[Political]Post-war Iraq

[Jason Menard]

I just read this article on MSNBC.

[Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal] Kharrazi said Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the non-Arab states Iran and Turkey were ready to assist Iraqi people to form their own government.
"We can play an important role and help Iraqis to choose a democratic government based on their will," he said.

Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Iran advising on the formation of a democratic government... Right...
Of course we know what they really mean by this, but still ya gotta love the quote. :roll:

[Anonymous]

do not want to cause stupid discussions.
But this article makes me think:

its spanish
it says:
There is more democracy south of R�o Grande now than in the 70/80ties.
This democratication does not result in more support for the USA in world politics. No. To the contrary the Iraq war showed that countries like Chile (temporary member of security council) or Mexico (neighbour of Texas, nafta member) did oppose the US (though they had something to loose economically), because of popular pressure (opinion of population like in europe).
If there will be more democracy in the middle east. I think the general feeling will be much more anti-american than Germany in the 50/60ties and probably more anti-american than the current Saudi Arabian government (or similar government).

[Thomas Paul]

It's OK for countries not to like us as long as they don't attack us. I don't think you understand what Mexico's "anti-Americanism" is about unless you live here. They may not like our politicians but they love us.

[Anonymous]

I think this days no body like you (US people)
and you know why??
even Europe start hate you

[Melvin Menezes]

AJ: If there will be more democracy in the middle east. I think the general feeling will be much more anti-american than Germany in the 50/60ties and probably more anti-american than the current Saudi Arabian government (or similar government).
There two different topics in this statement.
1) More democracy means more anti-american feeling.
2) More democracy means more hurting the US interests.
First point is obviusoly wrong. The anti-american feelings will neither increase nor decrease in the near future and they will remain the same as they were in the recent past and as they are now, whether there is democracy or not. More democracy will only mean that those anti-american feelings and their reasons and solutions will be more openly discussed and debated. More people will have a say in what their government does about it. The monarchy and royals will not be able to hide and support terrorism secretly.
Second point is also wrong. Because when power is divided among the people as opposed to a dictatorship, the common people will start benefiting from international trade and relations. Common people will not be interested in harming their relations with other nations.
Either way, more democracy in ME means more good for the US and everyone, imho
[ May 29, 2003: Message edited by: Melvin Menezes ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <htmlin>:
I think this days no body like you (US people)
and you know why??
even Europe start hate you

Is that why you post anonymously? But in case you haven't noticed, or read the opinion polls, for the most part we don't particularly care what others think of us. Chances are we don't think of them at all.
But yes, it's easy to see why many resent us. We can do what we like and people resent that they have no influence over us. Naturally they would like to be in our position, but since they are not they just feel powerless and envious. This was magnified when the US ignored their attempts to use the UN, an institution some use to "live above their means" as it were, to put a stranglehold on our foreign policy. That didn't work, did it?
After eight years of Clinton hell and his foreign policy fiascos, we finally have a President who is willing to do what needs to be done. And we have a population that is pissed off enough right now that we will support the President doing what needs to be done. Some won't like it, but that's not of much interest. Some of these people we are being forced to deal with now in the wake of 9/11 should have been dealt with long ago, and it's high time that they are taken to task.
Those who had were willing to accept the suffering of the Iraqi people and actually believed their anti-American media, particularly in the Arab world, were slapped awake with a good dose of reality (or at least should have been)... Syria and Iran are both starting to dance to a different tune... Hezbolla and friends are beginning to worry that they have made it on to our radar screen... The Iraqi Baathist regime is no more... France and friends have shown that there own motivations for the position they took were financial and a weak attempt at a power play... All-in-all it seems that we are at a better place now then we were before the war.
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20030507&fname=iraq&sid=1

[Axel Janssen]

I agree that it sounds somewhat paradox.
But similar things I've found in european newspapers and now in a chilean newspaper which I allways have seen as conservative but democratic, pro-US and very free-market.

Si la democracia en Am�rica Latina ha tra�do consigo la capacidad efectiva de los pueblos de vetar el apoyo incondicional de sus gobiernos a los Estados Unidos en el �mbito internacional, �cu�les ser�n los frutos de la democracia en un mundo �rabe e isl�mico que hierve con una furia mucho m�s intensa contra los Estados Unidos que la que existe o jam�s existi� en nuestra regi�n?

If the latin american democracy brought with itself the efective capacity of the people to veto the incodicional support of their government towards the United States in international affairs. What will be the results of the democracy of an arabic and islamic world where there is lot more angriness against the United States than which exist or have ever existed in our region?
(my comment: the guy is not from argentina )

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
If the latin american democracy brought with itself the efective capacity of the people to veto the incodicional support of their government towards the United States in international affairs. What will be the results of the democracy of an arabic and islamic world where there is lot more angriness against the United States than which exist or have ever existed in our region?
(my comment: the guy is not from argentina )

Pragmatism usually wins out. For example, if you were to take a poll today, I wouldn't be surprised if most Americans would call for us to sever all ties with Saudi Arabia, or at least take a hostile stance towards them. However, that's simply not pragmatic. If nations want to behave in certain ways toward each other, as long as they can live with the consequences, that's democracy for you. But I think most of us, or our governments at least, realize that we have to deal with each other and that such behavior is not in our interests, so things will generally remain status quo.
The Saudi oil embargo in the seventies was a good example of this. It did more damage to them than it did to us. They realize that it's not in their own interests to do that again, even if their population as a whole would rather not sell oil to us, and even if our population as a whole would rather not buy oil from them. Pragmatism wins out and we're stuck with each other.
[ May 29, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Axel Janssen]

its nice, the pragmatic way.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
But yes, it's easy to see why many resent us. We can do what we like and people resent that they have no influence over us. Naturally they would like to be in our position, but since they are not they just feel powerless and envious.

