|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 06/21/2001 : 10:51:30 [Permalink]
|
I think you(Gorgo) simply don't understand the strategic importance of the region. I don't think anyone believes the US is over there to protect the sovereignty of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. The US is the to protect the flow of oil. The oil that turns the wheels of our civilization. The Iraqi people are paying for the crimes committed by their leader(Saddam Hussein). That crime, more than invading Kuwait, was endangering the flow of oil.
The US has every right to impose no fly zones and I'll tell you why...The US has the right because no one has the will or might to say the US has no right. When that happens then you will be right. Until then you are wrong.
I still don't know about these documented terrot bombings. As far as I am concerned you are making them up unless you are horribly distorting the few, justified bombings that have occurred since 1998. Nothing about those bombing come close to deserving the label "terror bombings."
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2001 : 11:53:01 [Permalink]
|
Well, it isn't oil, but whatever it is, I'm sure people have all kinds of excuses for their crimes. As you've stated, the U.S. thinks it is above the law, and above ethics, much like most criminals.
quote:
I think you(Gorgo) simply don't understand the strategic importance of the region. I don't think anyone believes the US is over there to protect the sovereignty of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. The US is the to protect the flow of oil. The oil that turns the wheels of our civilization. The Iraqi people are paying for the crimes committed by their leader(Saddam Hussein). That crime, more than invading Kuwait, was endangering the flow of oil.
The US has every right to impose no fly zones and I'll tell you why...The US has the right because no one has the will or might to say the US has no right. When that happens then you will be right. Until then you are wrong.
I still don't know about these documented terrot bombings. As far as I am concerned you are making them up unless you are horribly distorting the few, justified bombings that have occurred since 1998. Nothing about those bombing come close to deserving the label "terror bombings."
@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 - 06/21/2001 : 11:57:37 [Permalink]
|
I thought you read this thread. If so you would have noticed that there is no law for the US to break. As for ethics...that is debatable. Saddam and Iraq are being punished for the crimes committed by Iraq.
There is a world of difference between the way we want things to be and the way things actually are.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2001 : 12:11:48 [Permalink]
|
Once again, you really aren't following along very well. Of course, there is international law. It's just that certain parties understand that they're above the law, so it remains unenforceable except when certain parties say that it's enforceable."
This becomes clear when you see that the U.S. has no willingness to help create any kind of fair international court. If it did exist, it wouldn't be able to torture, maim and kill with such impunity.
quote:
I thought you read this thread. If so you would have noticed that there is no law for the US to break. As for ethics...that is debatable. Saddam and Iraq are being punished for the crimes committed by Iraq.
There is a world of difference between the way we want things to be and the way things actually are.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2001 : 12:26:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gorgo:
The U.S. had no business unlilaterally creating "No-Fly" zones, and "No-Drive" zones and creating that kind of terror campaign.
These were a part of the original UNSC resolutions imposed against Iraq at the end of the Gulf War.
quote:
"YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU MUST AGREE OR LEAVE THE COUNTRY UNTIL YOU'RE RIGHT!"
This was not my intention with my statement. My apologies for your taking something that is/was meant in jest. I just get sick of hearing people bitch about how degenerate the US is without understanding what other places in the world are like.
quote:
It's called "civil disobedience."
There are other forms. My problem was with your implication that they were threatened for sending supplies to Iraq. They weren't, they were told that they had options for sending aid, they failed to comply. That is not a threat. Or should we only go along with the laws that we subjectively feel are OK and not the others? They could have worked within the system first while trying to change the system. They failed to do so.
quote:
quote:
You are assuming an emotional attachment. I do have an emotional attachment to the military, it is a part of what defines who I am, still just a part.
Thank you for making my point.
I also said that the military is only a part of the whole. Yes it influences my position. I DON'T WANT TO GO TO WAR AGAIN!!!!
Saddam is still a military threat in the region...as long as he remains a military threat there is the possiblity of going to war again in that region. I lost too many friends over there, I don't want to lose anymore. What is so difficult to understand about my abhorence of war? If I'm called back, I'll go, doesn't mean I want to, but it means does mean that I will do what is necessary. That is the influence that emotional attachment has on me. I didn't make your point, you failed to consider the options regarding my position.
