Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 49): UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002 Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons. Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents. States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. The rest can be found here with the PDF of the UN resolutions in full:

As said, "serious consequences" does not mean an armed attack. And refer to my original post about the sources of law. The debates reveal that France, China, Russia were not unisono.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 49): But Thomas Jefferson spoke for all men in the Declaration of Independence, was his assessment invalid because he was literally speaking only about White male landowners?

Was Thomas Jefferson an Iraqi?   In other words, of course this is a case of representative democracy, along with the social contract and pipapo. However, those who declared themselves the liberators of Iraq are not even Iraqis.. don't forget Art. 2.1 of the UN Charter and the sovereignty of nations (and sometimes their people)

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 50): Was Thomas Jefferson an Iraqi? In other words, of course this is a case of representative democracy, along with the social contract and pipapo. However, those who declared themselves the liberators of Iraq are not even Iraqis..

I see. You've made it clear that Thomas Jefferson's words that all men are created equal doesn't apply to anyone other than Americans, apparently.

Additionally, we ought to hand France back over to the Germans since we weren't French we can't have liberated them.

Again we find someone whose moral relativism is such that they can condone tyranny.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 51): I see. You've made it clear that Thomas Jefferson's words that all men are created equal doesn't apply to anyone other than Americans, apparently.

It was sarcastic. So you are wrong

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 51): Additionally, we ought to hand France back over to the Germans since we weren't French we can't have liberated them.

You know, these are very emotional points you bring up and which do not add any value to the discussion. We have a different case here. Of course, it is legitimate to make reference to other cases, but was it a world war that was provoked by Saddam? Did he start an "Angriffskrieg"? And, as we have no evidence on WMDs (apart from a lousy Power Pointg Presentation from Colin Powell in front of the UNGA - and he regretted in the end!), there was no threat. Preemptive strikes can (!) be justified by Art. 51 of the UN Charter, and even under International Customary Law (one example is for instance if there is no time for deliberation, as in the case of the Iraqi nuclear reactor that was attacked by Israel). But here, most international lawyers - even conservative ones - agree that it was unlawful. I had a very conservative law professor (who is world famous) that time. He said out of moral reasons YES to the Iraq war. But he said in his profession as lawyer, even if he interprets law conservatively, he does not find any justification. That says a lot!

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 51): Again we find someone whose moral relativism is such that they can condone tyranny.

Actually, I thought the discussion was interesting, and I want to thank you to refresh my mind and my pictures of my old lawbook. Hence, I won't indulge in any insults against you but thank you for taking the time  

Quoting Derico (Reply 1): True, but Germany and Japan were REAL countries when they were rebuilt.

That word, "real" is a little too fare abstract for my tastes in this context. The constitution given to Japan was something completely foreign to them and in no way did it resemble any previous form of government. The difference has to do with national identity, which bring us to...

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 3): They identify themselves by religious sects and clans and have a "caveman" mindset.

Religious idealism and fanaticism over nationality. Sadly that is what the current state of Islam entails. National allegiance comes only after religious allegiance.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 23): Yes, but the German people and culture exist for more than 1000 years.

Under a lable of Germany?? Hmm. Thats news to me.

What of The Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, the Margraviate of Brandenburg? I wonder if the past descendents of Pomerania and Prussia living in Poland consider themselves to be German?

And speaking of sectarian violence, what of the Thiry Years War between the Catholics and Protestants?!!!      

I believe that comparing Germany and Iraq is not correct, but Iraqi culture existed most likely before German people and culture. Babylon, Assyrians and all of that. Don't stick your cultural nose up too high.  Visgoths, goths, roman empire, etc, etc, were just as fragmented as Iraq has been. Germany may have been more stable then Iraq in the last 50 years, but no more.

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 52): And, as we have no evidence on WMDs (apart from a lousy Power Pointg Presentation from Colin Powell in front of the UNGA - and he regretted in the end!), there was no threat.

My point when this was brought up was that the WORLD was fooled by Saddam Hussein. Remember please that France Germany Russia and China were not arguing that Hussein had no WMD, they were arguing for MORE TIME with the inspectors. If French intelligence was saying there were no WMDs then why the need for more inspections?

Please don't misconstrue, It is clear that there are no WMD in Iraq now. Some will say they aren't there now and never where, but this is clearly revisionist history since Hussein killed people Iranians and Kurds with them, so they were there at one time.

Part of the UN resolution was to back up the Inspections with force. Mission accomplished. We now know the truth, thanks to the invasion. I wonder if the world would still be waiting on inspections today if the invasion hadn't taken place? Judging by the North Korea situation, yes.

This is a sidetrack however. My main point in this is that the US military has done it's job. The stated objectives have been met, let's go home. I could care less what happens after we leave. The Iraqis have managed to burn that bridge when they took out a real one with a truck bomb.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 54): This is a sidetrack however. My main point in this is that the US military has done it's job. The stated objectives have been met, let's go home. I could care less what happens after we leave.

