Poor thinking by Bush and the conservatives

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<... while the UN sits around saying that they will not attack no matter what.>>

Are you confused?

Under what conditions will the UN support a forcefull disarming of Iraq?

If a resolution is passed granting the use of force.

You guys aren't thinking France = the UN are you?

You did not answer the question, try again.

Huh? Your question is answered. Why do you say it isn't?

i asked

Under what conditions will the UN support a forcefull disarming of Iraq?

You did not list a single condition that would allow the UN approve a forceful disarming of Iraq. Restating the question is not an answer.

Listen dude. You do realize what the letters UN stand for, right? If you wanted to ask me under what conditions would other countries support a war you should've asked me that. The UN will only support a war if one is voted on and passed. Got it?

The boy in the post above said trhe UN has said it would not support a war no matter what. He's wrong. You're wrong.

Try again

And I wonder what conditions it would take get the UN to act?

Maybe another 12 years on inspections?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Oh yeah, I just wanted to say that according to you, the UN already supports the use of force. Remember?

So tell me how this works.

1441 is passed but according to everyone bu the US/UK "severe consequences" does not mean force.
US/UK want to a pass a new resolution which only restates 1441, All the sudden 1441 means force and no one is for it.

So which one is it?

 

[EXman]

who cares like I said before we don't need the UN at all this thing is going down soon! The UN is just a political move to appease the moderate democratic voters in the next election.

 

[Fencer128]

So tell me how this works.

1441 is passed but according to everyone but the US/UK "severe consequences" does not mean force.
US/UK want to a pass a new resolution which only restates 1441, All the sudden 1441 means force and no one is for it.

So which one is it?

I think the way it works is that the countries opposing the war see the aim of the resolution to disarm Iraq. They are argueing that - albeit with pressure applied - Iraq is disarming and so there is no reason to apply "serious consequences". I don't think anyone has ever catogorically ruled them out.

The new resolution is being opposed because it is seen as:

1. Nothing new*
2. A political tool for the pro war camp to use to sanatise (usually a majority of) their citizens contempt for the war.

Andy

* This is fluid as the UK keeps adding ammendments. At the moment I believe it gives Saddam until March 17 to display full cooperation (read - we are setting a date for a war without UNSC approval if this deadline is not made - probably why the anti war party object to the ammendment - they want UN apporval for a full scale war).

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
Oh yeah, I just wanted to say that according to you, the UN already supports the use of force. Remember?

So tell me how this works.

1441 is passed but according to everyone bu the US/UK "severe consequences" does not mean force.
US/UK want to a pass a new resolution which only restates 1441, All the sudden 1441 means force and no one is for it.

So which one is it?

I'd like to see the text of this new resolution they are going to be voting on. Have you read it?

 

[Dudd]

I'm sick and tired about all this UN crap. Does anyone honestly believe that the UN is the divine institution that some people on here make it out to be? It's a collection of countries that are all looking out for their best interests. That's it. If the UNSC bestows its "blessing" on a war, that doesn't mean it's right or just. All that means is that it is in the best interests of a majority of the countries to wage that war. If we don't get the UN's approval, it doesn't make the war wrong, it just makes it not in most countries interests. So if we do decide to go to war, it shouldn't be what the UN has to say, it should be about whether or not it's in ours and our allies best interests. The strong have had their way for thousands of years. Look at the Greeks, the Romans, the warring tribes in the Middle Ages, WWII, these wars weren't fought for reasons of nobility of justice. The strong had an agenda to push, and to get that agenda, it took military force. That is the way the world works. The strong make their decisions, and it is left to the rest of the world to respond. A vote of 15 countries is not going to make a war right or wrong, so please quit acting as if the UNSC has a holy mandate.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Dudd
I'm sick and tired about all this UN crap. Does anyone honestly believe that the UN is the divine institution that some people on here make it out to be? It's a collection of countries that are all looking out for their best interests. That's it. If the UNSC bestows its "blessing" on a war, that doesn't mean it's right or just. All that means is that it is in the best interests of a majority of the countries to wage that war. If we don't get the UN's approval, it doesn't make the war wrong, it just makes it not in most countries interests. So if we do decide to go to war, it shouldn't be what the UN has to say, it should be about whether or not it's in ours and our allies best interests. The strong have had their way for thousands of years. Look at the Greeks, the Romans, the warring tribes in the Middle Ages, WWII, these wars weren't fought for reasons of nobility of justice. The strong had an agenda to push, and to get that agenda, it took military force. That is the way the world works. The strong make their decisions, and it is left to the rest of the world to respond. A vote of 15 countries is not going to make a war right or wrong, so please quit acting as if the UNSC has a holy mandate.