This debate is breaking down again into scratching and name calling...please lets put it back on the proper path...
And please leave the * + * out of my name. It's entirely offensive! And completely out of line!
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2001 : 12:41:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
These were a part of the original UNSC resolutions imposed against Iraq at the end of the Gulf War.
No, of course they were not.
quote:
This was not my intention with my statement. My apologies for your taking something that is/was meant in jest. I just get sick of hearing people bitch about how degenerate the US is without understanding what other places in the world are like.
You are saying that the crimes of others excuse the crimes of the U.S.?
quote:
It's called "civil disobedience."
There are other forms. My problem was with your implication that they were threatened for sending supplies to Iraq. They weren't, they were told that they had options for sending aid, they failed to comply. That is not a threat. Or should we only go along with the laws that we subjectively feel are OK and not the others? They could have worked within the system first while trying to change the system. They failed to do so.
I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What they did was against the law. You were surprised to find that it was. I showed you a web site that explained this. Now, your point is what about that? They shouldn't have broken the law? So what? It's called civil disobedience. They don't agree with the law so they break it. You agree with it, so don't break it.
quote:
I also said that the military is only a part of the whole. Yes it influences my position. I DON'T WANT TO GO TO WAR AGAIN!!!!
Then stop supporting criminal behavior.
quote:
Saddam is still a military threat in the region...as long as he remains a military threat there is the possiblity of going to war again in that region.
That of course is ridiculous. Iraq couldn't even win a clear victory against Iran with U.S. help. After twenty years of war, and 11 years of sanctions, Iraq is not a threat to itself.
I have called no one any names. I have been told to get out of the country. I have been told that I'm a joke. I have been told that I think the U.S. is 'evil' and I'm making things up because I hate it.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2001 : 13:14:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The US is 'subject' to the same things all other countries are 'subject' to. Hussein has deigned not to follow "International Law", yet you fail to hold him to task. Unenforceable? All international mandates have been only as enforceable as the force behind them. You want me to apologize because the US is the big dog on the block? Won't do it. Nor do I expect it to last forever. What I expect history to remember is that the US, while it was the big dog, wielded its power less capriciously than most in its position (not without caprice, not without mistakes, and certainly not without self-interest; just less cruelly than most). And the US does subject itself to the UN even at times when it seems not in its interests to do so or seems ludicrous
That's quoting myself. It's what most accurately explains my position about the myth of international law. I have not said the US is above any law; I've objected to your presentation of a non-entity as a given.
quote:
@tomic and +rish. Just because you keep repeating things doesn't make it true.
Absolutely true, Gorgo, for everyone here. Every one.
quote:
All you need to do to get me to think a little harder is to answer the question that no one will answer that the "free press" must have tons of information about.
Come again? What question are we not answering? Do you mean the sources that the American media bases its stories on? If so, then it's been answered. The State Department. The UN reports. The NGO's. Even, I wager, some of the organizations you push. Not to mention the occasional on-the-ground reporter. The fact that they don't put credence in the sources you prefer doesn't mean they don't have sources.
quote:
This becomes clear when you see that the U.S. has no willingness to help create any kind of fair international court.
I'll concede this up to a point. America historically is averse to submitting to the decisions of any outside body or nation. Still are. Just like, say, Iraq is averse to submitting to the dictates of the UN. But the real sticking point about an international court is creating one that is "fair" in both reality and perception. How would you comprise a 'fair' court acceptable to the US and to Iraq? Or to Israel and Jordan? China and Taiwan? Ireland and England? On and on? And on?
quote:
"I think it would be okay if I'm wrong, can you say the same thing?"
Yes. I've been wrong on many, many things. I've been wrong at times because I was arrogant, uneducated, biased, emotionally attached, fatigued, bullheaded, afraid, and downright stupid. I'll be wrong again. I may be wrong now. Show me.
