An American Retort/Essay

[GLW]

Red,

you have proven my point. Your posts continue to be condescending and insulting to any who disagree with you..and then you accuse others of twisting your words.

I said that if you felt that you could serve once in the cause of a freedom fight and then your obligation was over that you did not understand the basic idea that the obligation and fight for freedom is not and never has been one that you can be free of with a clear conscience.

If this fits you...so be it. If it doesn't...fine too. I am speaking about people who will encourage war and then not be willing to go.

I have the same feelings about people who are pro-death penalty abut unwilling to take the life themself. If you are for a death penalty and would not get up in the convicted's face and do the deed, you should not speak. Notice...nowhere did I say that this did or did not apply to you. It is a general principle that you should be willing and ready to put your money where your mouth is....regardless of the topic.

The history of the UN sanctions is ONE of the versions. There are other versions as well. I am sure that none of them are 100% true and the the truth lies in a combination of all of them.

Is Hussein bad...yes. He has always been such - even when we supported him.

Are there others equally as bad....you bet...but we aren't going after them.

I do not feel an obligation to police the world. If we are doing this for our self interest...tell me what that interest is in a way that it touches me and mine...and see my willingness change.

I find it much more telling that an accomplice to the NYC attack got 15 years...from some country that we are friendly with... That Bin Laden is still out there and we as a society have lost interest in that...it is OLD news.

But...still you have not addressed the need for the administration to spell out the what's and whys for this to the citizenship or at least to Congress. oops...not necessary, Congress passed a law against the Constitution that sort of gives the president the authority to declare war...even though only Congress has that authority.

You also did not address the concept of open debate or support for free speech and differing opinions. Instead of acknowledging those things, you started with assumptions on everyone that disagree with you. Again...this is counter productive.

I have said enough. I support your right to your opinion. I think it is simplistic and short sighted and such haste will lead to problems...but it wouldn't be the first time.

But...do YOU support other people's right to have their opinion and to disagree with you?

[dnc101]

Well, I was just listening to the news on NPR and guess what? The inspectors just said that the anti war protests are making Saddam Hussein bolder and making their job more difficult. They say he thinks the world is with him, and therefore he doesn't need to do more. Where, oh where, have I heard this predicted recently?

When will they ever learn? When will they e-e-ever learn? (From popular anti war song in the early 70's)

[Merryprankster]

Saudi Arabia needs democracy, they oppress their citizens. Why not overthrow them?

The Turkish government has treated the Kurds horribly and they use our money to do it. Why not overthow them?

The Egyptian goverment gets lots of money from us to oppress their own people, it's hardly a democracy, why not over throw them?

The Coloumbian governement uses our money and troops to oppress their people. Why not overthrow them?

Because everytime we try to defend freedom and liberty somebody accuses us of being imperialistic bullies, so we have to pick our battles.

[Rockwood]

MerryP-


"Because everytime we try to defend freedom and liberty somebody accuses us of being imperialistic bullies, so we have to pick
our battles."


It just seems like we should go after someone who attacked us like BinLadin (and his supporters in Saudi Arabia) instead of just another random ****tator.

I'm not expecting you to have the answer, but if you have one that would be cool.

Columbia, Iraq, CHina, they are all dictators, I'm only concerned with the "bad guys" who attacked us.

And Bu$h doesn't seem to give a dam.

Who am I to argue, just another Berkeley Loonie!

-JessO

[David Jamieson]

The last thing a soldier is ...is free.

Although they are noble in defense and protection of their homes. They are not so noble when used to further the cause of their superiors and the geopolitical views of their superiors' superior.

They are defensless against their own masters and have no choice but to do or die, wrong or right. It is moot. There is no "plight" of the soldier that attacks without being attacked. With the exception of the soldier who is forced to go to war lest he be jailed. Drafted.

The soldier who attacks, simply because he is told to, or rather ordered to is only doing his job. It is by no means righteous action that is taken when viewed from this perspective. It is slaughter, especially against a toothless dictator and weakling country that is Iraq.

The sanctions and resolutions currently in place are working and so far Bush and his ilk have proved nothing but their own pushy attitudes, ignorance of what's good for everyone, thinly veiled vapid greed, and...well, what else can I say about this lack lustre not even mediochre president of the great United States.

cheers

[Radhnoti]

GLW- "But, I also know that while I may speak out, the majority DOES or is supposed to rule."
Nope, this is a republic. Majority rules would lead to oppression of the minority.

Rockwood- "It just seems like we should go after someone who attacked us like BinLadin..."
Lead our forces to him and you get a multi-million dollar reward.

Rockwood- "We are nervous about this president because he wants to put this country in a permanent war, a war that won't end in our lifetime."
Are you referring to terrorism? I can almost guarantee the Iraq war will be "over in my lifetime". I presume terrorist attacks will be occuring from now on, as it's the only semi-militaristic response the losers of war and life can muster.

Bottomline to me: Iraq said they'd follow the terms of the ceasefire, even the staunchest anti-war activist has to admit they haven't done so. They've been given so many chances it makes the U.S. look weak with it's foreign policy. Why should other nations care to live up to their part of an agreement knowing the U.S. can't/won't hold them to it?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
Bottomline to me: Iraq said they'd follow the terms of the ceasefire, even the staunchest anti-war activist has to admit they haven't done so. They've been given so many chances it makes the U.S. look weak with it's foreign policy. Why should other nations care to live up to their part of an agreement knowing the U.S. can't/won't hold them to it?