I'm not saying your "might equals right" motto is correct, but if that's what you think what do you say about the fact that a major reason for this war is violations of UN resolutions?

 

[everman]

1) Bush says that, since Iraq is in "material breach" of 1441, then we should go to war. Problem is, UN Resolution 1441 never called for the use of force against Iraq. It ONLY said there would be "dire consequences." Since the use of force was not specifically mentioned in 1441, then Bush cannot assume that the breach by Iraq should lead directly to war.

Yes, I'm sure what the UN really meant there was that they were going to take away Saddam's Viagra.

 

[EXman]

Dudd I like your statement better than this resolution dribble

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Dudd
I'm sick and tired about all this UN crap. Does anyone honestly believe that the UN is the divine institution that some people on here make it out to be? It's a collection of countries [read the world] that are all looking out for their best interests. That's it. If the UNSC bestows its "blessing" on a war, that doesn't mean it's right or just [I agree! - The UN is not perfect - it is however the best chance the world has to maintain peace and stability]. All that means is that it is in the best interests of a majority of the countries to wage that war. If we don't get the UN's approval, it doesn't make the war wrong [No - doesn't necessarily make it right either though], it just makes it not in most countries interests. So if we do decide to go to war, it shouldn't be what the UN has to say, it should be about whether or not it's in ours and our allies best interests [Unless you risk destroying the one institution that gives a forum to nations that otherwise wouldn't get heard - and - in my estimation has probably contributed to stability over the last 60 years like no other - and I haven't even mentioned the huge amount of humanitarian work that goes on]. The strong have had their way for thousands of years. Look at the Greeks, the Romans, the warring tribes in the Middle Ages, WWII, these wars weren't fought for reasons of nobility of justice. The strong had an agenda to push [So -you think might is right? - I hope your in a minority with that one!], and to get that agenda, it took military force. That is the way the world works [I don't see that as an all encompassing arguement for how the "world works"]. The strong make their decisions, and it is left to the rest of the world to respond [Do you even care about the opinions of others? I hope its just the case that I'm misreading your arguement here]. A vote of 15 countries is not going to make a war right or wrong, so please quit acting as if the UNSC has a holy mandate [Not right or wrong - but safer and with the prospect of limiting future wars through agreement now].

I get the feeling that you don't particularly care for the UN - regardless of the current situation. Am I wrong? and why?

Andy

 

[xeno2060]

Conservative or Liberal: " Nothing good will come of this"🙁

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
As we move closer to what seems to be an inevitable escalation of the hostilities in Iraq (I say escalation because our bombing in the "no fly zone" never stopped) I have to wonder about the logic of the people who want war to start.

1) Bush says that, since Iraq is in "material breach" of 1441, then we should go to war. Problem is, UN Resolution 1441 never called for the use of force against Iraq. It ONLY said there would be "dire consequences." Since the use of force was not specifically mentioned in 1441, then Bush cannot assume that the breach by Iraq should lead directly to war.

2) The Republicans and conservatives have been saying for years that the UN is becoming "invalid" because of its inability to enforce resolutions against Iraq, among many other things. If this is the case, why did we go to them in the first place to get "permission" to use force?

3) More importantly, are we going to be any better than Iraq if we decide to defy the UN security council and go to war? When Bush says that the reason for going after Iraq is because they defy 1441, we cannot possibly justify attacking them if the UN does not give us their blessing to do so. Just because Saddam is a bad guy does not give us the right to take him out; the job of "policeman of the world" has not been bestowed upon us by anyone.

