<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:<hr height=1 noshade>@delicrazy
Now that was an impressive list of arguments you had there. <hr height=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2>
I noticed that 5 of your 8 posts have been confined to this thread. Makes me wonder who wants to argue.....
If you revisit the initial post, the only inference to war was invoked by yourself when you hijacked the thread to make your personal stand on the “current war”. My statement was meant as support for all who struggle in the name of freedom. Would you have felt better if it was on a US or British hospital ship? The sentiment is the same –They have a job to do and that’s why they are “there”. There does not refer to any war, any battlefield, any police action, or any relief effort. I like to think our Armed forces exist to protect us from the evil that men do.
Try reading up on the history of Iraq and its current regime. It strikes closer to home than you may realize. As far as legitimizing the current war against international law – what exactly did resolutions 678, 687, 949, and 688 spell out. Then tell me what serious consequences mean in Resolution 1441. What is your view of a fair amount of time to come clean. Is the presence of the proscribed Al-samoud missiles and their manufacturing castings evidence of good faith on the part of the Iraqi government? Would Hans Blix and company have been as “effective” as Butler’s UNSCOM who believed they were successful at ferreting out the WMD only to have Saddam’s son-in-law defect and inform us otherwise.
As to innocents and the horrors of war perhaps a little background is needed here. Having experienced the fury and devastation of armed conflict first hand and traveled extensively in the 3rd world under oppressive regimes, I’m sorry to say but there is still evil in the hearts of men. Having worked with humanitarian relief efforts in each country I was assigned, I can say that the oppressed and innocent often have no voice to tell the horrors that are committed on a daily basis by their governments. So what do we do for them, Connor?
The world sat by in the 1930s while Germany violated the Treaty of Versailles and built its war machine. The world sat by during the blitzkrieg attacks on Poland and cared little of the pogroms that laid the lives of the innocent to waste. The world sat by while Japan violated international treaties and then invaded China and unleashed horrors like Camp 731 on a defenseless civilian populace. At best Saddam is Hitler’s “Mini-Me” and due to our collective containment actions, his stated dream of leading a pan-Arabic nation will not become reality. At worst he is the torturer, oppressor and instrument of death for nearly 1.5 million Middle Eastern people. How many of those are innocent? Better yet how many is enough?
Notice in each case treaties were violated. How do these differ from the successive resolutions levied by that august body of international politic, the UN, on Iraq. If people had stood up to Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese regimes at an early stage, how many innocent lives would have been saved. What constitutes right when treaties are violated and who is going to enforce the letter of international law? The UN passed no less than 12 resolutions from 1991 to try and force Iraq’s compliance with disarmament and reasonable standards of international behavior. These UN resolutions were violated long before the US and its current allies acted.
A coalition of more of the willing would have been nice and maybe given Saddam more reason to stop and think. (Having read extensively on the history of Iraq and Saddam though I doubt it.) But the division among the Security Council members emboldened Mr. Hussein and his ambassadors used every cover and every political mechanization to buy time believing we would not act without UN approval. The reluctance of France was based, IMO, more on their tentative lucrative oil contracts estimated at nearly $52 billion; the memory of the 1970s deals that accounted for 40% of their arms sales; and a desire to reduce the role of the US in international politics. France’s hands are dirty and they are guilty in violating the sanctions imposed by the UN to make Saddam disarm. Germany, Russia, and a host of neighboring Arab nations are no less clean. Treaties and resolutions are worthless if we don’t abide by them and provide the means to enforce them. The UK, Australia, the US, and 40+ other countries are willing to take on that task while the world continues to watch.
As to your first first point, the UN is not the body that decides whether a war is legal or just. They may sanction a war but the justification to use war and its conduct falls under the Geneva Conventions. The last amendment did not consider the world as it is today and we may need to revisit them in the future. The Conventions also provide for war crimes so you may make you case for either side on this point. Justification can be argued using UN Resolution 678 which authorized force in support of UN Resolution 660 and “successive resolutions to bring peace and security to the region”. I also believe the “serious consequences” referred to in Resolution 1441 are pretty straight forward – unless the rest of the world means a series of unending inspections are “serious”.
On point two, if you listen to the imbedded reporters and read up on Saddam, you will find that not only are Al-Queda operatives working with the Iraqi instruments of state but Saddam has a history of collusion with terrorist organizations when it suits his interests. Case in point is the Abu-Nidal organization which Saddam supported in an effort to gain control over anti-Israeli terrorist organization. Iraq’s (read Saddam’s) orchestration of the assasination of Shlomo Argov, the Israeli ambassador to Great Britain, is well documented. Whether Saddam worked with Al-Queda on 9-11 is open to speculation. His troop movements immediately prior to 9-11 lead some analysts to conclude he had advance knowledge. Some could say this makes him guilty. Let’s wait to see what is uncovered.
On point three, yes thousands of men, women, and children will be dead and as one who protested Vietnam and then faced the horrors of war, I will grieve for them. But I ask you, how many has Saddam already murdered and how many more would die if he is allowed to continue in power or foster his dream of Pan-Arabic domination. How many less would be dead if a united UN had lived up to its obligations and not tolerated 12 years of deceit, lies, and misinformation from a government that is brutal in its suppression of its own people and bent on acquiring nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of destruction – and for what reason?
My statement stands as bless all who struggle in the name of freedom. May those who selflessly stand on the wall and protect us from the evil that exists in the world be safe. This is a fairly self policing forum and most of us tolerate a little OT here. I was not judging the right or wrong of the current conflict until you posted. If you wish to debate further send me some e-mails or go to Blade Forum’s Political forum.
My best to you in trying to understand all sides of this. I like your world where the reasons for war are ferreted out first before hostilities. My world would have no wars. Pity I can’t live there.
Best to ya......<img src="smile.gif" width=15 height=15 align=middle border=0>
<i>“The blood-dimmed tide is loosed and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned
The best all lack conviction, while the worst;
Are full of passionate intensity.”</i> – W B Yeats
BTOT (Back to Off-Topic)
Edited by - java on 3/30/2003 7:01:59 PM