s a bad guy, one of several. the level of threat to international peace is under serious dispute. He’s got a large neighbor w/long term hostilities to worry about, let alone internal unrest, and of course, the best method to neutralize any threat he poses is also under serious dispute).
[Hi]
Yes, sadly, that is what I’ve lowered myself to do. Just a jab back a Tar -Just the normal BBQ pit thing, but with style.
As for ass dead carcas, …I …Well… that’s just what came to me. I have no Idea what it means.
[/Jack]
I guess “crazy” counts as a style.
Even taking into account that you’re on an ego trip that takes anything to support it as gospel. To actually think that the US military discusses it’s top secret military strategy with CBS is so far out in left field it’s in the nose bleed section of the bleachers.
Um, CBS didn’t ferret this out of them, the Pentagon held a press conference and announced this. It was on other sites as well. Are you suggesting that all the news organizations made this up?
It must be hard being stupid. The world is probably very confusing.
Read your own link you ignorant dickhead!!
Fair enough. I didn’t notice on the first read through that it was an exclusive CBS report – the other sites I saw the story on must have been quoting this report.
Apparently, I am in fact an ignorant dickhead.
And when we went into Serbia/Kosovo, we went in with the support of the United Nations and the intent to drag the bad people involved into an International court, to be legally tried.
This is a lot different then going into a country without the support of much of anyone in order depose or kill the ruler without trial and to set up a period of occupancy that could last indefinately.
I agree. It made my brain hurt. In fact, yme, I’m willing to concede you several points on the political argument if you agree never, ever, EVER to rap or write poetry on this board again. Please. I’m begging here.
OK, attacking or not attacking aside…
What the f… WHAT? Nothing wrong with this? This is the first time I type this on SDMB but,
yme, you sir is an arsehole, completely lacking in moral fibre and an aspiring thief to boot. Honest, I’ll give you that but man, to me your views suck so bad you’d think I had opened the door to a vacuum when I read that shit.
…fucking moron…
The US went no nearer Kosovo than, say, 30,00 feet. Clinton, despite Blair’s ardent wishes, would not commit ground forces under any circumstances.
AFAIK, no one “dragged” Mad Milo anywhere. He was given up by the new government under threat (by the US) of cancelling aid.
And again, AFAIK, the Serbia / Kosovo operation had nothing to do with the UN, save providing a legal framework (those were the days … ). Peacekeeping after the event, yep. But the operational side was NATO.
Aside, from that, it seems to be an accurate post …
What we’ll have, see, is a TV hyper-reality show, where America gets to pick the next Evil Dictator for us to wipe out. Who will win on “Who’s Next, America?!”
It’ll be like the Gong Show with blood.
I think mc yme and his rapping are a greater threat to international peace than Saddam. That was poor, dude.
It’s the Unknown Dictator! (Idi Ameen come out with a paper bag over his head) “Ever notice when your ethnically cleansing your political rivals family, and they beg for mercy, what’s up with that?”
The new bumper stickers say “First Iraq, Then France”.
After that, time to give the dam’ Russkies what-for for their veto. They don’t know anything about fighting or winning either - we can just march right into the Kremlin in the middle of winter, just like even the French did. That’ll teach 'em.
Is the question “Why isn’t the well-being of the Iraqi people a good enough reason to go to war?” I don’t think it’s that simple. We don’t know what the effects of a war on the region will be. Don’t take for granted that a war will necessarily leave them better off than they are now. Suppose the struggle for influence between Kurds and Shiites in postwar Iraq erupts into civil war?
Well, first of all, wring has already pointed out the other issues implicit in your analogy.
Second, even if the “central point” you were making was that “the US has no obligation to topple everyone that pisses it off,” you are wrong anyway. You need to change the wording, which should read “the US has no right to topple anyone that pisses it off.” As i’ve pointed out in numerous other threads, the UN charter gives one nation the right to attack another under only two circumstances:
- self-defence against an attack
- with UN Security Council approval
There is no mention of the right to topple “anyone that pisses you off.”
This whole thread is an exercise in futility, because the OP really seems uninterested in anything but his/her own desire to bomb Iraq. yme has been involved in just about every Iraq-related thread over the past few weeks, and has been arguing vociferously (if not very coherently) that the reasons given by George Bush for military action are good and correct. Now, suddenly, we get an about-face, in which yme concedes that the anti-war people’s arguments are actually valid: the lack of connection between Iraq and 9/11, the lack of a direct threat posed to the US by Iraq; the fact that oil is a big motivation.
Yet despite all this, we should go in anyway. Why? Because Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. And when asked whether this is a morally correct thing to do, and whether it might not lead people to ask why the US is ignoring the crimes of so many other despots worldwide, all yme and friends can come up with is, “hey, America can’t do it all, you know.” This backhanded argument for unilateralism is all the more offensive because it is so transparent, and because it assumes that the US is motivated by nothing but goodwill and benevolence when it decides to start dropping bombs on specially-selected nations.
And, by the way yme, there’s an easy way to stop people like Tar Tarkas from calling you names - post your thread in GD instead of The Pit. The only problem with that, of course, is that you might actualy have to construct a coherent argument and back it up with evidence.