Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sweet irony

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

  • J.Pluta
    replied
    Sweet irony

    "A war that the U.S. supported. A war that killed roughly one million people, some with chemical weapons." Whether we actively supported the war against Iran, or simply supported the enemies of Iran is a question for socipolitical studies to debate. There is a difference, according to the UN, and from what I have been able to gather from the UNs dense and sometmies obscure ruling, giving someone guns to fight a war is not the same as fighting the war. This of course makes sense in light of the UN as primarily a financial body, not a governing body; selling guns is a good thing, using them is not. "Now, none of this means that the U.S. supported the gassing the Kurds. As I recall, the U.S. protested the matter but then let it drop rather quickly." Unfortunately, it's not so clean as all that. We actually voted against censuring Iraq for Halabja. This was one of the more egregious failures in American foreign policy in a while. More in a minute. "Also, by 1991 the U.S. was clearly no longer an ally of Iraq, so perhaps this episode played a part in the unravelling of that relationship." Kuwait sealed the deal. "No, the problem is one of realpolitik. The U.S. was an enemy of Iran because of the 1979 revolution there. Hussein was an enemy of Iran too, and better yet, secular (Moslem, but secular). So even though he was already a dictator, Iraq became an ally of America." Ah - herein lies the gentle distinction between "dictator" and "evil dictator". We supported the Shah or Iran, although it's pretty clear he was no great friend to his people. We have historically partnered up with shady regimes in order to shore up an offense against even shadier regimes. This is truly the "realpolitik" of which you speak. Usually, the idea is to try to create some political movement from within, moving gently towards democracy. However, there are times when you have to tell someone that it's over, and we did that with Hussein in the 90's. And after Kuwait, we gave him a dozen years to straighten out his act, and there is no sign that he did so. Finally, it was time to move ahead. Joe

    Leave a comment:


  • J.Pluta
    replied
    Sweet irony

    Last night one of the networks was playing the Wizard of Oz, and that's a favorite in my household, so I went to bed with the strains of "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" in my head. And lo and behold, I get up this morning to the news that Hussein is captured in a hole in the ground on a farm near Tikrit. The irony is just wonderful. Joe

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Sweet irony

    In this discussion, I have read that a reason for invading Iraq was that Iraq gassed it's own citizens, and slaughtered, or otherwise brought them to harm in innumerable ways. Certainly a good reason. However, there is a major problem here. The gassing occurred while Iraq was an ally of the U.S. The chemical warfare was against the Iraqi town of Halabja in March 1988. International estimates are that approximately 5,000 people died. The reason, apparently, was that the Kurdish inhabitants chose to rebel against Saddam and his government. Also important to this story is the fact that Halabja is just 11 kilometers from Iran, with whom Iraq was at war. A war that the U.S. supported. A war that killed roughly one million people, some with chemical weapons. Now, none of this means that the U.S. supported the gassing the Kurds. As I recall, the U.S. protested the matter but then let it drop rather quickly. Also, by 1991 the U.S. was clearly no longer an ally of Iraq, so perhaps this episode played a part in the unravelling of that relationship. No, the problem is one of realpolitik. The U.S. was an enemy of Iran because of the 1979 revolution there. Hussein was an enemy of Iran too, and better yet, secular (Moslem, but secular). So even though he was already a dictator, Iraq became an ally of America. Now on to the issue of the U.N. Sure, the U.N. has problems. It's structure is a bureaucratic relic of the Cold War and a Security Council referral is a fine way to stop many worthwhile initiatives. But don't blame the U.N. for things outside it's mandate, or beyond it's control. The U.N. has neither a military force at it's disposal, nor a police force. It can ask member countries to provide troops for a specific task but has no independent forces. Fundamentally, the U.N. is not in a position to enforce anything, and blaming it for not enforcing U.N. resolutions is unfair. I would go even further and suggest that the U.N. has an appropriate organizational bias against doing so anyway. It was created from the ashes of World War II with the goal of preventing future wars, particularly worldwide conflicts. All nations get a seat, even the unsavoury ones. Say what you will, but the U.N. has helped keep more people talking, and less people shooting. Failing that, when nations collectively decide to take action against one of their own, the U.N. is the best place to make that decision. When an organization that is institutionally against war decides to make one, you can be pretty sure that war really was the only remaining option.

    Leave a comment:


  • J.Pluta
    replied
    Sweet irony

    "Since when?" You believe that Iraq was NOT involved in terrorism? You really need to do a little research. Start here: http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html One of Iraq's primary terrorist goals seems to have been to prevent peace in the Middle East, which pretty much everyone considers to be one of the priamry goals of a stable world peace. If, by the way, you're making some sort of distinction between "local terrorism" and "international terrorism", then we have nothing further to discuss. "a big assumption that can't be proven and IMO is completely false" And when exactly did you predict Libya disarming? What has the UN done to disarm Libya? In fact, when did the UN even mention that as a priority? And finally, what does Syria have to do with any of this? Because Syria is bad, we should ignore Libya? Do you think we have to have some list that we go down in order? We're seizing targets of opportunity and each one that we remove makes the world a safer place. Here's the simple, undeniable math: Hussein gone = safer world. Argue all you want. Happy New Year! Joe

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Sweet irony

    Joe Pluta wrote: > In any event, that's Powell. Bush vowed to defend: Are you actually trying to say the Powell acted without Bush's guidance? > Since Iraq was one of the key players in the international > game of terrorism, they were a good target. Since when? More and more it's looking like some Saudis are responsible for financing much of the terrorism and I'm not aware of a single tie between Iraq and international terrorism. In fact, the attacks currently upon the Coalition forces are proving to be committed by non-Iraqis. > 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. A big assumption that can't be proven and IMO is completely false. Syria is a much larger danger than Libya is/was. Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • webified
    replied
    Sweet irony

    In Qadahffi’s past, he has lost family due to an intense U.S. military, (specifically F-111’s situated for long range bombing), strategic air raid which originated from the United Kingdom and which navagated around our friends in France, which indeed targeted Libya, and that, I believe, almost nailed Qadahffi down - dead. He knows first hand that with Saddam’s current reality, that the stakes are now higher than ever, and that the will of many fed up American people is now fully in support of Bush and our military to stop the BS. BTW, I believe we did find a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, it’s name is Saddam Hussein.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Sweet irony

    Joe said: "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"." I think the capture of Sadaam may have far reaching implications that we may only ever find out many years from now. Libya is only the beginning. I think it will affect the Palestinians, the French and many others. It has shown that we Americans CAN stick to something and follow it through. If we were to pull out now it would only reinforce the "Viet Nam" syndrome that Americans eventually fail to live up to commitments and they can wear us down by just holding on long enough. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

    Leave a comment:


  • J.Pluta
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • David Abramowitz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • J.Pluta
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • David Abramowitz
    replied
    Sweet irony

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

    Leave a comment:


  • J.Pluta
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X