Now I think you are completely nuts. Bomb the country and leave. A disgrace for all of us Americans.

After reading the thread-starter, I almost fell off my chair.

To sume up UALPHLCS's starter, he wants us to leave Iraq NOT because this thing was a fiasco from the beginning-which it was-but because Iraqi's DON'T NOW DESERVE OUR HELP? In other words, he's basically saying the Iraqi's screwed up, not the U.S. Administration for going to war in the first place, over false pretenses.

This is absolutely patheic. The Iraqi's didn't ask for this war; they didn't ask for an occupation; they didn't ask for us to dismantle the security forces, and allow terrorists from the region to flood the nation.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): I still believe that the Administration got into Iraq with the best of intentions.

I don't. I think they went in to 1. Finish off business between Saddam and the Bushes; 2. To win re-election in 2004, based on the war on terror, and blending it, through fear and paranoia, with WMD's in Iraq, and 3. To cement a place for Mr. Bush in the history books.

That's why we went in there. That's not good intentions. That's devious.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): The US liberated more Muslims than any Arab country ever has, and what for? So they can slaughter each other wholesale?

Liberate them? We've enslaved them in a near Civil War! They're not liberated. They live in just as much fear now than many did under Saddam. We've helped replace one evil with another.

Again, you are talking a lot like Dick Cheney sounds. He, like you, expected us to be greeted with roses at our feet, and all that crap. Well, guess what, we found out something that we should have known all along: people don't like being invaded, occupied, and told what to do, no matter who their leader happens to be.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): If the world comes bitching and complaining that the US made a mess in Iraq, we can honestly now say that we cleaned up the mess we made

Well, we HAVE made a mess in Iraq, and we've cleaned up NOTHING! That isn't the fault of our troops, it's the fault of the politicians and the military brass, who went into this thing with so many illusions that it was breathtaking.

The mess IS OURS. It isn't Saddam's; it isn't the U.N's. It isn't the average Joe in Iraq. It is the fault of the United States government under George W. Bush, and his lieutenants. They're the ones who have so screwed up that nation, that it may never be able to recover.

Quoting Mir (Reply 13): Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 2): The Arab world is on a building spree with oil so high, so let them spend money on their Muslim brothers. Be careful what you wish for. As the US starts pulling out, such unsavory nations as Iran and Saudi Arabia will start pulling in to provide that "help".

I'm more worried about Iran, because they have a military that can enforce what they want. Saudi Arabia does not.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 14): More to the point, the US didn't have a 19th century superpower occupying the country and telling them how to do everything, They grew up in splendid isolation and created a successful modern democracy

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 37): They lack a sense of national unity and a sense of national destiny.

Quoting JetsGo (Reply 41): Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 31): Every day more than 100-120 Iraqis die How many were killed under Saddam and his sons? How were they killed?

Does it really matter? There are hundreds a week being killed now. Do you think they're any less dead at the hand of insurgents, terrorists, or U.S. troops than they would have been under Saddam? You think their last conscious thought on this earth was "well, at least we didn't die at the hands of Saddam"? Do you really believe that?

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 22): For my part I think we did the job we stated we would do. 1) Took down a brutal Dictator 2) searched and got the truth about WMD in Iraq 3) left a Democracy

              

Got some good lettuce to smoke tonight, UALPHLCS? Seriously. Are you joking.

1. We took down a dicatior, and replaced him with chaos, death and destruction.

2. We didn't go to war to search for the truth about WMD. We went there because this Adminstration told the world THEY WERE THERE. No if''s, and, or but's about it. Well, they weren't. What you put out is more dishonorable post-facto PR, to try and shift the blame to others for Mr. Bush's failures. That, of the three things you said in that sentence, is the most outrageous and false of them all.

3. Democracy? We haven't left "democracy" there. Elections held under the watchful eye of an occupying force isn't democracy. You cannot plant democracy somewhere where they never had it, and really don't want it. There is no democracy in Iraq. There is chaos. There is warfare. There is a nation on the verge of Civil War. That isn't democracy. That's the furthest thing from it.

Again, the point of this thread is to blame others, once again, for the shortcomings of President Bush, and the military and civilian leaders working for him, who have failed our troops, and failed our nation by involving us in a war that we should never have fought. He is saying, in effect, that American lives are more valuable than the lives of others, and that's the only reason we should leave.

Well, while never being for this war, I was the first on out here who came out in favor of this troops surge, to see if we could salvage this war, and make something decent out of Iraq. We owe it as a debt of honor to those Americans who have died in this conflict, and to the Iraqi people-those same Iraqi's that UALPHLCS says aren't worth the effort. We owe it to them, because WE messed up their nation, and it's up to us to make the best of this.

