|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
 Posted - 06/18/2001 : 09:25:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Garrette: I was referring to the pharmaceutical company which supplied a large amount of medicines to Iraq. The Clinton administration saw fit to bomb it ostensibly for revenge on Osama bin Laden, as I recall.
Gotcha. I should have known this. Well, I've said I think Clinton's diplomacy was awful; I think his use/misuse of the military was worse. I'll start on your side: this was a bad thing and should not have been ordered. I'll swing to the middle ground: knowing as I do how the vagaries of intelligence gathering works, I can understand IN THEORY how this could have been a legitimate strike at what was PERCEIVED to be a legitimate target. I'll continue to the opposing side: Is it settled that this was a pharmaceutical company, or is it still in dispute?
quote:
I don't understand how I've implied this part about voicing opposition.
Of course it is true, but I don't understand what part of what I said you were referring.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, you've expanded your allegations enormously here by implying that not only do the US and UK allegedly want the Iraqi people to suffer but we want to eliminate those who voice opposition. Your bugaboo is growing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was referring to this statement:
quote:
you're helping to increase the number of people that would like to see people like you and me suffer the same lot as the Iraqi people.
I took this to mean that you believe that those supporting the sanctions want to 'starve and murder' those who oppose the sanctions. Sorry if I'm reading it wrong.
My kids still love me. |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 09:40:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I took this to mean that you believe that those supporting the sanctions want to 'starve and murder' those who oppose the sanctions. Sorry if I'm reading it wrong.
I would say that most people, including those in the State Department and military probably buy into the party line. I do think such people as Madeleine Albright and Dick Cheney know exactly the effects of what they're doing and while I'm sure that they would prefer not to commit this kind of crime, they see crime as the best way to handle the situation.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 09:45:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gotcha. I should have known this. Well, I've said I think Clinton's diplomacy was awful; I think his use/misuse of the military was worse. I'll start on your side: this was a bad thing and should not have been ordered. I'll swing to the middle ground: knowing as I do how the vagaries of intelligence gathering works, I can understand IN THEORY how this could have been a legitimate strike at what was PERCEIVED to be a legitimate target. I'll continue to the opposing side: Is it settled that this was a pharmaceutical company, or is it still in dispute?
It was illegal to attack Sudan regardless of what it was. I didn't know it was ever in dispute as to what it was. I understand that mistakes are made. That's why the UN was created, so that matters could be handled diplomatically, and we didn't have countries invading one another at the drop of a hat.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 14:03:10 [Permalink]
|
No time for a long one, but need to make a quick comment anyway.
The UN is to facilitate international relations. Membership in it should not/must not/cannot be construed as an abdication of a nation's sovereign rights to act in its own best interests. All nations should, of course, realize that acting without regard to the interests of other nations will lead to ruin, but the US, UK, China, Taiwan, Russian, Lithuania, Paraguay, et al do not require UN permission to do anything.
"International law" does not exist. With some exceptions regarding maritime activities and some specific treaties like the Geneva/Hague (of which the US is not a signatory) there is no book of laws to which all nations have submitted and are bound.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 14:19:55 [Permalink]
|
Then it was no more wrong for Iraq to invade Kuwait, than it was for the U.S. to invade Iraq?
quote:
No time for a long one, but need to make a quick comment anyway.
The UN is to facilitate international relations. Membership in it should not/must not/cannot be construed as an abdication of a nation's sovereign rights to act in its own best interests. All nations should, of course, realize that acting without regard to the interests of other nations will lead to ruin, but the US, UK, China, Taiwan, Russian, Lithuania, Paraguay, et al do not require UN permission to do anything.
"International law" does not exist. With some exceptions regarding maritime activities and some specific treaties like the Geneva/Hague (of which the US is not a signatory) there is no book of laws to which all nations have submitted and are bound.