I can talk abt myself.
I dont like some of the US policies.
1) Trying to be world police.
2) >We can do what we like and people resent that they have no influence over us.
Nothing wrong in doing what you want.
But wrong is telling others to not to do what you are doing.
France and friends have shown that there own motivations for the position they took were financial and a weak attempt at a power play...

So still you think that US was before Saddam and not something else.
[I still do think that Uncle Sam was not after Saddam and for what Uncle Sam was after he got it. Obviously he could not get Saddam or WMD.]

If nations want to behave in certain ways toward each other, as long as they can live with the consequences, that's democracy for you.

Ah what democratic statement.
In raw words, which gives me profit, that person is OK. Who does not gives me profit will go out.
Let that person be bad enough to teach anti US things in madrassas and produce more member of Al-Quida.

And yes very true, its all about practicality, not about any moral of establishing diplomatic govt.

[Jason Menard]

With the topic of this discussion in mind, it's nice to be more optomistic and reminded once again why this was the right thing to do, whatever motives some might choose to attribute to it...
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6516416%255E2,00.html

[Mapraputa Is]

JM: But yes, it's easy to see why many resent us. We can do what we like and people resent that they have no influence over us. Naturally they would like to be in our position, but since they are not they just feel powerless and envious.
Hm. A gang who just robbed a bank, killed all local police and now is damn proud of it could say something similar. :roll:
"We can do what we like and people resent that they have no influence over us. Naturally they would like to be in our position, "
-- are you sure it's so "naturally"? How do you know that everybody wants to be "in our position"? You think everybody dreams to be a bully? Is this what you really think about the rest of the world? I refuse to believe you cannot think about any other possibility.
This was magnified when the US ignored their attempts to use the UN, an institution some use to "live above their means" as it were, to put a stranglehold on our foreign policy. That didn't work, did it?
"According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force. This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq's ongoing occupation of Kuwait in violation of a series of resolutions passed that August. The UN has not done so for any subsequent violations involving Iraq or any other government.
If the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq due to that country's violation of UN Security Council resolutions, other Security Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other member states that are in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. For example, Russia could claim the right to invade Israel, France could claim the right to invade Turkey, and Great Britain could claim the right to invade Morocco, simply because those targeted governments are also violating UN Security Council resolutions. The U.S. insistence on the right to attack unilaterally could seriously undermine the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and in doing so would open the door to international anarchy.
International law is quite clear about when military force is allowed. In addition to the aforementioned case of UN Security Council authorization, the only other time that any member state is allowed to use armed force is described in Article 51, which states that it is permissible for "individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack ... until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." If Iraq's neighbors were attacked or feared an imminent attack from Iraq, any of these countries could call on the United States to help, pending a Security Council decision authorizing the use of force. But they have not appealed to the Security Council, because they have not felt threatened by Iraq."
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13898
So the USA just broke international law and is proud of it. Congratulations on our achievement, what can I say. :roll:
And here are US allies:
"Tony Blair stood accused last night of misleading Parliament and the British people over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and his claims that the threat posed by Iraq justified war.
Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, seized on a "breathtaking" statement by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that Iraq's weapons may have been destroyed before the war, and anger boiled over among MPs who said the admission undermined the legal and political justification for war.
Mr Blair insisted yesterday he had "absolutely no doubt at all about the existence of weapons of mass destruction".
But Mr Cook said the Prime Minister's claims that Saddam could deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes were patently false. He added that Mr Rumsfeld's statement "blows an enormous gaping hole in the case for war made on both sides of the Atlantic" and called for MPs to hold an investigation.
But Mr Cook said yesterday: "We were told Saddam had weapons ready for use within 45 minutes. It's now 45 days since the war has finished and we have still not found anything.
"It is plain he did not have that capacity to threaten us, possibly did not have the capacity to threaten even his neighbours, and that is profoundly important. We were, after all, told that those who opposed the resolution that would provide the basis for military action were in the wrong.
"Perhaps we should now admit they were in the right."
The Government has quietly watered down its claims, now arguing only that the Iraqi leader had weapons at some time before the war broke out.
The case for war is blown apart

[Anonymous]

The whole world was knowing that this is a game for oil.Saddam was not ready to sell oil for the rates appropriate to US/UK/.Infact this was well planned even before 9-11 by Military Industrial Complex.

[Andres Gonzalez]

Originally posted by <Capablanca Kepler>:
The whole world was knowing that this is a game for oil.Saddam was not ready to sell oil for the rates appropriate to US/UK/.Infact this was well planned even before 9-11 by Military Industrial Complex.

Ohh boy.. . Now this post is going to beat word association..

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by <Capablanca Kepler>:
The whole world was knowing that this is a game for oil.Saddam was not ready to sell oil for the rates appropriate to US/UK/.