To blame the Iraqi people for the missteps and failures of the Bush Adminstration dishonors those Americans who have fought and died to try and make things right there, and for those who are there now.

It speaks with total dishonor, in my view.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 56): There is a nation on the verge of Civil War.

I personally think we should let them have it and stay out of it. If they want to fight over religious differences and not try to embrace the opportunity to solve their government issue peacefully, fine. We tried, and they dont want the help we gave. Let them have their own war.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 56): 1. We took down a dicatior, and replaced him with chaos, death and destruction.

Well, there was always death and destruction, just look at Saddam's history

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 55): because WE messed up their nation

Their nation has always been messed up.

Quoting Derico (Reply 1): Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): We helped the Germans and the Japanese become two of the most powerful economies in the World. Iraq has demonstrated they don't want that. So be it. True, but Germany and Japan were REAL countries when they were rebuilt.

Could Panama and South Korea be thrown into that mix, too? We invaded Panama, and got involved in the Korean War, and basically reworked the Panamanian infrastructure and reestablished the South Korean (to very generally paraphrase both). At least when our massed forces left those places, they didn't crumble watching us go.

The President is on an island (figuratively). He's placed himself there, influenced by the likes of Cheney, etc. In an age of information as this, there could not have been such a blatant disregard of history without some other motive involved in this. What it is, I don't know, though, Falcon brings back to attention some (at the least) interesting ideas. "Stay the course" was doomed to fail from the start, and only because of the Iraqi people and their fractured sense of identity. Expecting people to unite under a common ideal of freedom is a grandiose idea unless those people hate each other. By the way, there's some other dictator-types out there, some of whom I'm sure don't care about (or perhaps support) terrorism, but we haven't taken them out. The It's-A-Crock War has (like many of us) friends of mine involved, and I'd like to see them back home unless Dubya can somehow implement a miraculous, effective strategy to ensure a peaceful solution.

-R

Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 57): I personally think we should let them have it and stay out of it

After we're the ones who put that nation in the mess they're in now.

And the conservatives on here, like UALPHLCS, and you (I'm assuming), dare hit liberals and the Dems with "cut and run"?

Hypocrisy.

We start the war, but we should just pull out, because some of us think the Iraqi people aren't worth it.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 56): 1. We took down a dicatior, and replaced him with chaos, death and destruction.

Last time I checked there was an elected Government in Baghdad. The people who brought chaos are the insurgents.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 56): That, of the three things you said in that sentence, is the most outrageous and false of them all.

That's typically revisionist Falcon84 and you know it. There is nothing in UN resolution 1441 that say WMD ARE in Iraq. They demand Saddam come clean or suffer the consequences. I've cited my sources Falcon84 time to step up and do the same. The Intelligence was wrong. But as I said if everyone was so sure there were no WMD why was France and Germany and Russia asking for more time for the inspectors? What where the inspectors there for? If Saddam had come clean why would they need more time? No one seems to be able to answer that from the French/German/Russian perspective. Care to take a crack at it?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 56): The mess IS OURS. It isn't Saddam's; it isn't the U.N's. It isn't the average Joe in Iraq. It is the fault of the United States government under George W. Bush, and his lieutenants. They're the ones who have so screwed up that nation, that it may never be able to recover.

I really don't get it Falcon84. So do we stay or do we go? Do we surge or "phased withdrawl? Your so busy blaming Bush and bad intelligence and lies and yada yada from 4 years ago, you can't make up your mind. Pull out or stay in?

At this point we've done what we said we came to do. Barak Obama and the rest are telling me nightly on the news that the Iraqis WANT us to leave. OK fine I want us to leave. I'm convinced. I'm sick an tired of American blood and treasure being over there for Oil there I said are you happy. So we pull out and what? Tell us what? What happens?

Personally I don't give a $hit anymore about the Iraqis. They have the guns and the know-how to make bombs they'll work it out.We set up a government either it will work or it will fail it's up to the Iraqis.

Your point of view is that they are too dumb to do it without our help. Harry Reid thinks they won't do it until we start withdrawing. Either way at least we can focus on more pressing concerns.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 56): I don't. I think they went in to 1. Finish off business between Saddam and the Bushes; 2. To win re-election in 2004, based on the war on terror, and blending it, through fear and paranoia, with WMD's in Iraq, and 3. To cement a place for Mr. Bush in the history books.

That's all personal opinion. Do you have anything to back that up? The four objectives I gave have ample evidence. We don't know what was in their hearts but the stated goals have been met.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 56): he wants us to leave Iraq NOT because this thing was a fiasco from the beginning-which it was-but because Iraqi's DON'T NOW DESERVE OUR HELP?

The Iraqis have had our help. Now it's time to $hit or get off the pot. It's just a version of the tough love Harry Reid is professing.

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 55): Bomb the country and leave.

