RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


war's NOT over(24 posts)

war's NOT oversn69
Apr 8, 2003 6:41 PM
As much as anyone else, I've joked uneasily in the context that this might be drawing down. In some aspects, it is, but in others it has only just begun. ...And I think we would all do well to remember that.

Two images from today's media blitz (gratuitous Social D reference) come to mind. Fist, I saw a photo of an Iraqi mother and father huddling with their hysterical child, caught in the crossfire between the 101st and Fedayneen facists. It hit me in ways that defy words...a father and mother ONLY wanting to console the terror of their young son.

Second, I saw a CNN mini-expose on a young boy whose entire immediate family was killed in an exchanged between coalition and Iraqi forces. The boy lost his family and both arms. Both arms. How will he ever recover?! He won't.

My point is this. Right or left, for or against. It doesn't matter at this point. Practicality takes precidence and now it comes down to deposing what remains and providing everything at our disposal as quickly as possible to help these people (and the Afghans).

Incidentally, and F-15E Strike Eagle is down tonight. This is hardly over. Stand by....

Scott
re: war's NOT overAlpedhuez55
Apr 9, 2003 5:55 AM
Hopefully whatever Bath Party loyalists remain will just give up the fight no that the fall of Baghdad has started. THere are still going to be some snipers and pocket of resistance. There will probably be some attempts at terrorisnm in Iraq after the new government is in place. It looks like the worst is behind us now.

One of my cousins who I grew up with is a career Army Engineer & West Point Graduate. He was one of the first people to cross into Iraq in GW1. He will be going in to help with the rebuilding process. Hopefully he will have a safe deployment.

Mike Y.
CorrectHoopes of glory
Apr 9, 2003 6:02 AM
and we would do well to remember that this may start a few terrorist "wars" that we may be facing on foreign and home soil for may years to come.
and...ClydeTri
Apr 9, 2003 6:10 AM
it might prevent a few terrorist wars/acts as Iraq was an enabler of terrorists...
any evidence for that? nmMJ
Apr 9, 2003 6:23 AM
any evidence for that? nmClydeTri
Apr 9, 2003 6:26 AM
any evidence it might prevent acts of terrorism? no, just as there is no evidence it will cause acts of terrorism...
any evidence they were enablers of terrorism? yes, refer you to the terrorist training base that was destroyed in northern iraq early on...
your evidence...ClydeTri
Apr 9, 2003 6:32 AM
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1854928
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40751-2003Apr6.html
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-war-marine-raid,0,5076617.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
You really believeHoopes of glory
Apr 9, 2003 6:42 AM
that this is going to reduce terrorism. That's just truly frightening. Thank Christ that those in charge of our National Security have got a different, right, idea.
You really believeClydeTri
Apr 9, 2003 6:54 AM
what will really reduce terrorism is a solution to the Israel Palestine problem...
this quote:MJ
Apr 9, 2003 7:11 AM
"Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks told a briefing at Central Command in Qatar that the camp, found at Salman Pak southeast of Baghdad, demonstrated "a linkage between this regime and terrorism." But he said there was nothing to tie the camp to specific organizations."

quite clearly demonstrates there's still not any proof to link SH to terrorists - hardly convincing - hey guys we found a 'camp' - sorry - I think everyone is entitled to more than a vague assertion

there's is no evidence linking SH to terrorism...

foreign volunteers can't be considered terrorists nor can Iraqi tactics against coalition forces in war be considered terrorists

liberation may have prevented a future alliance - but that's hardly a basis to justify anything

anyways - at least we can all agree the world is a better place post SH even if the coalition grounds for invasion are inconsistent, illogical and perhaps illegal
Agreed MJ nmPdxMark
Apr 9, 2003 8:02 AM
You just choose to ignore the evidenceAlpedhuez55
Apr 9, 2003 8:48 AM
Saddam has strong links to terrorist groups. He has in the past given money and weapons to Hamas. That also includes giving money to families of suicide bombers which he has a history of doing.

He had "Non-proliferation Agreement" with al-queida and allowed them to operate in territory under his control (not Kurdish) in Nonthern Iraq.

I am sure in the days to come more documents will be found that will show substantial links to terrorist organizations. Just give it a little time.

At least we can all agree that the world is a better place without Saddam. His sons were total scum as well. THe invasion was justified by numerous UN resolutions regarding the surrender agreement from GW1, despite France, Germany & Russia's attempts to backpedal.