Dont you see... I have repeated 1000 times that it was for WMD and Saddam and world welfare.
How many times more I have to repeat this to make it truth.
And one more thing.. I can do what I want and hello .. you monkey, you even dont think of coming to our level [because we wont allow you, before that I will find WMD in your home.]
If you are not with me then you are my enemy.
[ Wow.. what a proud quote has been left for history ]
[ May 30, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Hm. A gang who just robbed a bank, killed all local police and now is damn proud of it could say something similar. :roll:

Maybe I should have said "carry out our national interest as we see fit" instead of "do what we like", although it's just semantics. Your analogy above though is quite a bit off though I'm afraid.
-- are you sure it's so "naturally"? How do you know that everybody wants to be "in our position"? You think everybody dreams to be a bully?
Why don't you tell me then why France and Russia took the position they took? And bully? You can do better than that. Every nation doing what is necessary to protect their citizens is a bully? :roll:
"According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force.
You forgot the article that claims it is justifiable as a means of self-defense. But anyway, the legal argument is probably pointless. Obviously the US and the UK felt they had the legal justification (which is why they did not force a vote in the face of the French antics).
If they did not have the legal justification, then why haven't they been brought before a court? What about Clinton's actions in Kosovo? There was no UN resolution authorizing that. Where was the indignant international whining then? Let's ignore for a moment the fact that towards the end of last year the UNSC did pass (yet another) a resolution that the Iraqis breached and France and company pretended they didn't sign. But with the most recent UN resolution, the legal argument has been totaly nullified as it basically just gave UN support for our past and present actions in Iraq.
Ok so since the legal argument is pretty much non-existant, what about the "we are the world" argument? You know, the argument that all nations must bow and give up their sovereignty before the UN? Saying that an action would have been justified had the UNSC given its "permission" doesn't really hold water. If the UNSC determines that it feels a certain course of action is right, then that would mean the same course of action is right regardless of whether or not the UNSC approves.
Further, the UNSC is not some benevolent impartial body seething with altruism. It is made up of nations with opposing interests. At any given time some of the nastiest regimes in the planet might find themselves on the UNSC (Syria for example). Not all nations on the UNSC are democracies, yet the UNSC itself is supposed to be some kind of quasi-democratic body, or so its supporters would have us believe. So given this, why should two of the greatest military and economic powers on the planet allow their foreign policies to be directed by such a body?
"But the UN is the guarantor of peace" (awwww) some might cry. Really? Where has the UN managed to keep the peace? When the UN is successful at backing up its resolutions with force when necessary (and only one or two occasions come to mind), who provides the muscle? What is the great legacy of UN peace keeping? Bosnia? Israel/Lebanon? Somalia? Rwanda? Angola? Sierra Leone? Are there any?
"Yes but the UN lends actions credibility" our detractos wail. Since when do the words "United Nations" and credibility belong together? This is a body that places nations such as Algeria, Chad, Burkina Faso, China, Cuba, Congo, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Vietnam and Zimbabwe on the Human Rights Commission, and appoints Libya to preside over it. This is the same body that appoints Iraq to chair the disarmament committee. The cafeteria workers in the UN building go on strike and foreign diplomats strip the cafeterias bare and loot everything in sight. Yes, this is definitely an organization that oozes credibility.
If the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq due to that country's violation of UN Security Council resolutions, other Security Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other member states that are in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.
Your definition of unilateral doesn't coincide with the definition in the dictionary. I suspect what you really mean is "without the mighty UN's blessing". You may have noticed that there were troops from the US, UK, Australia, and Poland on the ground in Iraq, and active logistical support was provided by many other countries.
But what is to prevent others from claiming the right to take action against other nations? Certainly not the UN. Take Russia's actions in Chechenya as an example. What is to prevent others from taking action is whose toes they might step on in the process and whether or not they think they can afford to pay the price from any fallout from their actions.
The U.S. insistence on the right to attack unilaterally could seriously undermine the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and in doing so would open the door to international anarchy.
First I'd have to ask what UN authority exists now? If there is any, who is responsible for that authority? I've already addressed the unilateral part, but since you brought up "collective security". Almost all collective security frameworks exist outside of the UN. NATO would be a prime example. But again, who has provided the majority of the "collective security" in the world during and since the Cold War?
So the USA just broke international law and is proud of it.
What body has charged us with breaking international law? I thin kwe've already discarded this argument earlier, right?
"Tony Blair stood accused last night of misleading Parliament and the British people over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and his claims that the threat posed by Iraq justified war.
The last straw the detractors have to grasp at is the WMD issue. You mean after seven whole weeks we haven't found anything yet? How unbelievable! :roll:
If you want to pretend there were not WMDs in Iraq, there are a few things you have to believe first. When the UN Inspectors left in 1998 and when they came back in 2002, there were weapons unaccounted for. They could not find them but they knew they had existed. So where'd they go? The Iraqis knew that any weapons they destroyed had to be done according to certain procedures which would guarantee the veracity of their claims and proof of the destruction. The Iraqi regime, as has been the case in most of the worl's worst dictatorships, were meticulous record keepers. This was further evidenced by the warehouse full of bodies that was found and the detailed record that were kept therein. In the case of the "missing" WMDs though, the Iraqis claim they destroyed them but cannot provide the necessary evidence. So to believe that there are no WMDs (or were not, if they've transferred them outide the country) in Iraq we must believe that the Iraqis on their own destroyed these weapons, and that these meticulous record keepers just "forgot" to obtain the necessary proof for all of these weapons that they "destroyed". Further we would have to ignore all the other annoying little things that pop-up like the active WMD defense equipment that we have found, or the recent find of the trailers used for making biological weapons. But if you cannot allow yourself to believe that those unlikely events took place, then you must believe that somewhere those weapons exist. But since many of these things are very small and can be hidden literally anywhere in a country the size of California, expecting results after seven weeks is laughable to say the least.
[ May 31, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[R K Singh]

No comments ...