We haven't left. That's the problem. It's been 4 years since we bombed the country. We've been on the Iraqi people's side ever since the fall of Saddam. I dont understand you people. If Americans are no longer targets then we won't be shooting up their country true? So the shooting an bombing stops, according to the Iraqis and the Democrats. Ok I'm convinced lets do it. What more is there? If we stick around to rebuild Insurgents will blow it up and shoot at our people requiring a force to protect them, which requires support and a force to protect them too. We leave...to targets no bombing.

For 4 years this is what you guys have been ramming down my throat I finally cry uncle and now it's not good enough?!

FYI Falcon84 it's not cut and run. As I was careful to point out we met out stated objectives and we should now leave Iraq. Harry Reid was just saying today for the umpteenth time that the President needs to change course. Change the course, Change the course we heard over and over. Well the President changed the course and tried something different... a crack down in Baghdad. Well the only course correction Harry Reid has offered is leaving. But he denies that's giving up.

So after we've surged, we've trained enough police and military, our objectives have been met... let's go. That's my position.

[Edited 2007-04-24 05:30:55]

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 60): For 4 years this is what you guys have been ramming down my throat I finally cry uncle and now it's not good enough?!

And exactly for those reasons I was against the war in the first instance and condemn our "imperial" objectives sharply  

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 59): After we're the ones who put that nation in the mess they're in now.

Its a mess because they want it like that. We have tried to restore and promote democracy, but with all the religious conflicts between Shites and the Shia and the excess terrorism still in the country, our help will hardly be noticed when everything still goes to shits.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): No more American lives for Iraqis, they aren't worth it.

Rather strong, but generally correct in that American money and effort simply isn't worth it. I've said from day one I don't support nation building, much less expenditure of hard-earned tax dollars on foreign people who have given nothing for it. If the Iraqi people truly wanted democracy, they'd have fought for it by any necessary means like everyone else.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 16): Just because a country has not lived under democracy does not mean they cannot apply it. Witness Japan prior to WWII.

This is a bit of a misnomer as Japan is a functioning democracy in name and image only. One majority party, the LDP, has dominated the political landscape virtually uninterrupted since 1955 and the tentacles of technocracy and corruption-laden oligarchy have firmly gripped this country ever since. Viable opposition parties in the 1960s were shoved out of the way by CIA interference in several elections and nationalist elements loyal to the old Imperial order have always been quiet moderating forces whenever LDP policymaking started veering too far left.

Regional politics in Japan represents true democracy to an even smaller extent, as numerous pre-WWII conventions (such as subsidized propaganda rolls) are still in regular use (imagine the outrage in the US if a candidate were to run trucks with blaring megaphones atop them through neighborhoods 24/7 before an election while the local police force prevented competitors from doing the same). Not to mention the stifling influence of yakuza and other less than desirable actors in local political process. As if that's not enough, the majority of political elites in most regions of Japan can trace their family roots to previous shoguns and other aristocrats from pre-Meiji era fiefdom.

[Edited 2007-04-24 05:38:45]

[Edited 2007-04-24 05:40:00]

Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 62): Its a mess because they want it like that.

Of course... yes!         

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 64): Of course... yes!

Would you rather have someone like Saddam put back into power?

Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 65): Would you rather have someone like Saddam put back into power?

I never said that. But having GWB and Tony Blair playing the great liberator of Iraq, along with severe breaches of law and humanity, is far from ideal.. but you are right.. I would like America to be liberated and will not prefer GWB to power.. maybe we can have a multi-party system, fair elections and more accessible democracy!  

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 66): I would like America to be liberated and will not prefer GWB to power.. maybe we can have a multi-party system, fair elections and more accessible democracy!

        

Except for the liberating part, I'm all for it.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 63): If the Iraqi people truly wanted democracy, they'd have fought for it by any necessary means like everyone else.

The Japanese didn't.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 63): This is a bit of a misnomer as Japan is a functioning democracy in name and image only

Are you saying that the 'Japanese Experiment' has failed? I mean, you insinuate that their democracy is in name only. (BTW, I don' mean to sound sarcastic and find your viewpoint fascinating)

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 68): The Japanese didn't.

They lost the war of their collective national lifetime. Quite a difference. I was speaking more along the lines of India East Timor, the Philippines and others.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 68): Are you saying that the 'Japanese Experiment' has failed? I mean, you insinuate that their democracy is in name only. (BTW, I don' mean to sound sarcastic and find your viewpoint fascinating)

The Japanese experiment has failed but only partially. Thankfully the LDP was able through its domination to establish a stable middle class and keep a lot of fringe issues at bay but that's all slowly unraveling now and will be harshly tested in the coming decades. I don't think genuine democracy was ever given a chance here because the US continued interfering in the democratic process more than a decade after the occupation ended and the power structure that was established has been hopelessly corrupt from the word go. A lot of middle-aged Japanese now recognize this but given the overall non-confrontational political nature of the public in the postwar era, it's unlikely real change or representation will be established anytime soon.