Mike Y.
You just choose to ignore the evidenceMJ
Apr 9, 2003 9:22 AM
not one scrap of evidence has demonstrated any of those points - please (seriously) point me in the right direction - one credible link is all I ask - vague assertions (often later disproved) don't constitute evidence - to date there's nothing

I agree there may be any number of terrorist docs/WMD's docs turning up in the next few days/weeks/months - if there's not will you admit the incursion was groundless for the given reasons?

of course this avoids the question of whether containment and UN was a better approach - I bet I know what the liberated Iraqi's think and that those civilians who have been injured/killed/lost family would have a different opinion

we can all agree SH and Co were a nasty bunch of guys - when I was a social worker I worked with refugees - had alot of Iraqi clients - I saw the physical and psychological scars many had been left with - all were missing family etc. - some hard stories (I could bet what their feeling are re the end of SH...)

justifying military action through UN resolutions is spurious unless all UN applications are enforced with equal vigour
You just choose to ignore the evidenceAlpedhuez55
Apr 9, 2003 11:07 AM
Well Ansar al-Islam were operating pretty freely in Hussein Controlled territory. I think more direct linmks will come on that one in the days to come.

I used to have a nice BBC News story link I would give out to people a few months ago, but the link is no longer active. Here is one showing direct funding to the families of Palestinian Suicide Bombers:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

This regime was supposedly very good at keeping records. I do not think they were as good at shredding documents as the Rose Law Firm though ;) I am sure we will be learning a lot in the days to come.

The stories of the terrorism against their own people have been pretty bad though. THe tourture chambers they were showing in Basrah on MSNBC were pretty shocking.

I am sure you heard the same types of stories I did from an Iraqi Refugee I used to work with. He was one of my bosses. He had some bad scars and a few dead family members. This is a happy day for most Iraqi Nationals.

THe UN resolutions make the war "legal", at least in the UN's eyes until they backed off. Though we did not need them to justify action.

Mike Y.
You just choose to make-up evidence or its relevance...PdxMark
Apr 9, 2003 10:22 AM
Indeed, the world is a better place without Saddam & his regime, but that doesn't mean that the US did not lower its moral standing by launching a war without adequate justification.

What threat has Hamas ever posed to the US? Hamas conducts terrible suicide attacks against Israel, but what evidence is there of any Hamas threat against the US? Is this war supposed to defend the US or Israel? Your Hamas connection plays directly into the Paul Wolfowitz strategy of arbitrarily imposing US military might on "troubling" Arab countries, like Iraq, Syria, Iran... Or, are you one of the 50% or more of Americans who think Iraq was actually complicit in the 9/11 attacks? If so, what evidence do you have of that?

Ummm, "non-proliferation agreement" between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Really? What did it say? Just what part of northern Iraq are we talking about? Where is the evidence of this agreement? Is there a special secret delusional Conservative news web site that posts this information, or do you just make it up?

As for using UN resolutions for justification of unilateral US action, just what UN resolution are you thinking of? 1441 which said there was a material breach, but no specified consequences? The resolution that endorsed GW1 to get Iraq out of Kuwait?

By your rationale, unliateral enforcement of arbitrary past UN resolutions would allow any Arab country could attack Israel for failure to comply with numerous UN resolutions about relations with Palestinians. Is that what you mean? Which UN resolution specifically said that UN members (ie, the US) could use all possible means (ie, war) to enforce the GW1 cease-fire? I'll tell you... NONE of the 14 past UN resolutions about Iraq...

France, Germany and Russia ... backpedaling on a war the US unilaterally decided upon? Just what did France do anyway? It blocked a resolution the US says it didn't need.... What's the harm, other than to expose the Bush Admin. as cynically trying to get international sanction for a war that had NOTHING to do with UN resolutions.

Wake up and realize that GWB has launched this country into a militaristic globalism that is rooted in a policy of crushing non-compliant Arab regimes. The policy is not about defending civil rights of Arab citizens, or even about any credible threat to the US... It's much easier than trying to string together random rationalizations that are inherently inconsistent and arbitrary.
U.N. resolution infoDJB
Apr 9, 2003 11:39 AM
i By your rationale, unliateral enforcement of arbitrary
i past UN resolutions would allow any Arab country could
i attack Israel for failure to comply with numerous UN
i resolutions about relations with Palestinians. Is that
i what you mean? Which UN resolution specifically said that
i UN members (ie, the US) could use all possible means (ie,
i war) to enforce the GW1 cease-fire? I'll tell you... NONE
i of the 14 past UN resolutions about Iraq...

You seem to have bought into the myth that the U.N. resolutions concerning Iraq and Israel are of the same type and therefore equivalent. They aren't.

The resolutions against Israel (Chapter 6) are non-binding and require arbitration or negotiations of some type (Which Israel did). Force is not an option.

The resolutions against Iraq since their invasion of Kuwait (Chapter 7) are resolutions that provide for the use of force if violated.

The following quotes are found in the full pieces that I linked to.