My kids still love me.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 15:41:18 [Permalink]
|
That's a silly question. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The UN force(not just the US as everyone knows) liberated Kuwait and chased the fleeing Iraq army partway back to Bagdad. No one but a fool should think that an arbitrary line in the sand is going to stop anyone unless the party that says so has enough force to back it up.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 15:53:09 [Permalink]
|
Garrette just said that Iraq is not bound by law. Therefore, Iraq can invade whomever it wants, the U.S. can invade whomever it wants, and the U.N. cannot take punitive action against either.
quote:
That's a silly question. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The UN force(not just the US as everyone knows) liberated Kuwait and chased the fleeing Iraq army partway back to Bagdad. No one but a fool should think that an arbitrary line in the sand is going to stop anyone unless the party that says so has enough force to back it up.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 16:02:04 [Permalink]
|
Keerect! Iraq can do whatever it wants as long as it understands that some acts will result in bombings and their army being chased partway back to Bagdad. As long as Saddam is cool with that he can do whatever he feels like.
The UN can do what it wants as far as sanctions or whatever goes. Obviously some countries are not adhering 100% to the sanctions anyway. But I think it's clear that there ARE sanctions and I would call sanctions a punitive action.
So in light of what is actually happening what was your point?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 17:32:47 [Permalink]
|
@tomic nailed it. Thank you, @tomic.
Actually, Gorgo, I said there is no real International Law, not that Iraq is not bound by any law, but, yes, Iraq can invade whomever they want. And other countries can respond however they want.
If you want to keep it purely in that realm (I don't, but let's do it for argument's sake), then Iraq is wrong and the US is right. Why? We won. The only criterion that matters.
But if you take it out of that realm, without totally ignoring the impact it has, then you begin to move into Morality or somesuch, Ethics is probably a better word for it. Now that I think about it, "International Ethics" may be a good term to replace "International Law."
And when you move into the realm of ethics, then you begin to consider the value of a country's actions or decision-making processes. Hate to break it to you, but once again, the US wins, hands down.
Who has shown greater concern for the welfare of the non-Iraqi non-Kuwaiti Middle Easter people? The US.
Who has shown greater concern for the Kuwait people? The US.
Who has shown greater concern for the American people? The US.
Who has shown greater concern for the Iraqi people? Ah. A tougher one. But I'll go with.....The US (to cheers and jeers from the crowd, no doubt). Why the US? The Iraqi government has shown concern for its people only as a resource and only as a political tool in the form of news for the sympathy vote. The US has shown concern, admittedly only after removing the immediate military threat, for their wellbeing in the long run. And flawed though they may be, the pipelines for humanitarian aid in the short run exist. (This is truly another topic for another thread; it is my belief that humanitarian aid in the form of NGO's has a deleterious effect, as it did in Somalia).
Again, I think you're attacking the wrong part of my argument. The weak point is in my belief that the sanctions will work to the longterm benefit of the Iraqi people, the longterm prospects for peace in the Middle East, and the longterm prospects for protected US interests (a very vulgar admittance of the importance of oil, there). Convince me they won't, and I'll join you. More precisely, convince me not that the sanctions are flawed, but that there is a specific and better way.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 17:46:58 [Permalink]
|
In other words, there is international law. Unenforceable, really, except where the U.S. decides that it is. There are international ethics, immaterial, except where the U.S. decides that it is. The U.S. is above the law and above ethics. It is brutal, it is criminal, and it is genocidal.
If murder is "concern," then you are right. The U.S. has shown "concern" for its "little brown brothers" to the south of it, it has shown "concern" for millions of Southeast Asians, and it now shows "concern" for hundreds of thousands of what I'm sure some of you used to call "Sand Niggers."
quote:
@tomic nailed it. Thank you, @tomic.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 20:23:50 [Permalink]
|
Somehow you're laboring under the mistaken assumption that I'm trying to convince you of anything.
You're also under the mistaken assumption that I think the sanctions aren't working. They are working exactly as planned. Two million dead, and a whole generation crippled. That's quite a score.
This is like the idea that the U.S. lost the Vietnam war. Sure, they would have rather had their brand of dictatorship work, but the next best thing was to destroy any hope of any kind of popular government and any kind of prosperous country.
quote:
Again, I think you're attacking the wrong part of my argument. The weak point is in my belief that the sanctions will work to the longterm benefit of the Iraqi people, the longterm prospects for peace in the Middle East, and the longterm prospects for protected US interests (a very vulgar admittance of the importance of oil, there). Convince me they won't, and I'll join you. More precisely, convince me not that the sanctions are flawed, but that there is a specific and better way.
