No, American, we all think that a dimwit lying religious-nut fascist with his finger on the biggest nuclear and conventional military power on earth should impose his own will on the people of another country on the other side of the Earth, on his own prejudices and whim,
If by "dimwit lying religious-nut fascist" you mean Bush, then by "imposing his will" on Iraq, it is rather obvious that, at least for the vast majority of Iraqis, his will coincided with their greatest desire: to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Even if your rather nasty caricature of Bush were accurate, it wouldn't matter: for all most Iraqis care, it could have been the devil himself that removed Hussein. They needed all the help they could get, even from a "dimwit".
and not give that country any option to decide their future for themselves.
Only to a leftist could leaving Saddam Hussein in power to kill and butcher for another thirty years or so means "letting the Iraqis decide their future for themselves", while working to establish a democratic government there is "not giving the country any option to decide".
Oh, by the way, why on earth did the USA invade Europe in WWII??? Surely Europe should have been allowed to "choose its fate for itself"--e.g., Hitler or Stalin, depening on who is more ruthless and evil in the war to exterminate the other?
If by "dimwit lying religious-nut fascist" you mean Bush, then by "imposing his will" on Iraq, it is rather obvious that, at least for the vast majority of Iraqis, his will coincided with their greatest desire: to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Even if your rather nasty caricature of Bush were accurate, it wouldn't matter: for all most Iraqis care, it could have been the devil himself that removed Hussein. They needed all the help they could get, even from a "dimwit".
and not give that country any option to decide their future for themselves.
Only to a leftist could leaving Saddam Hussein in power to kill and butcher for another thirty years or so means "letting the Iraqis decide their future for themselves", while working to establish a democratic government there is "not giving the country any option to decide".
Oh, by the way, why on earth did the USA invade Europe in WWII??? Surely Europe should have been allowed to "choose its fate for itself"--e.g., Hitler or Stalin, depening on who is more ruthless and evil in the war to exterminate the other?
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An Iraqi said it well
Yeah Ed,
What? You didn't know that? Sometimes they even talk about politics, but mostly they consult on the best methods of collecting parking tickets. Great gig if you can get it. I bet they have a big statue of Nevil Chamberlain that they pray to in their spare time as well.
-z
Ed said:
Yeah Ed,
What? You didn't know that? Sometimes they even talk about politics, but mostly they consult on the best methods of collecting parking tickets. Great gig if you can get it. I bet they have a big statue of Nevil Chamberlain that they pray to in their spare time as well.
-z
Shane Costello
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2001
- Messages
- 1,232
And UN inspections for WMD didn't compromise Iraqi sovreignty?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An Iraqi said it well
No, they TALK, too. Usually about condemning israel.
By the way, had you heard the UN's latest "moral achievement"? israel, for the first time in its history, actually dared to suggest a UN resolution.
The (symbolic) resolution called for the right of israeli children to "live free of terror". The UN, of course, led by the Arab world--those bastions of human rights--overwhelmingly rejected this evil, zionist initiative.
And JUST THINK: the USA went to war WITHOUT THE MORAL AUTHORIZATION of these people! I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya'.
Ed said:
No, they TALK, too. Usually about condemning israel.
By the way, had you heard the UN's latest "moral achievement"? israel, for the first time in its history, actually dared to suggest a UN resolution.
The (symbolic) resolution called for the right of israeli children to "live free of terror". The UN, of course, led by the Arab world--those bastions of human rights--overwhelmingly rejected this evil, zionist initiative.
And JUST THINK: the USA went to war WITHOUT THE MORAL AUTHORIZATION of these people! I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya'.
The Iraqis should be very grateful the US forced a regime change so long as (and this is almost certain) the new regime is nowhere near as bad as the old one.
To pretend that the US did this for anything other than selfish reasons is to hide one's head in the sand. Or more accurately, if George Bush went to war for reasons other than for the direct benefit of the US he should be indicted.
See that way the American people can stomach the fact that the Iraqis en-masse aren't as grateful as they ought to be.
To pretend that the US did this for anything other than selfish reasons is to hide one's head in the sand. Or more accurately, if George Bush went to war for reasons other than for the direct benefit of the US he should be indicted.
See that way the American people can stomach the fact that the Iraqis en-masse aren't as grateful as they ought to be.
Eos, I learned first-hand long ago that (a) the media are basically stupid, (b) they write what gets the most coverage for their organisation, regardless of true or false, and (c) politicians have only a tangential impingement on reality at the best of times.
In other words, you "learned first hand long ago" that you're right, and everybody else is wrong.
So the reality in Iraq is probably a lot different to what anyone in the media or politics says,
Of course, you yourself don't know any Iraqis, never been to te middle east, do not speak a word of Arabic, and could not name three cities in Iraq without looking them up.
But, since you know everybody who IS there is stupid and lying--after all, they disagree with you, and what else could be the reason for THAT?--you have declared what THE TRUTH(tm) is: they're all wrong, you're right, end of conversation.
Next time, I won't watch CNN. I'll just ask you for what is "really going on".
In other words, you "learned first hand long ago" that you're right, and everybody else is wrong.
So the reality in Iraq is probably a lot different to what anyone in the media or politics says,
Of course, you yourself don't know any Iraqis, never been to te middle east, do not speak a word of Arabic, and could not name three cities in Iraq without looking them up.