Show me why I should believe your sources as opposed to mine, when yours appear immensely biased and prove it when they condemn all non-leftist US policies (welfare reform seems to be a biggie), when they provide unsupported numbers, when they target the US as if it is acting unilaterally instead of the UN which is acting through the Security Council, when they provide bombing examples which can be confirmed only through Iraqi outlets which themselves are suspect, when they turn a blind eye to the irrefutable atrocities of Hussein, when they ignore the mechanisms in place to ameliorate the suffering of the Iraqi people, when they argue hotly against anything to ameliorate that suffering unless it is tied to measures allowing for a builup of the Iraqi military?
Why should you believe the State Department reports and the US media? You shouldn't totally. They're biased, too, though the media tend to lambast the administration when at all possible (Republican or Democrat) and so would be loathe to suppress anything supporting your version of events. But the bias in the State Department reports is a bias for domestic political favor, and limits itself, for the most part, to interpretation of fact, not to suppression of fact or creation of falsehood, so the truth can be more closely approached through these sources. My opinion.
quote:
The US has every right to impose no fly zones and I'll tell you why...The US has the right because no one has the will or might to say the US has no right. When that happens then you will be right. Until then you are wrong.
Sorry, @tomic. If the positions were reversed, I'd feel compelled to attack this statement, so even though we're on the same side of this argument, I can't let this slide.
I hope I haven't given this impression because I haven't intended to, though I have talked about this idea.
Ability does not equal morality does not equal righteousness does not equal 'right.'
The bully in the schoolyard does not have the right to hit me just because he is bigger and stronger. (I know of these things...)
I did talk, I think, a lot about enforcement being contingent upon physical/military ability to do so, and this may have caused some confusion.
quote:
Well, it isn't oil, but whatever it is, I'm sure people have all kinds of excuses for their crimes. As you've stated, the U.S. thinks it is above the law, and above ethics, much like most criminals.
Oh, I think it's as much oil as it is anything else. And I think the US has voluntarily constrained itself to some unseen code of ethics more than most nations in a similar position. Not totally, not always, and not without flaws, but voluntarily constrained nonetheless.
And one final note: this statement applies far, far better to Hussein than it does to the US.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2001 : 13:30:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How much in foreign funds has "Saddam" spent on things that he shouldn't have spent, with some idea of what those things are, and how much in foreign funds would it take to make Iraqi society a healthy place to be again? How much in foreign funds would it take to smuggle in contraband and repair the infrastructure, get needed medicines, books and pencils, get the economy on an even keel so that doctors and nurses don't leave the country or have to live by shining shoes and driving cabs. You must have those figures handy from getting off your ass and reading the "free press.?"
I quote myself.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2001 : 13:41:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The US is 'subject' to the same things all other countries are 'subject' to. Hussein has deigned not to follow "International Law", yet you fail to hold him to task.
I fail to hold him to task? You support policies which make him a hero, make him rich, kill and impoverish his subjects, and I fail to hold him to task?
quote:
Show me why I should believe your sources as opposed to mine, when yours appear immensely biased and prove it when they condemn all non-leftist US policies (welfare reform seems to be a biggie), when they provide unsupported numbers, when they target the US as if it is acting unilaterally instead of the UN which is acting through the Security Council, when they provide bombing examples which can be confirmed only through Iraqi outlets which themselves are suspect, when they turn a blind eye to the irrefutable atrocities of Hussein, when they ignore the mechanisms in place to ameliorate the suffering of the Iraqi people, when they argue hotly against anything to ameliorate that suffering unless it is tied to measures allowing for a builup of the Iraqi military?
Why should you believe the State Department reports and the US media? You shouldn't totally. They're biased, too, though the media tend to lambast the administration when at all possible (Republican or Democrat) and so would be loathe to suppress anything supporting your version of events. But the bias in the State Department reports is a bias for domestic political favor, and limits itself, for the most part, to interpretation of fact, not to suppression of fact or creation of falsehood, so the truth can be more closely approached through these sources. My opinion.
If you think that, you haven't paid attention to what my sources are and what they've said.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2001 : 17:32:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Operation Northern Watch (ONW) officially began on 1 January 1997 and is based at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. Three countries are taking part - the United States, United Kingdom and Turkey - and provide approximately 45 aircraft. The Turkish parliament reviews and renews semi-annually the ONW mandate in June and December. At the time of writing, most of the aircrafts in operation over Iraq in ONW are US Air Force's F-15E and F-16CJ and US Navy's EA-6B, using laser guided bombs GBU-10, GBU-12, GBU-24; AGM-88 "HARM" (800 pound high speed anti-radar missile, from F-16 and EA-6B only) and AGM-130 (3000 pound air-to-ground missile, from F-15 only).