Slight flaw of logic there for me.

The ceasefire was with the U.N. not the USA.
The USA can act on behalf of the U.N. with their approval/support as they did in the Gulf War and other areas.

But acting without the U.N. approval using the non-compliance as a reason for attacking another country is wrong.

This is my beef with the current issue.

What the USA says and what they appear to want seem to be 2 different things.

[dnc101]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
This is my beef with the current issue.

Good one!

We had the resolution from the UN. But we don't need it. We were one of the signatories on the ceasefire agreement. Saddam violated it. End of story. End of Saddam.

Peace through superior firepower!

[yenhoi]

The sanctions and resolutions currently in place are working and....

Id like a hit of whatever you are smoking up there KL...

The ceasefire was with the U.N. not the USA.

Not true.

I kinda wish I could motivate myself to find a copy of the ceasefire on the net so you might read it before making more **** up.

But acting without the U.N. approval using the non-compliance as a reason for attacking another country is wrong.

What the USA says and what they appear to want seem to be 2 different things.

You are a "... blind idiot ..." LC.

Rockwood:

Columbia, Iraq, CHina, they are all dictators, I'm only concerned with the "bad guys" who attacked us.

Where does everyone get this idea that the United States has something against dictators? We just dont like dictators in our own country. Our constitution only applies to us. For the Record, Columbia and China are not dictatorships. Funny that you arent making a fuss about American troops in the Philipines, Georgia, or Yemen.

These are just examples, what I'm getting at is, how do we pick and choose which dictator to overthrow today? Which one tomorrow? Which one the next day?

The current list goes like this:

Iraq.
North Korea.
Iran.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by yenhoi
I kinda wish I could motivate myself to find a copy of the ceasefire on the net so you might read it before making more **** up.

Pls, do so.
So that I can read it for myself if the USA alone can act on a breach of if other parties approvals are needed.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targ...2/0329iraq.htm

Cheers.

The difficulty for Washington lies in the phrasing of the resolution, which appeared to leave responsibility for overseeing that ceasefire with the U.N. Security Council itself, not individual states. "There is no provision for enforcement in the resolution which authorises states to carry out military action," said Durham University's Professor Colin Warbrick. "It's for the Security Council to decide what action to take."

[Mokujin]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
The sanctions and resolutions currently in place are working and so far Bush and his ilk have proved nothing but their own pushy attitudes, ignorance of what's good for everyone, thinly veiled vapid greed, and...well, what else can I say about this lack lustre not even mediochre president of the great United States.

cheers

Wow! I wasn't aware that Saddam completely disarmed and accounted for all his biological weapons! And he's is no longer supporting terrorism, but planting trees for a better Iraq.

Honestly, Kung Lek, how can you type this blatant lie with a straight face?

After all these years, the UN wants more time. Bush has proved he is willing to enforce a resolution that the UN will not. Bottom line, it's put upon Saddam to prove something, not Bush. Your pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

www.brain-terminal.com

[yenhoi]

Nations that ran the world got together hundreds of years ago and set up rules of diplomacy and war. Nations do not need UN approval to wage war upon one another. The United States does not stand alone to start with, infact it stands shoulder to shoulder with the same allies it always has whenever it fights any war.

The UN is not a world governing authority.

So that I can read it for myself if the USA alone can act on a breach of if other parties approvals are needed.

Do you even know what a cease fire is? "Breach"ing a cease fire means resuming the war. This is not a decision the United States is making.

Anyways, I though you had abandonded this thread to us "...blind idiots..."

[Laughing Cow]

Yenhoi.

The "breach" depends on the condition set forth in said cease-fire agrement and what actions are to/can be taken in case of said breach by which parties.

That's why I want to read it for myself as I hear opposing version about the breach and the actions that can be taken.

A breach does not mean an immediate continuation of war, that is a very simplistic viewpoint.
If the issue was that simple I doubt we would be having this discussion.

But I guess you rather not show it to me, since it might proove you wrong.


Don't worry I will look for it myself, since I have doubts that you got all the facts right, or that you ever read the ceasefire agreement.

Material Breach

[yenhoi]

I find it very odd that suddenly you wish to engage me. I dont find it odd that you have picked up on one of the most insignificant things I have said.

I wont find it for you, but Im sure someone on here will.

I stated my opinion, not facts. It would be interesting to see you prove an opinion wrong with a web document, regardless of the detail text. I would very much doubt that the United States bound itself to a document that gives the United Nations war making powers. If that happens to somehow be the case, then all the more reason for the United States to call for the United Nations as whatever international authority it is - to fulfill its obligations to the people of the United States. I will also admit freely that I do not 'know' the letter of the document.

Regardless, treatys do not change the war making authority of any independant nation - soldiers do.

[Laughing Cow]

Yenhoi.

If you simplay stated your opinion there would be no problem, but you insisted that it was correct.

Read the article linked at the bottom of my last Post, it is an interesting read.


I also haven't read the exact wording of the ceasefire, but many educated peoples been discussing it for a long time.

Ciao.