[Mapraputa Is]

Hey, Ravish, your post is ambiguous.
It can be read that 1) you are so mad you do not want to comment 2) you are disappointed that other did not comment 3) neither of two, just pointing out the fact.
Actually, I was going to respond yesterday, but what I typed was awfully long and I wasn't sure if anybody is still interested. But now, when I feel incited...
Why don't you tell me then why France and Russia took the position they took?
First, let's separate governments who made decision from people, because in some countries they took different positions, and if even not, the motivation is quite different. No idea about France, and I do not want to speculate. What political games the Russian government played I am not terribly interested, and I am afraid there is no way to know anyway. But why "average" people in so many countries were opposed this war, there is something to think about. Your argument "they are simply envious" doesn't convince me -- it's too convenient and self-serving. What's worse, it's insulting to so many people. If all people around starts to look morally inferior, it's usually a good idea to check your own morality. Do you think that Pope was also envious and dreamt about times when Vatican can invade any country?
During all this pre-War mass-media campaign I couldn't understand why arguments that were perfectly Ok for many Americans do not do the same job for me. Eventually I developed the theory that there are two realities, one for America and another, let's say vaguely for people like me, as I am not sure people of what origin can be included.
I believe, this is the major point why many don't understand American reaction. If to look at facts, there is hardly another country in the world that is as safe as the USA. The USA is naturally protected by the oceans from two sides, it has friendly or just weak enough neighbors, then its military spendings are enormous. There is no military danger for the US, I hope nobody will argue with it.
I believe for other countries it's really hard to understand why would America feel insecure in this situation, because history of those countries is very different. It includes being surrounded by hostile nations, frequent wars, often subjugations, lost of independence... WWII with its enormous death count is the recent example. This probably produces a very different vision of what is "treat" and what is "security".
America's situation is quite rare, unusual and let's say, privileged.
Terrorism treat - after 9/11 the USA bombed Afghanistan. I do not recall any too loud protests from other countries, since everybody would agree that there should be a response.
Well, Ok, but now, two years later, the USA claims that the country of the size of one of 50 US states, situated on another continent, the country whose infrastructure is largely destroyed, that is under economical blockage for last dozen years, the country that the USA is free to bomb at will every other day -- this country constitutes a threat to the US security, and not just a threat, the threat that warrants invasion.
Do you find it amazing, that it's hard to sell this vision to other countries? It's not envy, it's bewilderment. From outsiders' POV, your "self-defense" is so out of proportion, that it looks more like "self-interest" rather than "self-defense", in other words, aggression. That the case for war included material plagiarized from a Californian student's paper did not add credibility either (unlike NYT's atrocity, this fact did not impress American audience too much, maybe declaring a war on sovereign country isn't considered such a big deal?)
"Why of course the people don't want war... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
– Hermann Goering, Nazi Officer,
Statement during his Nuremberg War Crimes Trial.
How big was the Iraq's threat, that the USA now cannot find it? A threat that is hard to find -- this will open a new page in world's history indeed. I would go even further and say that this is a totally new approach to what is called "reality". "Reality" is now manufactured by mass-media. But American mass-media does not keep the whole world under its care, that's I believe is the main reason why reaction of many in the world is so different from American.

[Jason Menard]

And you still didn't answer the question, nor did you respond to any of the other points.
When I speak of "envy", I speak of governments not people. Syria for example, would love to crush Israel and there not be a thing another nation could really say or do about it. North Korea would love to sell its technologies unfettered. That there are serious barriers to them carrying out their national policies, whereas these same barriers do not exist for other nations is a problem for them.
The major thing the rest of the world has yet to grasp, is that according to the US government, and (if you agree with opinion polls) the majority of Americans, the war on Iraq is an extension of the War on Terror. Whereas most of the world chooses not to link action on 9/11, and the war on Afghanistan, with Iraq, we do make that linkage. That I believe is a main source of the difference in attitudes, and when looked at in this perspective, should serve to explain much.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Hey, Ravish, your post is ambiguous.
It can be read that 1) you are so mad you do not want to comment 2) you are disappointed that other did not comment 3) neither of two, just pointing out the fact.

Correct option
1) you are so mad tired, you do not want to comment

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Whereas most of the world chooses not to link action on 9/11, and the war on Afghanistan, with Iraq, we do make that linkage. That I believe is a main source of the difference in attitudes, and when looked at in this perspective, should serve to explain much.

You are very much right.
But sad part is that, that linkage could not be proved to world. OR not bothered to provide proof, if a govt offcial's proof is suppose to fake then what I can say.
And if US does not bothered abt world opnion then US should not expect world to bother abt them.
Its always two way. What you will give that you will get back. Man is not tree whom if you throw stone then it will give you fruit.
AW I am off.