Operation Southern Watch is the equivalent of ONW over Southern Iraq. The United States and United Kingdom provide the aircraft, based in Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait. The British aircrafts take an active part in the operation, with 13 tactical reconnaissance Tornado GR1A of the RAF No. 13 Squadron based at Ali Al-Salem Air Base (Kuwait) and 13 air defence Tornado F3 of the RAF No. 11 Squadron based at Prince Sultan Air Base (Saudi Arabia), supported by the tankers VC-10 of No. 101 Squadron based in Bahrain . The Tornado GR1A is equipped with radar-guided medium-range air-to-air Skyflash missiles and infra red-guided short-range AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles while Tornado F3 generally carry high explosive 1000 pound bombs Mk20 GP (General Purpose) or its laser-guided development Paveway II or the latter 2000 pound version, Paveway III.
My apologies, I was mistaken here...Tho I do question the launch of any missiles from EA-6Bs. Not their military purpose and all...The Northern Zone was established 6 weeks following the end of the Gulf War. The Southern Zone was established the following year. These zones were established without UN sanction by France, Great Britian and the US.
quote:
You are saying that the crimes of others excuse the crimes of the U.S.?
No I'm not excusing anything here. I'm just tired of hearing about the US in the light that some choose to paint it without realizing just how well off they are here in the states. It's not an excuse, it was/is intended in jest against those who deem it necessary to cut their nose to spite their face. I'm not saying the US is correct in all its foriegn policies nor is it without fault in its dealings with others.
quote:
I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What they did was against the law. You were surprised to find that it was. I showed you a web site that explained this. Now, your point is what about that? They shouldn't have broken the law? So what? It's called civil disobedience. They don't agree with the law so they break it. You agree with it, so don't break it.
I'm saying that for all those who don't agree with a law, they should break it? There were ways for them to work within the framework of the law. They broke the law, therefore any punitive actions the Federal Government chooses to take are justified. It will be battled in the courts. There were other options...breaking the law was unnecessary.
quote:
Then stop supporting criminal behavior.
Your only looking at one small part of the picture here. You are not looking at the whole.
quote:
Furthermore, sanctions have not forced Saddam Hussein to change his sanctioned actions: He continues to drain the southern marshes, conducts chemical warfare on Iraqis, continues to threaten the safety of Kurds and Shiites, and continues to threaten the territorial autonomy of his neighbors. Rather than loosening his control over Iraq, sanctions have accomplished just the opposite, that is, Saddam Hussein's grip on power has actually tightened. (In fact, Saddam Hussein may be more powerful today than he was prior to the sanctions.) In the case of Iraq, sanctions have seemed to fail miserably. It is within the discourse of this case study that the reasons for the failure of those sanctions will be examined.
After invading Kuwait in 1990, the U.N. began to sanction Iraq's egregious action. Since then, new sanctions have been placed on Iraq for its human rights violations and programs of mass destruction.
Under the Sanctions, Saddam has rebuilt his army from the shattered wreck left in 1991. To this day, he continues to evade United Nations inspectors, trying to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Before the beginning of September 1996 (when Saddam increased his onslaught on the Kurds), the U.N. Security Council was prepared to ease its economic sanctions enough to permit Iraq $2 billion or more in oil sales. Nonetheless, with the onslaught of the Kurds came new economic pressures.(13)
extracted from: http://www.american.edu/ted/IRAQSANC.HTM
Um, Saddam has chosen to rebuild his military might instead of supporting the populace. This also documents some of the attrocities he's practiced against the Iraqi people.
quote:
I have called no one any names. I have been told to get out of the country. I have been told that I'm a joke. I have been told that I think the U.S. is 'evil' and I'm making things up because I hate it.