My kids still love me.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 23:09:46 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo: As regards to the VITW violations of Federal Law. They were told they could apply for special licenses as regards shipping said supplies to Iraq. They failed to make those applications for licenses and are therefore in violation of federal law. That is not the fault of the US, but rather the VITWs problem for failing to apply for proper licensing to ship that aid. They defied US law, when they had other options open to them. This is not cruelty on the part of the US nor a desire to restrict aid to the Iraqi people. This is a form of insurance to provide that restricted items do not fall into the hands of the Iraqi government. This is also a form of protection for those who wish to send aid to Iraq. They could have worked within the confines of federal law, they chose not to. VITW failed to act appropriately here.
quote:
Garrette:
I can understand your dislike for admitting it, but don't worry about it. That's what they're for, and you're not alone. And from another thread: I doubt the cookies you and Lisa might bake are as bad as you imply (hey, from my point of view, anything anyone else makes is GOOD food).
You'd actually eat my hockey puck cookies? My dog won't, not even soaked in bacon grease. But he's picky, dumped hamburger grease on his food and he dropped the peices without grease on them on the floor. hee hee.
quote:
Again, I think you're attacking the wrong part of my argument. The weak point is in my belief that the sanctions will work to the longterm benefit of the Iraqi people, the longterm prospects for peace in the Middle East, and the longterm prospects for protected US interests (a very vulgar admittance of the importance of oil, there). Convince me they won't, and I'll join you. More precisely, convince me not that the sanctions are flawed, but that there is a specific and better way.
Garrette: I have asked for a better solution to the situation from Gorgo's perspective. Again and again I have received the same answer, 100% withdrawl of US forces from the area. The groups with which he's involved (not sure that is the proper term here) are in full support of this position also. However, I don't think any have looked at the long term problem of dealing with Saddam and Iraq should the US/UN forces withdraw from the Sinai peninsula.
Gorgo: Backing down from Saddam by unilaterally withdrawing US/UN forces from the Sinai peninsula will leave other countries vulnerable to attack from Iraq. Saddam has no other concern than building up his military might in that area. Should UN forces need to return to that area because Saddam has chosen to cross his borders again, the suffering inflicted upon the civilian populace may outweigh that to which they are exposed now. Saddam has shown an extreme lack of regard for the people of his country and for the international community. Withdrawing forces now, without the effective disabling of Iraqi Military Forces, will leave the Sinai Peninsula vulnerable to future war. We don't need another war, we need for Saddam to quit playing games and abide the UN sanctions. Then, we can get on with the prospect of aiding in the rebuilding of the countries infra-structure.
quote:
If murder is "concern," then you are right. The U.S. has shown "concern" for its "little brown brothers" to the south of it, it has shown "concern" for millions of Southeast Asians, and it now shows "concern" for hundreds of thousands of what I'm sure some of you used to call "Sand Niggers."
Gorgo: This whole racial dominance thing bothers me. I live in an area with a large population of Vietnamese refugees. They were given funding to help them start new lives here in the US and many of them have been quite successful. The Vietnamese population here in CO is a tight knit thriving community. As are several others. As for the assuming some of us called them by racial slurs, yeah, some of the guys I knew in DS did. But they were in 1st Mar Div and some of the other units there. I had friends sleeping with gas masks on so everytime the Klaxons sounded they weren't scrambling for the damn things. It's an unfortunate by-product of war. I think Slater said this best in another thread.
When you deal with illegal immigration you're dealing with an entirely different issue. Not too long ago, a van crammed with 35 or so illegal immigrants overturned on the highway. A few of the illegal immigrants were killed instantly, the others were treated at local hospitals before being sent back to Mexico. This is a whole other issue here. I understand the illegal immigration problem as regards Mexico, I live in a state that is considered one of the pipelines. Those who are caught are dealt with in a reasonable manner. If your referring to something else entirely my apologies.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2001 : 04:26:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gorgo: As regards to the VITW violations of Federal Law. They were told they could apply for special licenses as regards shipping said supplies to Iraq. They failed to make those applications for licenses and are therefore in violation of federal law. That is not the fault of the US, but rather the VITWs problem for failing to apply for proper licensing to ship that aid. They defied US law, when they had other options open to them. This is not cruelty on the part of the US nor a desire to restrict aid to the Iraqi people. This is a form of insurance to provide that restricted items do not fall into the hands of the Iraqi government. This is also a form of protection for those who wish to send aid to Iraq. They could have worked within the confines of federal law, they chose not to. VITW failed to act appropriately here.