In short, two wrongs do not make a right. We think that Gestapo tactics by the cops, illegal searches and seizures by the FBI and ATF, and government incursions against our persons and private property are wrong. This is the same thing, just played out on a grander scale. The UN security council is going to say that our latest resolution is not valid. For us to go against that makes us no better than the people we are trying to get out of power.

You're right. Let's bring the troops home. All of them. From every country in the world. Let's use them to patrol our borders. Let these other countries wipe each other out. We can pick up the pieces later. Screw 'em.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I'm not saying your "might equals right" motto is correct, but if that's what you think what do you say about the fact that a major reason for this war is violations of UN resolutions?

To start with, I'm not saying that might equals right. What I'm saying is that countries act in their best interests, and a simple vote is not going to legitamize a war. In WWII, the Germans got tacit approval from the French and British to take control of parts of Chezkoslovakia (no way that's spelled right), but that approval didn't make it "right". I'm just sick and tired of people instinctively thinking that the UNSC can legitamize a war. What happens if the war in Iraq is a quick, relatively painless conflict. Most of the Iraqi army instantly surrenders, Saddam is captured within a month, and over the course of twenty years Iraq follows the same cycle of post-WWII Japan. Now, this is all done without UN approval. Will we look back and still think of it as an immoral war simply because the UNSC voted no? Of course not. Yet, today we're putting stock in this council to be the final judge. Nobody knows who is correct, yet we're arbitrarily declaring them to be the ones that decide whether war is justified.

Secondly, I think the whole UN resolutions argument is a POS. I don't know the reasons why we're going to war. Unless you have access to classified material, I doubt anyone can be sure as to whether or not it is justified. However, it is my opinion that the UN resolutions ploy and the Saddam=terrorist argument are simply political maneuvers to try and get a majority of the population behind them. We could release surveilence photos today proving that Saddam is in the process of restarting a nuclear weapons program, and still France might veto and a sizeable percentage of the population might argue for more inspections and containment. But, to tie it into 9/11 or somehow work the UN magic in our favor, that could have an even larger effect.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
Oh yeah, I just wanted to say that according to you, the UN already supports the use of force. Remember?

So tell me how this works.

1441 is passed but according to everyone bu the US/UK "severe consequences" does not mean force.
US/UK want to a pass a new resolution which only restates 1441, All the sudden 1441 means force and no one is for it.

So which one is it?

I'd like to see the text of this new resolution they are going to be voting on. Have you read it?

Yes it only reiterates 1441 and other past resolutions. It is only a few sentences long.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
As we move closer to what seems to be an inevitable escalation of the hostilities in Iraq (I say escalation because our bombing in the "no fly zone" never stopped) I have to wonder about the logic of the people who want war to start.

1) Bush says that, since Iraq is in "material breach" of 1441, then we should go to war. Problem is, UN Resolution 1441 never called for the use of force against Iraq. It ONLY said there would be "dire consequences." Since the use of force was not specifically mentioned in 1441, then Bush cannot assume that the breach by Iraq should lead directly to war.

2) The Republicans and conservatives have been saying for years that the UN is becoming "invalid" because of its inability to enforce resolutions against Iraq, among many other things. If this is the case, why did we go to them in the first place to get "permission" to use force?

3) More importantly, are we going to be any better than Iraq if we decide to defy the UN security council and go to war? When Bush says that the reason for going after Iraq is because they defy 1441, we cannot possibly justify attacking them if the UN does not give us their blessing to do so. Just because Saddam is a bad guy does not give us the right to take him out; the job of "policeman of the world" has not been bestowed upon us by anyone.

In short, two wrongs do not make a right. We think that Gestapo tactics by the cops, illegal searches and seizures by the FBI and ATF, and government incursions against our persons and private property are wrong. This is the same thing, just played out on a grander scale. The UN security council is going to say that our latest resolution is not valid. For us to go against that makes us no better than the people we are trying to get out of power.

You're right. Let's bring the troops home. All of them. From every country in the world. Let's use them to patrol our borders. Let these other countries wipe each other out. We can pick up the pieces later. Screw 'em.

Another real good solution. I wonder how loud the world scream if we did bring all the troops home.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
I get the feeling that you don't particularly care for the UN - regardless of the current situation. Am I wrong? and why?