I differ on this statement and I've only made it through the first seven pages. see quotes from your own posts below. No ones said any of this against you. If any of my remarks have appeared this way, my apologies. However, from rereading the posts I have come to the conclusion that much of what your saying has been said against you has been misinterpreted on your part. Again my apologies for leaving you with this impression. Your right to believe as you do, is your right, to say what you do, is your right. However, I also have those same rights. It's obvious we don't agree on this issue. It is my opinion that the sanctions must remain while allowing additional humanitarian aid to reach the populace. It is your opinion that no amount of humanitarian aid is sufficient and that the sanctions must unilaterally be withdrawn from Iraq.
quote:
It seems as though you got into the middle of a conversation without really knowing what you're talking about.
It seems as though you got into the middle of a conversation without really knowing what you're talking about.
It seems as though you got into the middle of a conversation without really knowing what you' |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2001 : 20:27:09 [Permalink]
|
Actually, I didn't have you in mind when I asked that question. However, tell me that a person in your position could easily change to something approximating my viewpoint.
quote:
"I think it would be okay if I'm wrong, can you say the same thing?"
Yes. I've been wrong on many, many things. I've been wrong at times because I was arrogant, uneducated, biased, emotionally attached, fatigued, bullheaded, afraid, and downright stupid. I'll be wrong again. I may be wrong now. Show me.
[/quote]
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2001 : 06:13:50 [Permalink]
|
You must be talking about FAIR. Yes, they do try to point out the bias of the media. No, they don't often spend much time criticizing left-wingers, because the media isn't slanted to the left at all.
What I meant was
http://www.iraqaction.org
http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw
and others for which you should find some links on those sites if you're interested.
quote:
If you think that, you haven't paid attention to what my sources are and what they've said.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2001 : 09:12:32 [Permalink]
|
I wish you well. Anything said beyond that might be taken the wrong way, so I'll just say I wish you well.
quote:
You have resorted to ad hominen attacks upon occasion, going so far as all but calling me an uneducated idiot and casting aspersions upon those who do not agree with your opinion.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2001 : 10:35:04 [Permalink]
|
I have a proposition.
First, as this is taking up more time than I can legitimately afford to spare, I am going to follow Trish and bow out. Let me make it clear, though, that I've enjoyed it and learned a bit, and I have no objection to your treatment of me or my postings; I hope you have none regarding my treatment of you.
Second, as I think I said once, I've not followed this much at all for several months and you've rekindled an interest, which frankly I need anyway for professional reasons.
Third: All the debate has boiled down in essence to a question of sources and which to believe (there are other issues, but this is the crux of it). I have read your sources, and read them again, and do not find them as credible as mine.
This leads to fourth and final: Since I've been doing a cram course to refresh myself on everything happening there, I may have missed things.
I'll go back over your sources carefully, along with any and all others I can find, and make a judgment down the road based on my findings.
I ask you to do the same, meaning do not dismiss the U.S. State Department reports out of hand as you seem to have done.
Not much, but it's the best I can do right now.
Regards
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2001 : 10:55:01 [Permalink]
|
Yes, as I said I really didn't think I'd convince anyone. Just wanted to raise some questions and learn a few things myself, which I did.
I had fun. You were a gentleman, and it was a pleasure. In fact, the others weren't so bad either.
quote:
I have a proposition.
First, as this is taking up more time than I can legitimately afford to spare, I am going to follow Trish and bow out. Let me make it clear, though, that I've enjoyed it and learned a bit, and I have no objection to your treatment of me or my postings; I hope you have none regarding my treatment of you.
Second, as I think I said once, I've not followed this much at all for several months and you've rekindled an interest, which frankly I need anyway for professional reasons.
Third: All the debate has boiled down in essence to a question of sources and which to believe (there are other issues, but this is the crux of it). I have read your sources, and read them again, and do not find them as credible as mine.
This leads to fourth and final: Since I've been doing a cram course to refresh myself on everything happening there, I may have missed things.
I'll go back over your sources carefully, along with any and all others I can find, and make a judgment down the road based on my findings.
I ask you to do the same, meaning do not dismiss the U.S. State Department reports out of hand as you seem to have done.
Not much, but it's the best I can do right now.
Regards
My kids still love me.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