[Edited 2007-04-24 08:14:01]

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 69):

You have certainly piqued my interest.

Quoting N174UA (Reply 29): checkmark Everyone that mattered saw the same exact evidence. We partially relied on foreign intelligence, so it's not just the U.S. that screwed up. We deserve some blame, but not all. Saddam was toying with the UN, and if he truly didn't have WMD like he kept saying , then all he had to do was simply to let the inspectors in and prove him right, and the rest of the world (and especially GWB), wrong. But no...he made his own stupid decision.

The US sponsored the resolution and tried to arm twist quite a few countries to support the resolution. Remember the famous Colin Powell speech where he showed photos of aluminium tubes and claimed that they were for WMD, and how it blew up in his face later on?

Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal

Quote: ... Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorized the use of force because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire. Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation." He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent. "Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically," Mr Blix said. ...

Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say

Quote: ... Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. "I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said. ... ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997. Days before the fighting began, Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in with an opposing view. "We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said. "And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing." Now, more than a year later, ElBaradei said, "I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement, so -- and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge." ... Blix specifically faulted Powell, who told the U.N. Security Council about what he said was a site that held chemical weapons and decontamination trucks. "Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks."

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): If the world comes bitching and complaining that the US made a mess in Iraq, we can honestly now say that we cleaned up the mess we made, this continuing mess is the fault of Iraq and it's neighbors.

oops sorry, you made a mess when no one asked you to, and the continuing mess is because you started it all. If US can invade Iraq for its geo-political aims, why shouldn't other countries like Iran of S Arabia do the same? Apart from the fox news followers, who really believes that the US had altruistic motive to invade Iraq? Why didn't the US take any action in Sudan, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and other poor countries?

If Saddam was bad, isn't the S Arabian royal family more restrictive of human rights too? Is Pakistani dictator and Chinese communists good, but Saddam bad?

The fact is that US knew there were no WMD and thought it could reshape the middle-east to its advantage using Iraq as a base. This was in fact the stated goal of the neo-cons. Unfortunately, they didn't care too much about history.

Quoting Blrsea (Reply 71): Why didn't the US take any action in Sudan, Rwanda

What about the UN?

IIRC, the UN is involved in Darfur and refused to get involved in Rwanda. They fiddled while these went to hell and caused over 1 million deaths. Yet the US is the bad guy...

Quoting Blrsea (Reply 71): Ethiopia

Internal matter that posed no danger to their neighbors. And IIRC, the US provided plenty of food assistance during their famines.

Quoting Blrsea (Reply 71): Zimbabwe

African union has been 'dealing' with that matter, unsuccessfully of course.

Quoting Blrsea (Reply 71): If US can invade Iraq for its geo-political aims, why shouldn't other countries like Iran of S Arabia do the same?

Would you rather live under a system imposed by the US, or a system imposed by Iran or Saudi Arabia?

The US didn't go to Iraq to help the Iraqis. Is the number of people who still staunchly believe that at least decreasing?

It's all about interests, not about good or bad, and this applies to all sides.

Kay

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 72): Would you rather live under a system imposed by the US, or a system imposed by Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Let the Iraqis decide that, why should the american govt decide which system is best for which country? So, will US invade S Arabia because its system is bad? Will US go to war with China because it is communist?

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 72): IIRC, the UN is involved in Darfur and refused to get involved in Rwanda. They fiddled while these went to hell and caused over 1 million deaths. Yet the US is the bad guy...

No one is saying US is the bad guy, but the question remains that US was a mute spectator when millions were raped and killed in Sudan and Rwanda, while it rushed into Iraq. What was so special about Iraq that it deserved to be invaded? No other country or the UN inspectors thought that Iraq had any WMD or that it was threat to any other country in the neighborhood leave alone US. Wasn't there an article recently where Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld doctored the intelligence reports to suit their agenda?

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 7): 1000 years? The last time Germany's borders changed was less than 20 years ago.

This is one of the most important reasons of WWII. Without Versailles no WWII (no, I don't say the Germans were not responsible for WWII). More important while the borders of Germany changed the concept of being German didn't change.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 28): Democracy, isn't an instant government. It isn't as easy to set up as a dictatorship. Yes, we promised the Iraqis a democracy. They have that now they held up the purple finger. How it works is up to them the US job is done.

That is so true. It's something the US government should have thought about longer before the invasion of Iraq. Germany had a long tradition of rule of law and a short history of democracy back in the 1940s. Germany had an old political elite that was ousted by Nazis (or killed) that could come back to power in the late 1940s and 1950s.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 53): Under a lable of Germany?? Hmm. Thats news to me.

Never heard of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation? Never heard about the national movement in Germany which was as old as those of Germany's neighbours?

