U.S invading and taking out Iraq's Root of Evil - wrong or right??
- Thread starter Sunny
- Start date
bobgote
Trousers
IceBlaze - I noticed mainly Britain and France, as apart from the US, they would be the most recent. I would definitely say that these two would be classified as empires (unsure about some of the others and don't have the knowledge to back them up). But anyway, I mean to say that the US isn't seen the same way as them.
bobgote
Trousers
Well, not too much anyway
nah, that is what i meant the first time when i said that the US wasn't seen in the same way. Instead of taking over and managing directly, the US manipulates by means of politics and trade/economics. It's really not the same thing at all, but in terms of overall effect, its similar. It may just be a more evolved and efficient for of imperialism, or maybe not at all.
American bleating about respect for International Law is laughable, and is akin to if Jack the Ripper wrote a 'Why you shouldnt kill people' pamphlet.
But seeing as we're on the topic, we could look at the level of respect the US and its allies have demonstrated up to this point for international law:
'For example, in 1979 the USA filed a suit against Iran before the International Court of Justice (International Court) for taking US diplomats hostage in Tehran. Yet four years later, the USA refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court when Nicaragua denounced US-sponsored military and paramilitary activity against the Sandinista government which led to serious human rights abuses. The USA subsequently used its power of veto to prevent the UN Security Council taking action to implement the International Court's 1986 ruling on the Nicaraguan case. '
(Source: 'Chapter 7 : DOUBLE STANDARDS: The USA and international human rights protection' in: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Rights for All, Amnesty International, 1/10/1998)
(Available on the web at: http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/A3DD42FEE6FE143D802569000068A308?Open )
'Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In the UN in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the tenth consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of 167 to 3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition).'
(Source: Du Boff, R. 'Mirror Mirror On The Wall, Who's The Biggest Rogue Of All?' 28/04/2002)
(Available on the web at: http://www.zmag.org/content/ForeignPolicy/boffroguebig.cfm )
I wont bother detailing any examples of the violations of International Law which have been committed by US Allies like Turkey (oppressing and murdering the kurdish population so many americans seem to be so concerned about in iraq) or Israel (far too easy, like shooting fish in a barrel), but regarding the proliferation of weapons of Mass-Destruction, I can, on this point thoroughly agree with the Bush Administration, however I do have a dilemma. Should we bomb Israels weapons plants before or after Iraq's? In anticipation of the impending airstrikes, ive located a rough map of potential targets -
http://archive.msnbc.com/modules/Israel_strategic/default.asp
You can thank me later.
Daft_EZLN
But seeing as we're on the topic, we could look at the level of respect the US and its allies have demonstrated up to this point for international law:
'For example, in 1979 the USA filed a suit against Iran before the International Court of Justice (International Court) for taking US diplomats hostage in Tehran. Yet four years later, the USA refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court when Nicaragua denounced US-sponsored military and paramilitary activity against the Sandinista government which led to serious human rights abuses. The USA subsequently used its power of veto to prevent the UN Security Council taking action to implement the International Court's 1986 ruling on the Nicaraguan case. '
(Source: 'Chapter 7 : DOUBLE STANDARDS: The USA and international human rights protection' in: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Rights for All, Amnesty International, 1/10/1998)
(Available on the web at: http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/A3DD42FEE6FE143D802569000068A308?Open )
'Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In the UN in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the tenth consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of 167 to 3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition).'
(Source: Du Boff, R. 'Mirror Mirror On The Wall, Who's The Biggest Rogue Of All?' 28/04/2002)
(Available on the web at: http://www.zmag.org/content/ForeignPolicy/boffroguebig.cfm )
I wont bother detailing any examples of the violations of International Law which have been committed by US Allies like Turkey (oppressing and murdering the kurdish population so many americans seem to be so concerned about in iraq) or Israel (far too easy, like shooting fish in a barrel), but regarding the proliferation of weapons of Mass-Destruction, I can, on this point thoroughly agree with the Bush Administration, however I do have a dilemma. Should we bomb Israels weapons plants before or after Iraq's? In anticipation of the impending airstrikes, ive located a rough map of potential targets -
http://archive.msnbc.com/modules/Israel_strategic/default.asp
You can thank me later.
Daft_EZLN
G-Man
A One Man's War
The fact is that international law, as important as it is, is simply ahead of it's time. Fact is that there was never a war in which both sides didn't break international law and in many cases not breaking international law is simply immpossible. In other cases it would be illogical. International law tries to turn war into a game and countries who take war seriously can't follow the law.
EdwardTking
Deity
Really:
Remember the Falklands War.
Please advise me of those instances when Argentina broke the
international laws of war?
Please advise me of those instances when Britain broke the
international laws of war?
G-Man
A One Man's War
I guess I should've said "major wars"
Two British light helicopters were shot down over the sea by small arms fire. Soldiers from the shore continued to fire at the crews as they struggled in the water, killing three and seriously wounding the fourth crew member. Firing on downed helicopter pilots is prohibited and constitutes a serious breach of the 1949 Convention. The convention protects stipulated parties or those aboard aircraft which must make forced landings at sea.
Vengeance
Another Tommy
When the suit fits they wear it. When it does not they throw it away.
EdwardTking
Deity
ViceRoy
of Brave New World
Good one there...
What comes to terrorism is that I find it just one way of fighting. Sending bombers that do "accurate" attacks (like in Afghanistan...
...was there Marriage going on or something )Terrorism is as right as any other way.
What I see is that USA citizens are still shocked by the fact what happened last year. They aren't "the untouchable" anymore. And of course riding with his father's white old horse....comes George "Wise" Bush to the rescue..."Axis of evil" heheheh...Man has one nice imagination.
I just remembered one joke from one program in television where there was some funny videos from USA...and the announcer always said that remember people that even though these videos are funny...remember that these people hold the access to nuclear arsenal..
Anyway...I think it wouldn't hurt to see Saddam Hussein taken down. And USA will do whatever it wants anyway...
It just that how far USA will go?
Front of doctor's (oval) office:
"Next !"
So "who's next?" is better question.
G-Man
A One Man's War
Originally posted by ViceRoy
What comes to terrorism is that I find it just one way of fighting. Sending bombers that do "accurate" attacks (like in Afghanistan...
Terrorism is as right as any other way.
>>> The bombing was I believe an accident. Weapons and intelligent today aren't good enough to compltely stop all accidents. That's part of the problem in keeping international law. But I wonder how can you compare killing 3,000 civilians on purpose and killing a few dozens in an accident.
What I see is that USA citizens are still shocked by the fact what happened last year. They aren't "the untouchable" anymore. And of course riding with his father's white old horse....comes George "Wise" Bush to the rescue..."Axis of evil" heheheh...Man has one nice imagination.
>>> Imagination? N.Korea, Iran and Iraq are actively trying to hurt US citizens. For the US they are therefore evil.
I just remembered one joke from one program in television where there was some funny videos from USA...and the announcer always said that remember people that even though these videos are funny...remember that these people hold the access to nuclear arsenal..
>>> I don't get it.
Anyway...I think it wouldn't hurt to see Saddam Hussein taken down. And USA will do whatever it wants anyway...
It just that how far USA will go?
Front of doctor's (oval) office:
"Next !"
So "who's next?" is better question.
>>> Any country that'll be a serious threat to the US.
Similar threads