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason: And you still didn't answer the question
Which question? You asked a lot of questions and I believed the main was "Why don't you tell me then why France and Russia took the position they took?" but I can be wrong of course! Which question do you want to be answered?
nor did you respond to any of the other points
Ok. I'll try.
But anyway, the legal argument is probably pointless. Obviously the US and the UK felt they had the legal justification (which is why they did not force a vote in the face of the French antics).
We apparently have totally different mental models of how it works. Since when is it enough for anybody to *feel* they have the legal justification? I thought that legal justification are issued by proper institutions? And the US *did* try to obtain these legal justifications, it's when it became clear they won't be received, *then* the USA started to claim that it already has them, and never wanted them, and doesn't need them.
The major thing the rest of the world has yet to grasp, is that according to the US government, and (if you agree with opinion polls) the majority of Americans, the war on Iraq is an extension of the War on Terror.
There is an interesting point regarding opinion polls. It was noted that the majority of Americans do believe in connections between Iraq and 9/11, while no proof existed. I wouldn't say that Americans tend to believe in all what the government tells them, so this is a special case. Maybe when people feel threatened, they become less critical...
Admittedly the rest of the world doesn't feel threatened to the same extent, so they ask for proofs (to be more precise, by "the rest of the world" I mean only average people, not politicians). To violate a country sovereignty is too serious business, there must be serious reasons. The USA is happy with the logic of "Alice in Wonderland": "Sentence first--verdict afterwards", while the rest of the world prefers to stay sane.
`No, no!' said the Queen. `Sentence first--verdict afterwards.'
`Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. `The idea of having the sentence first!'
`Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.
`I won't!' said Alice.
`Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

[Jason Menard]

Which question? You asked a lot of questions and I believed the main was "Why don't you tell me then why France and Russia took the position they took?"
Yes, that question. You simply went on to some discussion about how you think some of the citizens felt, which has nothing to do with the question. Unless your answer was: "No idea about France, and I do not want to speculate. What political games the Russian government played I am not terribly interested, and I am afraid there is no way to know anyway."
We apparently have totally different mental models of how it works. Since when is it enough for anybody to *feel* they have the legal justification?
I far from left my argument hanging on that point. The full quote regarding the legal issue:

You forgot the article that claims it is justifiable as a means of self-defense. But anyway, the legal argument is probably pointless. Obviously the US and the UK felt they had the legal justification (which is why they did not force a vote in the face of the French antics).
If they did not have the legal justification, then why haven't they been brought before a court? What about Clinton's actions in Kosovo? There was no UN resolution authorizing that. Where was the indignant international whining then? Let's ignore for a moment the fact that towards the end of last year the UNSC did pass (yet another) a resolution that the Iraqis breached and France and company pretended they didn't sign. But with the most recent UN resolution, the legal argument has been totaly nullified as it basically just gave UN support for our past and present actions in Iraq.