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 53): I wonder if the past descendents of Pomerania and Prussia living in Poland consider themselves to be German?

There aren't much left. Those who were Germans considered themselves as German - as my ancestors did. After WWII they were forced to move west.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 53): And speaking of sectarian violence, what of the Thiry Years War between the Catholics and Protestants?!!! rotfl rotfl

Which was 300 years before WWII. Quite a long time.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 53): I believe that comparing Germany and Iraq is not correct, but Iraqi culture existed most likely before German people and culture. Babylon, Assyrians and all of that.

That's the problem there was no common Iraqi culture. I bet the Kurds don't identify themselves with the Assyrians neither do the Shiites. I doubt many of them identify themselves with those old infidel cultures. For a long time Iraq was part of other Empires like the Persian and the Ottoman empire.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 53): Don't stick your cultural nose up too high. Wink Visgoths, goths, roman empire, etc, etc, were just as fragmented as Iraq has been.

That has nothing to do with cultural arrogance. It's just that there was concept of being German based on a common culture and history. The Germans wouldn't have thought of fighting each other because of cultural differences. It's often questioned how effective the East German Army would have been in a war against West Germany because they would have to fight there "brothers".

pelican

[Edited 2007-04-24 11:57:45]

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 53): Under a lable of Germany?? Hmm. Thats news to me.

Ever heard about the the Holy Roman Empire?  

Kay

When comparing Iraq to Germany, I will mention that Iraq is inside the least stable region of the world and that is the Middle East, due to a cross of civlizations, a cross of three religions and as if it wasn't enough, the addition of oil. Europe's history is full of violence as well (like the history of humanity) but it was more purpose driven, with ends to every tunnel.

Kay

[Edited 2007-04-24 12:48:44]

Quoting Pelican (Reply 75): there was concept of being German based on a common culture

General Garner shortly after the occupation of Iraq declared "there are no Arabs and Kurds in Iraq, but only Iraqis". Which is rubbish. The Arabs in Iraq HAVE a common culture, and that is the one they share with people between Casablanca and Muscat, and there IS a Kurdish culture which the Iraqi Kurds share with their brethren in Turkey. But there is NO "Iraqi culture". And "nationalism" in Iraq means Arab nationalism, as there is no such thing as an Iraqi nationalism.

Quoting Pelican (Reply 75): the East German Army would have been in a war against West Germany because they would have to fight there "brothers".

Such things happened in the Spanish Civil War, in the American Civil War, in the Sonderbundskrieg (secession war) of 1847/48 in Switzerland and in many other countries. Nothing is unthinkable.
-

Quoting Pelican (Reply 75): don't identify themselves with the Assyrians neither do the Shiites. I doubt many of them identify themselves

but most Iraqis, even including the Shi'ites, identify themselves with the Kaliphate of the Abbasides in Baghdad. Second choice the Ummayad Kaliphate in Damascus BEFORE the Abbasides rose to power.
-

-

Quoting Blrsea (Reply 71): The fact is that US knew there were no WMD

Source please. I want to know how you KNOW the US knew there were no WMD.

AS I mentioned an no one seems to want to answer The Rest of the Security Council was asking the US and Britain to give inspections MORE TIME. If Hans Blix KNEW there were no WMD why did he need more time? If France Knew there were no WMD why ask for more time for inspections?

Hans Blix is doing a classic CYA, revising history to fit his actions with what we now know. But for the Invasion he'd still be in Iraq looking in the desert for nothing, asking for more time.

Quoting Blrsea (Reply 71): oops sorry, you made a mess when no one asked you to, and the continuing mess is because you started it all. If US can invade Iraq for its geo-political aims, why shouldn't other countries like Iran of S Arabia do the same? Apart from the fox news followers, who really believes that the US had altruistic motive to invade Iraq? Why didn't the US take any action in Sudan, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and other poor countries?

That's perfectly fine. Now I'm all for leaving. I won't be in favor of getting involved in any country unless it directly threatens the US. So I think we should pull out of Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, South Korea. Should the UN come asking for help in Africa or Asia, it's not our problem. Europe wants to handle these things, then Europe can handle them. I find it ironic Birsea that you blame the US for leaving messes when you live in a country that has fought 4 wars and developed nuclear weapons based on a mess the Britain left behind.

No more "white man's burden" The developing world has made it clear they don't want help living without tyranny. They don't want the prosperity of free economies. If they have a problem, Europe made the mess in the 19th Century Europe ought to fix it.

Quoting Blrsea (Reply 74): why should the american govt decide which system is best for which country?

The US didn't decide that they simply toppled the dictator the people elected a government that developed a constitution. Remember the purple fingers? The US didn't choose anything for the Iraqis.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter):

The arrogance displayed in the thread starting post is quite frankly just about enough to make me retch. It never ceases about how much depressing evidence I see about how little the Americans and the American administration understand about the country that George W. Bush invaded four years ago.