But, since you know everybody who IS there is stupid and lying--after all, they disagree with you, and what else could be the reason for THAT?--you have declared what THE TRUTH(tm) is: they're all wrong, you're right, end of conversation.
Next time, I won't watch CNN. I'll just ask you for what is "really going on".
Ed said:
Are you being willfully obtuse?
It's not up to the UN to do anything.
The function of the UN is to provide a facility for its members to interact without having to resort to unilateral military or other action and to provide a mechanism for the coordination and control of multilateral action.
Period.
Graham
Tmy
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 6,487
So you don't think a group of career diplomats and retired ex-state and provincial governors from every scattered ass-backward nation on earth who live on permanent vacation in New York City, headed by a man from Ghana (a nation best known for its spear-weilding pygmies) should be trusted with the mission of world peace and security, let alone the welfare of one sad nation like Iraq?- American
Yeah no kidding. The next thing you know some steriod freak, womenizing, Austrian immigrant , Hollywood action movie star will be running the biggest state in the US. NAHHHHHHHHHH that could never happen.
Yeah no kidding. The next thing you know some steriod freak, womenizing, Austrian immigrant , Hollywood action movie star will be running the biggest state in the US. NAHHHHHHHHHH that could never happen.
Shane Costello said:
I think this is covered under the second part of the remit - in the event of a dispute between nations it is up to the UN to provide a mechanism for resolution.
In the case of Iraq, Gulf War 1 was part of that mechanism, as were the subsequent sanctions.
Graham
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Ed said:
Let me see, there are some 130,000 US combat troops in Iraq along with thousands of tanks, helicopters, troop carriers, and artillery pieces, that were used to invade and now to occupy Iraq.
So excuse me for being just a tad skeptical of statements made by the US appointed leaders of Iraq.
The Don said:
So what?
All you are saying is that the US is part of the same club that France, Germany, and Russia are part of. These poor guys are pissed that they are not getting contracts. It's all money and to single out the US is the height of hypocrisy.
What you might have said, more accurately is:
To pretend that the US, France, Germany, and Russia had anything to do with Iraq for anything other than selfish reasons is to hide one's head in the sand.
And, again, so what?
Incidentially, I would not have invaded in the first place. I also think that a nations selfish self interest trumps most other considerations.
Re: Re: Re: An Iraqi said it well
Well, yes and no - as usual.
The UN was already involved in Iraq and a mechanism was already in place, that of economic sanctions and weapons inspectors.
Whether that mechanism was achieving its aim or not, or had reached the end of its useful life is a matter for debate.
The primary function of the UN is to prevent war. Insofar as that goes, it was succeeding in Iraq. It only failed when the US led coalition took action outside of UN auspices.
Graham
Ed said:
Well, yes and no - as usual.
The UN was already involved in Iraq and a mechanism was already in place, that of economic sanctions and weapons inspectors.
Whether that mechanism was achieving its aim or not, or had reached the end of its useful life is a matter for debate.
The primary function of the UN is to prevent war. Insofar as that goes, it was succeeding in Iraq. It only failed when the US led coalition took action outside of UN auspices.
Graham
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,815
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An Iraqi said it well
What did you guys do until some planes hit some buildings in your country?
Ed said:
What did you guys do until some planes hit some buildings in your country?
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,815
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An Iraqi said it well
Source?
Skeptic said:
Source?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Re: Re: Re: An Iraqi said it well
One of the basis of the UN is that of national sovereignty. That is, a country rules itself, and if it isn't interfering in some other country, it is to be left to it's own devices to work out it's own future.
It would have been interesting if England had invaded, for example, the US to rid it of the scourge of Democracy and re-imposed the Divinely inspired institution of Monarchy.
That is why, for example, Israel gets motions passed against it, it is a military occupying force in a land, much as Saddam was in Kuwait. When Saddam withdrew from Kuwait, the legal basis for attacking him had passed.
In Rwanda, the UN had been told the attack was coming from it's monitoring forces there. If the members of the UN, who are the only military forces the UN has, (There is no UN army, only rebadged forces of it's members), ignored the threat, then that is the fault of all the members of the UN. In their defense on this particular atrocity, I don't think anyone could have forseen this unprecedented act of genocide. That is, so many civilians attacking another ethnic group with whatever weapons they had at hand.
Ed said:
One of the basis of the UN is that of national sovereignty. That is, a country rules itself, and if it isn't interfering in some other country, it is to be left to it's own devices to work out it's own future.
It would have been interesting if England had invaded, for example, the US to rid it of the scourge of Democracy and re-imposed the Divinely inspired institution of Monarchy.
That is why, for example, Israel gets motions passed against it, it is a military occupying force in a land, much as Saddam was in Kuwait. When Saddam withdrew from Kuwait, the legal basis for attacking him had passed.
In Rwanda, the UN had been told the attack was coming from it's monitoring forces there. If the members of the UN, who are the only military forces the UN has, (There is no UN army, only rebadged forces of it's members), ignored the threat, then that is the fault of all the members of the UN. In their defense on this particular atrocity, I don't think anyone could have forseen this unprecedented act of genocide. That is, so many civilians attacking another ethnic group with whatever weapons they had at hand.