it's when it became clear they won't be received, *then* the USA started to claim that it already has them, and never wanted them, and doesn't need them.
Actually this is not true. The US claimed it had the legal authority to commit force by previous resolutions, and it stated this long before the idea of tabling another resolution came about. In fact, the whole point of the resolution passed at the end of 2002 was to give an ultimatum of force. The thought of seeking a final resolution was soully for the political benefit of Tony Blair and some of our allies.
There is an interesting point regarding opinion polls. It was noted that the majority of Americans do believe in connections between Iraq and 9/11, while no proof existed.
I'm not arguing that Iraq was involved with 9/11. I don't know if they were or weren't. It doesn't matter. The fact is that they were a sponsor of international terrorism, supported terrorists, and attempted to carry out their own terrorist actions against the US. Therefore, Iraq falls under the umbrella of the War on Terror. We never said we were only going after al-Qaeda, and in fact said quite the opposite.
Admittedly the rest of the world doesn't feel threatened to the same extent, so they ask for proofs (to be more precise, by "the rest of the world" I mean only average people, not politicians).
I'm not sure why we should give them proof, but anyway... The "rest of the world" (which is quite a misnomer as there were many in the world who saw the correct course of action) is upset because of their impression that we don't have to play by the same rules they do. There's alot of reasos for it, and many of the reasons are plain-old anti-Americanism. But if that's what you call "sane"...
But still, you had a big section on the UN, which I addressed with no reply from you. And you had a large section on WMD's which I addressed and you didn't reply to. Come on Map, get with the program!
[ June 01, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason: Yes, that question. You simply went on to some discussion about how you think some of the citizens felt, which has nothing to do with the question.
Hey, I can answer only what I can answer!
Unless your answer was: "No idea about France, and I do not want to speculate. What political games the Russian government played I am not terribly interested, and I am afraid there is no way to know anyway."
Yes, this was my answer. I do not want to repeat standard set of accusation to France address, they are too symmetrical to "It's all about oil" to the USA address. I answered as honestly as I could: "I do not know". Regarding Russian government, all I could find were rumors and speculations. Why do you think I know the answer??? I wasn't in Kremlin when this decision was made, how can I know what was taken into consideration and what reasons were given?
I far from left my argument hanging on that point.
Ok, you said:
But anyway, the legal argument is probably pointless.
It's not an argument, it's a statement.
Obviously the US and the UK felt they had the legal justification
-- this is your opinion.
which is why they did not force a vote in the face of the French antics
Are you going to argue that most likely their resolution wouldn't be supported? They knew that, right? So the USA and the UK has better knowledge of what is legal and what's not than UN Security Council? A part cannot be bigger than the whole, although the whole can be wrong.
I'm not sure why we should give them proof, but anyway...
You mean "might is right"?
The "rest of the world" (which is quite a misnomer as there were many in the world who saw the correct course of action)
Agree. By "rest of the world" I meant only that part of the rest of the world that is disagree with American's invasion in Iraq, but this is bad wording indeed.
is upset because of their impression that we don't have to play by the same rules they do. There's alot of reasos for it, and many of the reasons are plain-old anti-Americanism.
"their impression" -- are you saying that in fact you have to play by the same rules? And that their anti-Americanism makes them think you do not?
But still, you had a big section on the UN, which I addressed with no reply from you.
Here:
You forgot the article that claims it is justifiable as a means of self-defense.
If you read my post further, it said:
"International law is quite clear about when military force is allowed. In addition to the aforementioned case of UN Security Council authorization, the only other time that any member state is allowed to use armed force is described in Article 51, which states that it is permissible for "individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack ... until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."
"against armed attack" -- was there an armed attack by Iraq on the USA? Of course not!
But with the most recent UN resolution, the legal argument has been totaly nullified as it basically just gave UN support for our past and present actions in Iraq.
This is called "realpolitics" :roll: Obviously UN cannot do anything with the USA, so it had to simply accept the fact. How does it make illegal action legal??? If in Russia local mafia bribe the police, does it make mafia legal?
Ok so since the legal argument is pretty much non-existant, what about the "we are the world" argument? You know, the argument that all nations must bow and give up their sovereignty before the UN?
What are you talking about? Do you imply that all countries have a sovereign right to invade other countries? What was wrong with the USSR invasion in Afghanistan then?
Saying that an action would have been justified had the UNSC given its "permission" doesn't really hold water. If the UNSC determines that it feels a certain course of action is right, then that would mean the same course of action is right regardless of whether or not the UNSC approves
Legal, not justified. And this argument of yours effectively undermines any legal institution, not only UN, which isn't probably your intention.
Further, the UNSC is not some benevolent impartial body seething with altruism. It is made up of nations with opposing interests. At any given time some of the nastiest regimes in the planet might find themselves on the UNSC (Syria for example).
Nothing on the earth is perfect. Why expect UN to be different?
Not all nations on the UNSC are democracies, yet the UNSC itself is supposed to be some kind of quasi-democratic body, or so its supporters would have us believe. So given this, why should two of the greatest military and economic powers on the planet allow their foreign policies to be directed by such a body?
Good question. Of course, superpowers do not need authority above them. It's weak who need this supreme authority to protect them from superpowers with their desire to make world a better place.
"But the UN is the guarantor of peace" (awwww) some might cry. Really? Where has the UN managed to keep the peace? When the UN is successful at backing up its resolutions with force when necessary (and only one or two occasions come to mind), who provides the muscle? What is the great legacy of UN peace keeping? Bosnia? Israel/Lebanon? Somalia? Rwanda? Angola? Sierra Leone? Are there any?
Why not to make UN a better organization??? You do not like how it works - improve it!
"Yes but the UN lends actions credibility" our detractos wail. Since when do the words "United Nations" and credibility belong together? This is a body that places nations such as Algeria, Chad, Burkina Faso, China, Cuba, Congo, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Vietnam and Zimbabwe on the Human Rights Commission, and appoints Libya to preside over it. This is the same body that appoints Iraq to chair the disarmament committee. The cafeteria workers in the UN building go on strike and foreign diplomats strip the cafeterias bare and loot everything in sight. Yes, this is definitely an organization that oozes credibility.
:roll:
Once the executive secretary of the Soviet Writers Union came to Stalin and complained that these damn writers do not understand party politics. Stalin answered: "I do not have other writers for you".
But let's try this:
Since when do the words "United States" and credibility belong together? This is a country where newspapers lie to their readers, corporations cheat on their investors, President has sexual affairs right on his working place, a country that killed civilians in Vietnam...
And so on.
But what is to prevent others from claiming the right to take action against other nations? Certainly not the UN. Take Russia's actions in Chechenya as an example.
This is a bad example (pun intended). In no way do I approve Russia's actions in Chechenya, but Chechenya is not a sovereign country and it wasn't last 200 or so years.
First I'd have to ask what UN authority exists now? If there is any, who is responsible for that authority? I've already addressed the unilateral part, but since you brought up "collective security". Almost all collective security frameworks exist outside of the UN. NATO would be a prime example. But again, who has provided the majority of the "collective security" in the world during and since the Cold War?
Are you trying to say that the US is the only guarantor of "collective security" in the world? If so, does the USA officially promise to keep peace in the world? Can other countries rely on it? Should they officially utter their pleasure, or it doesn't really matter if they want US to look after them or not?
What body has charged us with breaking international law? I think we've already discarded this argument earlier, right?
Wrong. You discarded this argument earlier, "we" did not.
You're right that no body charged the US with breaking international law, and probably no body will, since there will be no consequences anyway. I stated this as my (and some other individuals) opinion.
And you had a large section on WMD's which I addressed and you didn't reply to.
I did not claim that there is no WMD in Iraq -- I am not a prophet to make such statements. I only claimed that argument of "self-defense" looks weak after the USA cannot find that horrible threat that warranted invasion and government overthrow. Also, what do we understand by WMD? If a couple of bottles with toxins will be found, this will be probably considered "WMD". Does this justify invasion?
[ June 01, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Mapraputa Is]

The cafeteria workers in the UN building go on strike and foreign diplomats strip the cafeterias bare and loot everything in sight.
Time wrote:
"Update:
In response to our original report, the U.N.'s communications department wrote us to say that the incident could not be considered looting. According to the U.N., Restaurant Associates had opened the doors and allowed hungry U.N. employees to take what they wanted. As for the silverware, U.N. security did not receive any formal complaints about stolen items."
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,449436,00.html

[Manav Mitra]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Hm. A gang who just robbed a bank, killed all local police and now is damn proud of it could say something similar. :roll:

Tha't what we like about Map, she comes up with an analogy that nullifies your argument instantly!