This exercise in shoving democracy down Iraq's throat and the extent to which people are dying and the country is moving 10 years backwards every passing day is directly a result of blunder after blunder by an arrogantly ignorant occupying power whose inability to do anything about the situation serves only as a stark reminder of its own multiple failures. The university shooting last week that claimed 32 lives and sent the entire nation into mourning is close to an everyday occurrence in Baghdad. And - separate issue - while the US is clutching onto the 2nd Amendment as the holiest law of the land, it seeks to deny that right to everyone else from the micro level in Iraq to the macro level in Iran. There is no better refutation of the "arm everyone and no one is a victim" premise than what is going on in Iraq now.

Anyway, I don't know what the answer to Iraq is, but unless you supply equipment to the military, this war is doing nothing but harm to Iraqis and Americans alike.

History will be the judge of the success of this campaign, but from right now, the signs aren't good.

Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 79): The arrogance displayed in the thread starting post is quite frankly just about enough to make me retch. It never ceases about how much depressing evidence I see about how little the Americans and the American administration understand about the country that George W. Bush invaded four years ago.

  

I feel ashamed as as American for this thread., so please accept my apology But don't forget that not all Americans are like that, please!

Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 79): The arrogance displayed in the thread starting post is quite frankly just about enough to make me retch. It never ceases about how much depressing evidence I see about how little the Americans and the American administration understand about the country that George W. Bush invaded four years ago.

  


Further,

Quoting Kay (Reply 73): The US didn't go to Iraq to help the Iraqis. Is the number of people who still staunchly believe that at least decreasing?

Kay

The reality is that the Bush administration and it's neo-cons over-estimated their strengths and under-estimated the realities and consequencies of occupying a fractured and complex country like Iraq. There was no post-war plan, no plan B and no idea how to handle the security situation. They busted into Iraq John Wayne-style thinking the Iraqi's would shower them with flowers and kisses. Obviously not. The disaster in Iraq highlights the continous failures of American foreign policy and it's short-sightedness. What people must understand is that you cannot go round bombing and invading countries simply because you don't like them. Bringing democracy Americano-style though the barrell of a gun has never worked and never will work. The Americans, of all people, should be the first ones to know. Witness Vietnam.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 78): That's perfectly fine. Now I'm all for leaving. I won't be in favor of getting involved in any country unless it directly threatens the US. So I think we should pull out of Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, South Korea. Should the UN come asking for help in Africa or Asia, it's not our problem.

There's the naive part of you coming out. It's not about "Oh let's pull out and curl back into our isolationist shell because no one wants our help", they want America's help, they want anyones help. What they don't want is America (or anyone) giving them bombs and missiles through the use of deadly force, they don't want an occupyer or to be occupied. Yuo make it sound as if pre-emptively bombing and invading foreign countries is the only way to help people and solve problems. It's not, there are less violent and destructive ways of dealing with international problems. You naively believe you country is there to bring so called "democracy and freedom", there not, the Bush gang went into Iraq to further stregthen their national interest. Not that's there's anything wrong with, it's just the tired old line of "bringing freedom and democracy" just does not wash with anybody outside the neo-con circle.

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 80): I feel ashamed as as American for this thread., so please accept my apology But don't forget that not all Americans are like that, please!

Yea thanks god !

Quoting JetsGo (Reply 41): How many were killed under Saddam and his sons? How were they killed?

Not 120 a day ...

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 44): Sunnis lived better under him. Everyone else the vast majority of Iraq it was worse. Ten of thousands where killed by poison gas alone in one campaign. So don't try to draw any moral equivalence between the US Military and Saddam Hussein. You're defending a fascist dictator if you do

Everybody in Iraq has a worse live now , under saddam they at least could go out to street , to schools , etc now they stay at home because of fear to die . The Invasion just made the situation worse , the US failed... this is what happens when the US plays Sheriff , nobody asked the US to "free" the Iraqis . Now it went all wrong for the US , less Power --- lost to European Countries and Russia .
And much credibility .
The Government of Bush was sure the worse for the US , see the on going revolutions in Latin America , Russia and EU more Power - China also very Powerful - just the US is losing . His power and credibility

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 45): The US invasion got it's authority from the UN. It's revisionist history to ignore those resolutions.

The UN were against a Iraq war ...

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 56): Does it really matter? There are hundreds a week being killed now. Do you think they're any less dead at the hand of insurgents, terrorists, or U.S. troops than they would have been under Saddam? You think their last conscious thought on this earth was "well, at least we didn't die at the hands of Saddam"? Do you really believe that?

     

Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 79): The arrogance displayed in the thread starting post is quite frankly just about enough to make me retch. It never ceases about how much depressing evidence I see about how little the Americans and the American administration understand about the country that George W. Bush invaded four years ago.

