Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sweet irony

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Sweet irony

    ctibodoe, At last something we are in complete agreement on where you said: I believe the human condition is the quest for freedom and self determination. And every group of people should have the chance to decide for themselves. I have NOTHING against democracy....and I also believe that it is the best form of government around. Where we seem to disagree is where we would force democracy on a people that didn't want it or worse would reject it just because it was being forced on them. Allowing them to choose for themselves...they will probably choose democracy....but the choice must be theirs. But we must be open to the possibility that they will choose something else....who knows? I've enjoyed the discussion.

    Comment


    • #47
      Sweet irony

      We are in agreement. I'm still having a problem seeing where we are in disagreement if: "Where we seem to disagree is where we would force democracy on a people that didn't want it or worse would reject it just because it was being forced on them. Allowing them to choose for themselves...they will probably choose democracy....but the choice must be theirs. But we must be open to the possibility that they will choose something else....who knows?" this quote is about Iraq? Are we forcing democracy on Iraq? I contend that we are forcing out a regime that is not in place due to the will of the people. And we cannot turn over the country, until it can safely be turned over to the people, not the next set of bullies. When Iraq gets to the point where true free elections can be held, then by definition democracy will not have been forced on them...they will have chosen it. We are forcing democratic methods on the dictator, his henchmen, and the foriegn(to Iraq) terrorists that are there. But, the Iraqi people seem to be participating in the opportunity to play in the new political arena. In the news that I'm watching I am not seeing a majority of anybody calling for the old regime to be put back in place. I guess what I am trying to say, is the old regime is what was forcing the people of Iraq to not have their say, not the liberators. And, ain't it great that we are able to have these conversations without fear of winding up in a mass grave. And now the Iraqi's can start to have these kinds of conversations in public, too. I have enjoyed it also.

      Comment


      • #48
        Sweet irony

        David said: "Then it should have been the responsibility of the international body to pursue action." Ah, to live in a world where everyone lived up to their responsibilities! chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "David Abramowitz" wrote in message news:6ae8b07d.41@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > Brian Singleton wrote: Saddam continued to thumb his nose at the UN and international law and played brinksmanship and lost. Someone had to step up to the plate on the enforcement side. > > Then it should have been the responsibility of the international body to pursue action. The UN mandate was not there when we entered Iraq. In point of fact, the UN rejected Colin Powell's presentation, and proceded to vote to give inspectors more of a chance. We justified our action by stating that there was a threat of WMDs from Iraq. > > IMO, it would have been far nobler for Bush to state that whereas Saddam was a no-good evil sumbich, that therefore he was going to kick his assets. Instead the American public was a forced audience to sermon after sermon concerning the WMDs. > > BTW, you are correct about Saddam's intentions concerning Saudi Arabia. Participants in Desert Storm who were stationed in Saudi Arabia have told me that the first question asked of them was "When are you going home?" Never a word of thanks for putting their lives on the line to save their country. > > Dave

        Comment


        • #49
          Sweet irony

          David, you are missing one very very important detail. When the UN sanctioned the Gulf War they left us in charge. The peace treaty that Saddam signed was with the U.S. NOT the UN. Therefore, WE were not asking permission from the UN to act to Saddam's violation of the peace treaty only asking for their assistance and support. Therefore, WE not the UN were the the ones that were "wronged" by the violation of the treaty (I believe that called it the "Peace accord"). The UN does not have the power to dictate to any country how it is to handle such violations. The UN is and always will be a place to try and get world support, but they do not make policy nor do they enforce policy. The US and Iraq made an arrangement to end the Gulf War. Saddam broke that arrangement multiple times. How many times should we have let Saddam break his agreements? 1? 20? 1000? More? The longer you allow one country to go back on it's arrangement (especially in regards to peace treaties) the more other countries will try to take advantage. If let's say France had a specific peace treaty with a country and that country kept violating it, do you really expect them to simply let it go? I don't think even the french would allow it to happen for long.

          Comment


          • #50
            Sweet irony
            [*]******* Glen said "When the UN sanctioned the Gulf War they left us in charge. The peace treaty that Saddam signed was with the U.S. NOT the UN."[*]******* I would be interested to see documentation that shows the UN "left us in charge". I thought the Gulf war was a coalition and was not only UN sanctioned, but officially a UN opperation, just with a US general appointed as commander. Just because our politicians insisted on saying "the U.S." all the time did not make it "our" war. I thought the agreement was officially signed with the UN. Anyway, I'm not saying I know this for a fact, but it was always what I thought. So if you have articles you can give me links to, I would definately like to read them. As an aside, during the Gulf war, I was angered at the politicians for constantly saying "the U.S." because I thought that was just making sure we would be further targeted by terrorists. Before people jump, I'm sure we would have continued to be targeted by terrorists regardless, but the language used just exacerbated the situation. It was not just us that waged that war, it was a group of countries that joined together to do it. The fact that we did the majority was due to the capabilities we have, not because it was our duty to do the most.