Andy

I don't really mind the UN as a place were nations can get together and meet to arbiter disputes. Take a look at the Cuban Missile Crisis where the Soviets called out bluff, and then we threw down surveillence photos to prove they were lying in front of everyone. But to assume that every decision the UN comes to is just, that's what I have a problem with.

 

[Fencer128]

To start with, I'm not saying that might equals right. What I'm saying is that countries act in their best interests, and a simple vote is not going to legitamize a war. In WWII, the Germans got tacit approval from the French and British to take control of parts of Chezkoslovakia (no way that's spelled right), but that approval didn't make it "right". I'm just sick and tired of people instinctively thinking that the UNSC can legitamize a war. What happens if the war in Iraq is a quick, relatively painless conflict. Most of the Iraqi army instantly surrenders, Saddam is captured within a month, and over the course of twenty years Iraq follows the same cycle of post-WWII Japan. Now, this is all done without UN approval. Will we look back and still think of it as an immoral war simply because the UNSC voted no? Of course not. Yet, today we're putting stock in this council to be the final judge. Nobody knows who is correct, yet we're arbitrarily declaring them to be the ones that decide whether war is justified.

Good point. But I think - as you do - that this is not about right and wrong. Its about world stability and listening to other opinions (which could then lead to less chance of a war reoccuring).

Secondly, I think the whole UN resolutions argument is a POS. I don't know the reasons why we're going to war. Unless you have access to classified material, I doubt anyone can be sure as to whether or not it is justified. However, it is my opinion that the UN resolutions ploy and the Saddam=terrorist argument are simply political maneuvers to try and get a majority of the population behind them. We could release surveilence photos today proving that Saddam is in the process of restarting a nuclear weapons program, and still France might veto and a sizeable percentage of the population might argue for more inspections and containment. But, to tie it into 9/11 or somehow work the UN magic in our favor, that could have an even larger effect.

I seriously think that if the US had surveillance photos of that "calibre" it would release them to swing this thing around. The lack of such "evidence" plus the last report from the atomic weapons inspectors make me doubt that a program exists at the moment. Yes - the 2nd UN resolution is purely a political tool. If you're not a conspiracy theorist (as I'm not) then you can see that this is why people oppose it so. All it does is to set a date for a US led war (without or presuming agreement of the UNSC for around March 17) and sanitise public opinion. Its not what the resolutions should be about.

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: Fencer128
I get the feeling that you don't particularly care for the UN - regardless of the current situation. Am I wrong? and why?

Andy

I don't really mind the UN as a place were nations can get together and meet to arbiter disputes. Take a look at the Cuban Missile Crisis where the Soviets called out bluff, and then we threw down surveillence photos to prove they were lying in front of everyone. But to assume that every decision the UN comes to is just, that's what I have a problem with.

I agree - not all just - look at Kosovo and Isreal. But it is the "last best hope" (I think Kennedy said that) and it should not be put in a position (as it has been now) where it is in danger of being untenable.

 

[Renob]

Lame.

 

[Gaard]

I think I heard something about the fact that there's a deadline in this new draft is the cause of at least a little apprehension. Anybody else hear this?

Not sure if this link will work, it's a pdf file. resolution

Off Topic - For anyone who reads the resolution(s)...What do the first words of the paragraphs mean? ie...Noting, Mindful, etc

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
As we move closer to what seems to be an inevitable escalation of the hostilities in Iraq (I say escalation because our bombing in the "no fly zone" never stopped) I have to wonder about the logic of the people who want war to start.

1) Bush says that, since Iraq is in "material breach" of 1441, then we should go to war. Problem is, UN Resolution 1441 never called for the use of force against Iraq. It ONLY said there would be "dire consequences." Since the use of force was not specifically mentioned in 1441, then Bush cannot assume that the breach by Iraq should lead directly to war.

2) The Republicans and conservatives have been saying for years that the UN is becoming "invalid" because of its inability to enforce resolutions against Iraq, among many other things. If this is the case, why did we go to them in the first place to get "permission" to use force?