I told you that it had to be done with permission. "Appropriately" is your opinion. It is appropriate for a lot of reasons.
quote:
Gorgo: Backing down from Saddam by unilaterally withdrawing US/UN forces from the Sinai peninsula will leave other countries vulnerable to attack from Iraq. Saddam has no other concern than building up his military might in that area. Should UN forces need to return to that area because Saddam has chosen to cross his borders again, the suffering inflicted upon the civilian populace may outweigh that to which they are exposed now. Saddam has shown an extreme lack of regard for the people of his country and for the international community. Withdrawing forces now, without the effective disabling of Iraqi Military Forces, will leave the Sinai Peninsula vulnerable to future war. We don't need another war, we need for Saddam to quit playing games and abide the UN sanctions. Then, we can get on with the prospect of aiding in the rebuilding of the countries infra-structure.
There is no amount of compliance which will stop the murder of the Iraqi people. That has been shown time and again.
"Backing down" from what? Garrette has said that the U.S. has won. The U.S. has killed and crippled millions. The U.S. has seen that Iraq couldn't attack anyone, much less defend themselves for decades. The U.S. has seen to it that the Arab world hates and mistrusts us. What other worthwhile goals are there to be gained?
quote:
Gorgo: This whole racial dominance thing bothers me.
I'm not knocking them for using racial slurs. That's how they've learned to deal with what they have to deal with. As far as immigration, that's another thread.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2001 : 04:27:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gorgo: As regards to the VITW violations of Federal Law. They were told they could apply for special licenses as regards shipping said supplies to Iraq. They failed to make those applications for licenses and are therefore in violation of federal law. That is not the fault of the US, but rather the VITWs problem for failing to apply for proper licensing to ship that aid. They defied US law, when they had other options open to them. This is not cruelty on the part of the US nor a desire to restrict aid to the Iraqi people. This is a form of insurance to provide that restricted items do not fall into the hands of the Iraqi government. This is also a form of protection for those who wish to send aid to Iraq. They could have worked within the confines of federal law, they chose not to. VITW failed to act appropriately here.
I told you that it had to be done with permission. "Appropriately" is your opinion. It is appropriate for a lot of reasons.
quote:
Gorgo: Backing down from Saddam by unilaterally withdrawing US/UN forces from the Sinai peninsula will leave other countries vulnerable to attack from Iraq. Saddam has no other concern than building up his military might in that area. Should UN forces need to return to that area because Saddam has chosen to cross his borders again, the suffering inflicted upon the civilian populace may outweigh that to which they are exposed now. Saddam has shown an extreme lack of regard for the people of his country and for the international community. Withdrawing forces now, without the effective disabling of Iraqi Military Forces, will leave the Sinai Peninsula vulnerable to future war. We don't need another war, we need for Saddam to quit playing games and abide the UN sanctions. Then, we can get on with the prospect of aiding in the rebuilding of the countries infra-structure.
There is no amount of compliance which will stop the murder of the Iraqi people. That has been shown time and again.
"Backing down" from what? Garrette has said that the U.S. has won. The U.S. has killed and crippled millions. The U.S. has seen that Iraq couldn't attack anyone, much less defend themselves for decades. The U.S. has seen to it that the Arab world hates and mistrusts us. What other worthwhile goals are there to be gained?
quote:
Gorgo: This whole racial dominance thing bothers me.
I'm not knocking them for using racial slurs. That's how they've learned to deal with what they have to deal with. As far as immigration, that's another thread.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2001 : 05:07:52 [Permalink]
|
Guess, I didn't realize that U.S. troops were in Egypt. Isn't the Sinai Penninsula in Egypt? Where else are they? Aren't they in Saudi Arabia?
quote:
However, I don't think any have looked at the long term problem of dealing with Saddam and Iraq should the US/UN forces withdraw from the Sinai peninsula.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