            Comment


            • #51
              Sweet irony

              The rallying cry of the anti-Bush and/or anti-Iraq-war folks consistently centers on the bizarre notion that the only reason we went to war was because of weapons of mass destruction. This is a fabrication. Let's be clear on this. Here's the President's statement AS WE WENT TO WAR: "My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." Note the three-pronged agenda? Note how freeing the people of Iraq is right up there, along with defending the world from grave danger? Anybody who insist that the administration's only excuse for war was WMD need only read this to have that notion disabused. And as I've said before, for those whose argument is they would not have gone to war except for the issue of WMD, shame on you. The horrific suffering of the Iraqi people and the clear and present danger of having the world's fifth largest army run by a genocidal tyrant willing to use WMD on his own people should have been reason enough. Once again: WMD were only one of the reasons we deposed Hussein, and frankly I'm getting tired of hearing that argument over and over. Joe

              Comment


              • #52
                Sweet irony

                Glen Kerner wrote: The peace treaty that Saddam signed was with the U.S. It really wasn't a peace treaty, but you are correct in the spirit of your statement. That being agreed to, it should not have been necessary to use WMDs as a smokescreen for a pretext to an invasion. Dave

                Comment


                • #53
                  Sweet irony

                  I asked someone else if they had ever been in the military. It applies here too. It does not question your loyalty or anything such as that. It questions your understanding of what a military is and what it does and what it does it with. Wars are fought with more than bullets. Do you agree? Wars are also fought with words. These words are sometimes not what you think they are. They also are sometimes true, but can't be substantiated at the time you would desire. People are sometimes sacrificed in wars, and sometimes also are words. All that being said. The highest ranking member of the military is the President. I'm sure words were and are in his arsenal in this war. And not until it is over, or you guys vote him out are you likely to know just how all the words, bullets and people were used.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Sweet irony

                    Joe Pluta wrote: > Once again: WMD were only one of the reasons we deposed Hussein, and > frankly I'm getting tired of hearing that argument over and over. But the reason it is continually brought up is because that was the issue we tried to push to the UN to justify our invasion. He may have modified his stance with the American people, but he always pushed WMD to the UN. Bill

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Sweet irony

                      "He may have modified his stance with the American people, but he always pushed WMD to the UN." When exactly did President Bush "push WMD to the UN"? Please be so kind as to show some proof of your statement, as I must admit I'm entirely confused. And in any event, the issue was about some sort of "smokescreen" to Congress and/or the American people, so I'm a little confused as to how the UN is even involved in this discussion. Joe

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Sweet irony

                        A wiser man than me once wrote "The first casualty in any battle is the truth!" Dave

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Sweet irony

                          Joe Pluta wrote: > When exactly did President Bush "push WMD to the UN"? Please be so > kind as to show some proof of your statement, as I must admit I'm > entirely confused. http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ An excerpt: Powell's argument could be divided into two main tracks. The first centered on the premise that Iraq had to face the penalties for having flouted numerous Security Council resolutions. "Last Nov. 8, this council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote," the secretary said. "The purpose of that resolution was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years. Bill

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Sweet irony

                            Actually, that was pushing resolution 1441, which Iraq was in material breach of - and still to this day, we don't have verification of where all of Iraq's WMD program went. We know we can't find it, but there's no documentation saying where it went. In any event, that's Powell. Bush vowed to defend: "...The United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country….Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first….For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of pre-emption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack. We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries….The United States has long maintained the option of pre-emptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction—and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively." Nothing specific to WMD, but instead a general statement that we're planning to attack the terrorists rather than waiting for them to attack us. Since Iraq was one of the key players in the international game of terrorism, they were a good target. And ultimately, Bill, Bush and the coalition have been proven correct. Their actions have now led to the voluntary disarmement of Libya - something that would have never happened by waiting for the UN to act. And so, while you might have problems with our relationship with that body, I for one have no problems. Bush was entirely clear with the United States citizens, and they are the ONLY people he needs to answer to. You know what the UN is proposing now, right? Allowing countries to tax the income of emigres in other nations. Allowing the UN to set taxing levels of sovereign nations. Allowing the UN to directly tax things like satellites launches. I for one don't really care what the United Nations does. Joe

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Sweet irony

                              Joe Pluta wrote: Their actions have now led to the voluntary disarmement of Libya Joe, this is just plain wrong. According to recent statements in the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and even Fox News, the State Department has been in secret negotiations with Libya for at least four years. The diplomatic impetus was begun by the previous administration and continued by the current one. I will agree that Qadahffi may be running a bit scared due to recent events, but that can not be said to be the sole deciding factor. Dave

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Sweet irony

                                And we were in negotiations with Hussein for 13. You may want to believe Libya would have done this had we let the UN continue its course of non-policy, but that's holding awfully tight to a very thin thread. No, I'm pretty certain that watching Hussein being forcibly deposed was pretty much the sole DECIDING factor. Without that, there was no foreseeable end to the "secret negotiations". Joe

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X