Powell's case to the UN

[vonork]

Dralix: let me answere too

1) I already was convinced, never rely believed Iraq would.
2) Well, yes but as I said above
3) Sure as hell they should
4) New resolution, that say they shall DISARM Iraq (not Iraq show that they have), that scientist SHALL be questioned without Iraq present. More Inspectors and so on.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

@Dralix- I have seen two distinctly irreconcilable views of the UN trotted out by the same people and want it clarified as I move on to discuss resolution 1441:

Either the Arab world is laughing at the U.N. because it won't punish Iraq or the Arab world IS the U.N. and they live to make political attacks on Israel. Either the UN is in charge and we abide by their decisions or the UN resolution is meaningless and we don't base our case against Iraq based on that resolution.

Now, we're on the brink of a war because we have been pushed there- and not by Saddam, who DOES fear the UN and who wants a war just about as badly as he wants to meet Allah and be judged for his misdeeds. We are on the brink of a war because of the firm language and firm resolve to go to war of America's top brass- a resolve that gave the option to the UN of passing 1441 or being ignored in favor of an IMPERIALIST invasion (the only kind, btw).

If the UN decides that a military action is necessary to disarm Saddam (I doubt they will opt for "depose" in the wording, that simply isn't the UN's job), then support would be justified for such action (although as a moral pacifist I can not ever support such action). If the UN wants more time, who are the posters in this forum to decide what their role is? People, and governments, who stand opposed to military action do so not out of a sentimental attachment to Saddam but out of an absolute aversion to mass destruction and bloodshed. Why must I constantly repeat that point? There is no "national self interest" for anyone but Saddam in avoiding war, but there is MATURITY and GRAVITAS in seeking to defuse this situation.

The attacks from Iraq are not forthcoming. Lies, yes, hiding things, maybe, attempts to intimidate their own populace, who doesn't? But threats on the lives of the inspectors or the numerous American doctors and missionaries who even now work to do actual good in Iraq rather than the dubious good of destroying a whole ant hill to kill one ant are not forthcoming.

I see no way under the rule of international law to say that the UN has the power or right to remove an individual leader from office, and maybe Bush should be glad of that. Now if you want to level war crimes charges at Saddam or crimes against humanity, that would certainly fly: too bad the US vetoed the idea of joining the international war crimes court treaty.

EDIT: @Everybody: let's also try and calm down, this thread has become a minefield!

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Your making it worse.

There is nothing "Imperialist" about this.

Why do you persist with this nonsense?

 

[ERIKK]

Moderator Action: Check your PMs

AoA
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[test_specimen]

Quote

Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1851
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>
- im·pe·ri·al·ist /-list/ noun or adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·tic /-"pir-E-&-'lis-tik/ adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

End Quote

Taken from the www.britannica.com dictionary.

 

[Richard III]

Sultan, no offence, but:

Was the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia an imperialist invasion?
Was the Allied invasion of Europe an imperialist invasion?
Was the Tanzanian invasion of Uganda an imperialist invasion?

(just to pick a few examples)

R.III

 

[test_specimen]

Originally posted by Richard III
Sultan, no offence, but:

Was the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia an imperialist invasion?
Was the Allied invasion of Europe an imperialist invasion?
Was the Tanzanian invasion of Uganda an imperialist invasion?

(just to pick a few examples)

R.III

The "Allied Invaston of Europe" was preceded by a imperialist invasion by the Germans of Europe. Iraq has (this time) not yet invaded another country.

 

[test_specimen]

I guess if the US invade, depose of Saddam, withdraw and have the Iraqis elect another leader, that would not be an imperialist invasion.

On the other hand, if they invade, stay there and/or institute a leader who obeys them, that would qualify as imperialist.

I'm not sure if they really just go for the oil since Iraq poses just a little part of world production.

 

[vonork]

by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

This almost include every action taken nowdays. Don't ever goverment try this in some way?

 

[SirJethro]

Originally posted by test_specimen
I guess if the US invade, depose of Saddam, withdraw and have the Iraqis elect another leader, that would not be an imperialist invasion.

On the other hand, if they invade, stay there and/or institute a leader who obeys them, that would qualify as imperialist.

I'm not sure if they really just go for the oil since Iraq poses just a little part of world production.

The oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq. I believe Colin Powell addressed the accuasation that the US simply wants the oil a few weeks ago on Meet the Press or something like that. It is poppy-cock. The US has no intentions (and never has) to liberate Iraq in order to take their oil or gain some degree of control over it. Even the (respectable) members of the Left Wing of our government will concede that this in not Bush's intention.