3) More importantly, are we going to be any better than Iraq if we decide to defy the UN security council and go to war? When Bush says that the reason for going after Iraq is because they defy 1441, we cannot possibly justify attacking them if the UN does not give us their blessing to do so. Just because Saddam is a bad guy does not give us the right to take him out; the job of "policeman of the world" has not been bestowed upon us by anyone.

In short, two wrongs do not make a right. We think that Gestapo tactics by the cops, illegal searches and seizures by the FBI and ATF, and government incursions against our persons and private property are wrong. This is the same thing, just played out on a grander scale. The UN security council is going to say that our latest resolution is not valid. For us to go against that makes us no better than the people we are trying to get out of power.

You're right. Let's bring the troops home. All of them. From every country in the world. Let's use them to patrol our borders. Let these other countries wipe each other out. We can pick up the pieces later. Screw 'em.

Another real good solution. I wonder how loud the world scream if we did bring all the troops home.

I meant to put a winkie in there, but forgot.

If we brought our troops home the whole world would b!tch, moan and complain about what selfish bastages we are. Oh, wait, they're already doing that!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

To start with, I'm not saying that might equals right. What I'm saying is that countries act in their best interests, and a simple vote is not going to legitamize a war. In WWII, the Germans got tacit approval from the French and British to take control of parts of Chezkoslovakia (no way that's spelled right), but that approval didn't make it "right". I'm just sick and tired of people instinctively thinking that the UNSC can legitamize a war. What happens if the war in Iraq is a quick, relatively painless conflict. Most of the Iraqi army instantly surrenders, Saddam is captured within a month, and over the course of twenty years Iraq follows the same cycle of post-WWII Japan. Now, this is all done without UN approval. Will we look back and still think of it as an immoral war simply because the UNSC voted no? Of course not. Yet, today we're putting stock in this council to be the final judge. Nobody knows who is correct, yet we're arbitrarily declaring them to be the ones that decide whether war is justified.

Good point. But I think - as you do - that this is not about right and wrong. Its about world stability and listening to other opinions (which could then lead to less chance of a war reoccuring).

Secondly, I think the whole UN resolutions argument is a POS. I don't know the reasons why we're going to war. Unless you have access to classified material, I doubt anyone can be sure as to whether or not it is justified. However, it is my opinion that the UN resolutions ploy and the Saddam=terrorist argument are simply political maneuvers to try and get a majority of the population behind them. We could release surveilence photos today proving that Saddam is in the process of restarting a nuclear weapons program, and still France might veto and a sizeable percentage of the population might argue for more inspections and containment. But, to tie it into 9/11 or somehow work the UN magic in our favor, that could have an even larger effect.

I seriously think that if the US had surveillance photos of that "calibre" it would release them to swing this thing around. The lack of such "evidence" plus the last report from the atomic weapons inspectors make me doubt that a program exists at the moment. Yes - the 2nd UN resolution is purely a political tool. If you're not a conspiracy theorist (as I'm not) then you can see that this is why people oppose it so. All it does is to set a date for a US led war (without or presuming agreement of the UNSC for around March 17) and sanitise public opinion. Its not what the resolutions should be about.

Andy

Dont forget that UN completely missed the nuclear program in Pakistan.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think I heard something about the fact that there's a deadline in this new draft is the cause of at least a little apprehension. Anybody else hear this?

Not sure if this link will work, it's a pdf file. resolution

Off Topic - For anyone who reads the resolution(s)...What do the first words of the paragraphs mean? ie...Noting, Mindful, etc

The UK is supporting an ammendment such that Saddam must show full complience by March 17 (read this as "the last deadline to avert a war" - we either don't care what the UN thinks on this or assume complience). This is why people are objecting.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think I heard something about the fact that there's a deadline in this new draft is the cause of at least a little apprehension. Anybody else hear this?

Not sure if this link will work, it's a pdf file. resolution

Off Topic - For anyone who reads the resolution(s)...What do the first words of the paragraphs mean? ie...Noting, Mindful, etc

The new deadline is recent possible addition coming from the UK.

 

[Fencer128]

Dont forget that UN completely missed the nuclear program in Pakistan.

I'd like to see some evidence for that. Also, were there inspectors on the ground? Did they have unfetterred access?

Andy