Ravish
I can talk abt myself.
I dont like some of the US policies.
1) Trying to be world police.

Though Ravish is saying that he's speaking for himself, most people share this thought.
I have an interesting story to tell you -
I have this conservative neighbour, he doesn't allow his 17 year old daughter to wear jeans and generally treats his children as if he owns them. The girl feels like having fun like most teenagers but this uncle wouldn't let her do that. The other day he slapped her, can you believe it? Too annoying!!! Being a chidhood friend I think I should help her, rather I should "liberate her", what do you say should I kill her father? Not too difficult to get rid of the sick old man!!!
Do you think she'd be thankful to me? Will she rejoice her liberty? her freedom? Will she along with her siblings be happy? Will others underand my "rescue operation" and praise me for my action? I am slightly confused, though I am convinced about my good intentions but these other guys yUo kNOw, unnecessarily preach me. Hell, they are jealous, I'll do what I want.... errr.... what's best in her interest!
AMEN!

[Manav Mitra]

Sarcasm apart, but seriously; can't we understand that these nations are autonomous nuclear familis, and we have no right to "liberate" them. This is how I see this...
p.s. I don't mean to hurt anyone personally, just wondering why US can't see how ridiculous justifications they have...

[Axel Janssen]

Manav,
I think this line of argumentation is typical for Indians who have a pronounced history as colonized country.
O.k.: European colonization/imperialism has shown that there is allways a reason to attack atztek-kingdoms in mexico, Guarani-tribes in brazil, tribes in Sibiria, the mosul-kingdom in India.
Often the reason was to help the oppressed people (like atztecs oppressed people from city Tula and spanish Cort�s allied himself with people from Tula and 2 years later Spain governed Mexico).
Have recently read in a book that the english colonialization of India followed a somewhat similar. There were lots of oppression inside India and the europeans had easy game to find local allies. Later those allies were converted to second rate race and europeans were made bosses. All this might have damaged the internal development of India. Agreed.
But there must be a line. If for example the serbs decide to kill all the muslims in Kosovo, the world should not sit and watch.
I think - in contrast to many europeans - that Sadam did enough robbery and oppression of his own people to justify an intervention.
I am not that sure like some of the americans about that. Future of Iraq will show.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
Have recently read in a book that the english colonialization of India followed a somewhat similar. There were lots of oppression inside India and the europeans had easy game to find local allies. Later those allies were converted to second rate race and europeans were made bosses. All this might have damaged the internal development of India. Agreed.

I would love to know the name of book and read it, if you can provide. As till now I have read only Indian version of Indian history.
It is first time I am seeing this theory of colonization.
So which country should have invaded US when there were lots of oppression in US ??
OR wasnt it good that they learnt it by themself that its not to good have slavery system and blacks are also human.
>>that Sadam did enough robbery and oppression of his own people to justify an intervention
If I am not wrong, then you are talking about 80s. Any injustice in last decade by Saddam to his own people.
Even in 80s, it was war time.
[ June 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[Axel Janssen]

only 30 pages about India
I know that this interpretation of colonial history is I would say mainstream. Colonialists allways were dependant on locals, especially at the beginning. If I have more time I will search link for India.

So which country should have invaded US when there were lots of oppression in US ??
OR wasnt it good that they learnt it by themself that its not to good have slavery system and blacks are also human.

I see your point very well. As I said, somewhere the line has to be drawn. And one can only guess where.
Saddam started 2 wars (against Iran and Kuwait). People were killed and tortured. He used gas against ethnic/cultural/religious groups in his country. He had a huge palast in every city and the people are poor, although the country has oil.
During war there were often iraqui emigrants in german tv. Those, the americans and some conservative politicians were the pro-war fraction in discussions. They convinced me to a certain extent, though mayority here was anti-war.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Manav Mitra:
...the whole thing...

Regarding the analogies used by yourself and Map... A document about fallacies for your reading pleasure.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Time wrote:
"Update:
In response to our original report, the U.N.'s communications department wrote us to say that the incident could not be considered looting. According to the U.N., Restaurant Associates had opened the doors and allowed hungry U.N. employees to take what they wanted. As for the silverware, U.N. security did not receive any formal complaints about stolen items."
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,449436,00.html

*Gasp* You mean the UN is trying to put out the word that what most view as looting by UN personnel, technically wasn't looting as far as they (these asme UN personnel?) are concerned? :roll:

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Regarding the analogies used by yourself and Map... A document about fallacies for your reading pleasure.

Oo, ooo, I know this one! Is it Proof by Straw Man (Straw Man Fallacy).

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Sarcasm apart, but seriously; can't we understand that these nations are autonomous nuclear familis, and we have no right to "liberate" them. This is how I see this...