It is a concern of the US that the region remain stable, because mid-east stability directly affects oil prices. However, a quest to maintain stability is much different than one to take control of oil resources.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by Richard III
Sultan, no offence, but:

Was the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia an imperialist invasion?
Was the Allied invasion of Europe an imperialist invasion?
Was the Tanzanian invasion of Uganda an imperialist invasion?

(just to pick a few examples)

R.III

No offense taken, Richard III. You've not only outsmarted me here but you've done it with one of my all-time favorite military history examples, then- socialist, underfunded Tanzania's single handed invasion of Uganda to depose Idi Amin. I suppose that and the Allied Invasion of Europe were indeed on a par with what you guys think is happening in Iraq (with the wisely brought up caveat that those last two were preceded with breaches of another nation's sovereignty). Vietnam, you bet it was imperialist, it was the decision that we don't like Communism that was used to justify our adventure there. Choosing another government for them.

But thanks, test specimen, that is indeed what I was getting at. No nation invades another nation without some sense of reward for itself in the action- WW2 made the US a superpower, Kosovo was greatly delayed because there was literally nothing in it for us but moral imperative. If our only justification was removal of a threat to our security (though I probably will never be convinced Iraq as-it-stands threatens US security) that in itself is a form of Imperialism. I sure didn't like what was done to the World Trade Center just because some hard core fanatics thought our troops stationed in Saudi Arabia threatened THEIR security.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Our "Goal" is to prevent a maniac from killing hundreds of thousands of people.

I thought you knew this.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Saddam is more rational than killing "hundreds of thousands".
He is mostly a local threat to stability... (Iran/Kuwait/Israel are his targets, not Europe/US).
If he was not rational, he would use Bio/Chem weapons on Israel during the Gulf war.
The fact that he didn't, in order to stay in power, shows that the man is driven by some logic.

I still think it's good the US is going to get rid of him though.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Our "Goal" is to prevent a maniac from killing hundreds of thousands of people.

I thought you knew this.

Doesn't that language sound like a line from comic book to you?

It is one thing to convince people that Saddam has some mustard gas or whatever in his basement, and you could convince me he'll shoot his ministers or relatives, but killing hundreds of thousands of people? Does anyone have that as an objective, even a maniac?

I don't know. Maybe I'm totally off base. To prevent something you have to be dead sure it was going to happen in the first place. To risk human lives based on preventative medicine is a dangerous precedent that definitely puts the US at risk of the same treatment. After all, we've told the governments of North Korea and Iran that we are coming for them. Maybe they'll want to do something to prevent us from killing their thousands...

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Before 9/11, yes.

Since, no.

The world changed.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Before 9/11, yes.

Since, no.

The world changed.

The world stayed exactly the same, only the American citizens finally became aware of it.

Imam (Shi'i) terror exists for about 20 years...
Fanatical terrorism existed since the creation of man kind.

Maniacs have rampaged, butchered and killed for thousands of years.

If the US becomes a victim of such a thing for the first time, it does not mean the world has changed.

Same kind of people driven by the same kind of interests. Only time changes...

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Amen Iceblaze.

 

[anarres]

AoA, surely we should be asking 'Is it right for us to kill tens of thousands of Iraqies to get rid of one man', not 'Our "Goal" is to prevent a maniac from killing hundreds of thousands of people' (an unproven allegation anyway).

Maybe we should ask the US why it supported Saddam when it suited them, and why they supported Osama when it suited them.

People who talk about 9/11 as being an excuse for American Imerialism and international bullying are worse than the people they want to go to war againt. What happend on that sad day is appauling, but some people refuse to see that Saddam has nothing to do with Osama and his merry men. I had by misgivings about the war in Afghanistan, but this war is so immoral and unjust as to beggar belief. Whatever your opinion of the last war, this coming war is certainly not justifiable or linkable in any way to 9/11.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

He's wrong.

The world did change, the only nation capable of contesting terror now activily tries to end it.

Before 9/11 we didn't care.

 

[test_specimen]

So you suspect them of possibly being able to be terrorists. Whom are you going to kill first (after Saddam, off course)? Sort them out by Saddam look-alikeness and religion? Now what does that remind you of?

This is like those movies, where people get arrested for having genes that lead to violent behaviour. So cartoon language is quite appropriate.