"Chapter 7 authorizes the use of force in the case of threats to international peace and security and requires all member nations to abide by such resolutions."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/28/world/printable520092.shtml

"The third myth that cannot be allowed to persist is perhaps the most widespread of all, the proposition that it is somehow hypocritical to act against Iraq when Israel is also "in breach" of UN resolutions. The attempt to imply some parity of guilt between Iraq and Israel is morally shameful and a wilfully blind misreading of the relevant UN resolutions. Iraq was in breach of Chapter 7 resolutions, which provide for military action to deal with threats to international peace and security. The resolutions which concern Israel are based on Chapter 6 of the UN Charter and they are non-binding recommendations for settling disputes. To bracket Iraq and Israel in the way that Robin Cook did is to suggest that there is a moral equivalence between a murderer and someone who is having difficulty with marriage guidance counselling. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-638446,00.html
Chapter 7 allows use of force - when authorized...PdxMark
Apr 9, 2003 12:10 PM
As in the one resolution, 681, that "Authorizes Member States ... to use all necessary means" to bring Iraq into compliance with previous Security Council resolutions if it did not do so by 15 January 1991."

Which other resolutions authorized use of "all necessary means" for anything other than exiting Kuwait?

Here's a link to all of the the Iraq-related UN resolutions.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

I agree about the Israel resolutions and chapter 6. I shouldn't have used that as an example. But my point remains that just because Chapter 7 was once invoked it doesn't give the US carte blanche to act on its own. As stated in Chapter 39, Article 7:

"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

The Security Council decides ... not individual states...

Of course, we would be entitled to defend ourselves, but GWB never once suggested that this war was necessary now to defend the US against an imminent attack.
Chapter 7 allows use of force - when authorized...DJB
Apr 9, 2003 12:42 PM
The cease-fire resolution itself (686) maintained the use of force granted by 678 (not 681?). From the list that you linked to (for resolution 686): "Affirms the "independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq" and sets out terms for a cease-fire. The use of force remains valid to fulfil these conditions."

One condition of the cease-fire agreement was for Iraq to disarm. Saddam refused to do so. So the use of force is still valid.
You just choose to make-up evidence or its relevance...Alpedhuez55
Apr 9, 2003 11:55 AM
I am certainly not one of the people who think Iraq is directly involved in 9/11. We have had exchanges and I am sure you know I am well read on current events even if we disagree.

Well, I do not have a copy of a treaty. THat is something widely talked about by a lot od intelligence sources on many news shows. Ansar Al-Islam was operating in Saddam controlled terriroty in Northern Iraq. Hamas has made puclic threats to send suicide bombers to the US because of our goverments support for Israel. There is pleanty of information and evidence out there to support Iraq/terrorism links.

We did not need the UN to go into Iraq. We had more than enough reason. Bush did it anyway though. It did expose the France Germany & Russia as a bunch of frauds though. Companies from all three countries were suggling arms to Iraq over the past decade.

You are going to beleive what you want. If you think they US "lowered it's moral standarding" by removing a genocidal maniac and his to scum of the earth sons from power, they i say Yeah! to low morals.

Mike Y.
So when do you launch war against Mugabe?PdxMark
Apr 9, 2003 12:13 PM
If you are so assured that the point was to eliminate a genocial maniac, then why let Mugabe stay in power? If genocide and human rights abuses are the standard, which might be a good standard, then when does GWB attack Zimbabwe? I bet he doesn't because this war is not about Iraqi human rights... if it is, when do we defend human rights in Zimbabwe?
I vote for a week from Monday...well, not really,TJeanloz
Apr 9, 2003 12:21 PM
I would fully support working through the same process with Robert Mugabe. 12 years of economics sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Invasion in 2015 if he's still around. It was widely believed post GW1 that economic sanctions alone would be sufficient to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That belief proved wrong, and military force had to be used.

Bottom line, I fully support beginning the diplomatic process to pressure Zimbabwe into returning to real democracy; war may be the final means to this end.
I hope someone does!!!Alpedhuez55
Apr 9, 2003 12:22 PM
I hope someone does. The UN does little to stop creeps like that. I would suggest sanctions and diplomacy first though. I would support a war to liberate ZImbabwe though. Genocide is never good.
I think it would be good too...PdxMark
Apr 9, 2003 3:03 PM
but I suspect that human rights are not actually that high on the Administration's priority list. I think liberation of Iraqi civilians was a PR-based spin rather than an actual reason for the war. Inaction in Zimbabwe would be (inconclusive) evidence that human rights is not quite the government priority that it was made out to be for the Iraq war.
I think it would be good too...Alpedhuez55
Apr 9, 2003 4:01 PM
Their were other factors involved in Iraq, not just human rights, though that did play a part in the decision. There not disarming after GW1, terrorism and oil to name a just a few. It also seems to have been a quiet North Korea for the moment, but I doubt that will last.

I think Zimbabwe would be a great starting point for the UN to make itself relevant again. It would be nice to see Kofi Annan take a strong stand against it. He seems to spend more time defending Zimbawe's electoral process than being outraged over the human rights issues.