US believes in mind your own business. US looks the other way on all sorts of wrongdoing by despots and corrupt regimes about the world. Some say the reason US meddles in Iraq and ignores Africa is because it is all over oil.
Oil gave SH an ability to attack the US. SH had the money to do more than deliver truck bombs, suicide bombers, or hijack airliners.
When faced with an adversary that has the capability and the will to inflict horrific actions against any entity that denies it its greed to control all the gulf, can the US wait and retalilate after a smoking gun has been left on the US's soil?
The $200 Billion that gulf war 2 is going to cost the US is a debt the US can hardly afford. The US would much rather spend it on so many other things. But $200 Billion to clean up Iraq looks cheap in comparison to the cost of cleaning up a strike by Iraq on the US.
The US does not want to be the world's policeman. It's a burden the US shoulders because US cannot afford not to. As the only superpower the US inherited the responsibily of bring law and order to Iraq from the failed Ottoman empire.
US course of action will tower above past examples of conquering powers in the justice it brings to Iraq. Even in 1860 no country could end slavery in the US. No coalition was formed. Then, as now, so much of the world is so pitifully apathetic.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Eleison Zeitgeist:
Oo, ooo, I know this one! Is it Proof by Straw Man (Straw Man Fallacy).

But Ok. I just went through the paper again and...
"9) Proof by Limited Survey (Hasty Generalization Fallacy)
My argument is right because I asked three people and they said so."
-- that's how I came to my conclusion about what rest of the world think about America
"10) Proof by Analogy (False Analogy Fallacy) "
Hermann Goering,'s quote
"14) Proof by Rolling Eyes
Your argument is wrong because I'm rolling my eyes."
:roll:
"20) Proof by Tradition
My argument is right because we have always done it that way."
That was my main point about UN...
"27) Proof by Persistence (ad Nauseum Fallacy)
Your argument is wrong. Your argument is wrong. Your argument is wrong. Your argument is wrong. Your argument is wrong"
Just re-read my posts one after another
-------------------------
“Most people would rather die than think. And they do.” B. Russell

[Mapraputa Is]

Hey, Jason, now it's your turn.

[Manav Mitra]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
Manav,
I think this line of argumentation is typical for Indians who have a pronounced history as colonized country.

Honestly, I do not know how to interpret this or react to this. If thtat's true, I am glad that I am with majority, for once.
Axel, by "typical Indian" did you mean sarcasm? Nah, that's not true.. the only other person with satire here is perhaps - Capablanca Kepler. bu I have a feeling you meant sth else.

Have recently read in a book that the english colonialization of India followed a somewhat similar. There were lots of oppression inside India and the europeans had easy game to find local allies. Later those allies were converted to second rate race and europeans were made bosses. All this might have damaged the internal development of India. Agreed.

Yeah.... Probably you meant this - "We try to relate this to our own suffering and oppose without descrimination. In this particular case I wasn't -- and most people of my age born in independant India won't!
As for opression, as you'd agree, it can be found in any country. Any country would have unscrupulous people in power who would opress the poor and needy. And brits were worse!
[We tend to regard history as facts, but it is mostly interpretations, and at times, prejudiced]

But there must be a line. If for example the serbs decide to kill all the muslims in Kosovo, the world should not sit and watch.
I think - in contrast to many europeans - that Sadam did enough robbery and oppression of his own people to justify an intervention.
I am not that sure like some of the americans about that. Future of Iraq will show.

I agree with you regarding drawing a line, in fact that's the whole point of debate is. I am not saying Saddam is/was (???) right, but a milion dollar question is who decides it if you should "liberate" people from him? Won't you require "consent"? Those who oppose this are against you???
My points are -
(1) First and foremost, who gave you (the US) the right to "liberate" these people? Don't you need consent from rest of the world (majority at least) and UNO? I thought at last americal will understnad this, where freedom is so much respectted!
(2) Two wrongs do not make one right!
(3) Don't you think you have already sown seeds of hatered by this action?

[Axel Janssen]

"typical" is too problematic to use.
Its cause I am simplifying language as its not my mother-language.
I just have observed that lots of people from Asia seems to give "autonomy of iraqi government to take decisions" a higher importance than me.
I am not american. I am german.
So the mayority of my people and my government were against the war.
As you share my view of "drawing a line". Its my conviction that Saddam have passed this line. He was a brutal dictator.
Other people might see it different.

[Devesh H Rao]

Hi ppl
sorry to butt in but i was reading thru this discussion and had made up my mind of not to post but .. i think i have run out of patience on this front ...
to name a few instances
1>
US support to iraq in iran-iraq war
2>
Weapons supplied by US can be used against it in the afgan war.
They say prevention is better than cure.
so why dosent the US just stop their support for various "so called freedom struggles " thru out the world as infact most of them turn againt the US after they are done.
There is a saying in hindi for this
"apni hi pairon mein kulhadi marna"
and can be said to be anologous to teh english proverb
"to dig ones own grave"

[Manav Mitra]

Originally posted by Devesh H Rao:
Hi ppl
sorry to butt in but i was reading thru this discussion and had made up my mind of not to post but .. i think i have run out of patience on this front ...

I understnad, same thing happened with me and probably my first post in this thread was result of that.

There is a saying in hindi for this
"apni hi pairon mein kulhadi marna"
and can be said to be anologous to teh english proverb
"to dig ones own grave"

Be careul, don't use too many proverbs they might regard them as fallacies...
I'll answer other posts as well, just give me some time.