I'm still confused. How is it that you blame the US for getting into Iraq, for whatever reason, then protest when people start to think we should leave?

Yes it was arrogant in the extreme to think that people might want to live in freedom rather than choose their own form of government. If the power of a government is derived from the consent of the people, and some dictator cows them into submission, that's a form of consent. One I am now perfectly willing to let alone. Yet now you call my post arrogant. By changing my mind I've also shown the inconsistencies in the anti-war posters, who up until I said lets pull out immediately, called for withdrawl, now the cry is, "we can't bomb and leave."

Well which is it?

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 80): I feel ashamed as as American for this thread., so please accept my apology But don't forget that not all Americans are like that,

If you feel ashamed then its only you. Speak for yourself.

Not all Americans are like you. Some put their lives on the line in Iraq for complete and utter strangers only to have the rest of the world saying they are doing it for oil. They help build schools and hospitals and help people while those people's neighbors shoot at them. Some people support thos people 100% and are tired of seeing their hard work be ground into dust.

We have been repeatedly told that our help is not wanted. They neve asked for it. When I say then we'll leave, it is called arrogant, and someone has the nerve to apologize for it.

Let me ask a simple question what should we do Mrniji? Your so ready to apologize to the world for everything what's your suggestion? Mrniji's plan for Iraq.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 45): The US invasion got it's authority from the UN. It's revisionist history to ignore those resolutions.

"After months of threats and a long military buildup, the United States attacked Iraq on Thursday, March 20, 2003. Washington cut short UN arms inspections, acting with its military ally, Britain, after a war-sanctioning resolution failed by a wide margin to gain support in the UN Security Council."
Source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attackindex.htm

'On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." '
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war


The US invasion did not "get its authority from the UN" as you say. A more correct wording would be: The US invaded Iraq against the recommendation of the UN Security Council, and against the recommendation and wish of Kofi Annan. It's one of the blows to the recent history of the UN in my opinion.

How come you didn't get to know this fact yet..

Kay

Quoting Kay (Reply 85): How come you didn't get to know this fact yet..

That was my point  

I have shown him in two posts, but he remains stubborn. You will not succeed in convincing him.

A pretty Interesting Article , sorry but just in German .

Quoting Interview: Stefan Valentin (Nobel Price): »So funktioniert das System« Das US-Imperium soll in 15 Jahren fallen. Ein Gespräch mit dem Friedensforscher Johan Galtung Johan Galtung wirkt seit über 40 Jahren als Friedens- und Konfliktforscher. Der norwegische Politologe nahm in 45 großen Konflikten weltweit die Rolle eines Vermittlers ein, beispielsweise in Ecuador, Afghanistan und Sri Lanka. Die Begriffe »strukturelle Gewalt« sowie »positiver Friede« gehen auf ihn zurück. Er wirkte auch am Konzept der »sozialen Verteidigung« mit und setzte sich für eine Demokratisierung der Vereinten Nationen bzw. für ein Weltparlament ein. 1987 erhielt er den alternativen Nobelpreis - Nach dem Zusammenbruch des Ostblocks machten Sie eine Prophezeihung: Entweder würden die Grünen oder der Islam das neue Feindbild des Westens werden. Bezogen auf den Islam scheinen Sie Recht behalten zu haben. Zunächst habe ich 1980 die Prophezeiung gewagt, daß vor 1990 die Mauer zusammenbrechen würde und danach das sowjetische Imperium. Diese Prognose war nicht verkehrt. Ich denke, mit dem feindlichen Islambild lag ich auch nicht daneben. Der Fall des Sowjetimperiums war ja in einem gewissen Sinn ein Teil der Vorhersage: Wenn ein Feind ausfällt, muß man einen neuen haben – zumindest wenn man so dichothom und apokalyptisch denkt wie die US-Amerikaner. - Wird so nur in den USA gedacht? Es sind die Amerikaner, die anderen plappern nach, weil sie gute NATO-Mitglieder sind und dasselbe sagen müssen wie die Amerikaner. So funktioniert das System. Die Analyse der herrschenden Macht ist sozusagen die herrschende Analyse. Wenn die Vereinigten Staaten Außenpolitik betreiben, und das tun sie ja immer, gibt es zwei Dinge: Die langfristige Zielsetzung und die aktuellen Vorwände für ihr praktisches Vorgehen. Also muß man trennen, was die Vereinigten Staaten eigentlich wünschen und was ein Vorwand ist. Ich bin nicht so überzeugt, daß sie wirklich an das Feindbild Islam glauben, aber das Feindbild ist nützlich. Was die Zielsetzung angeht, so war diese immer ganz klar. Es gab immer zwei Zielsetzungen. Erstens Märkte und Rohstoffe und zweitens die Militärbasen, um das zu kontrollieren. Also könnte man sagen, daß es um eine ökonomische und eine militärische Zielsetzung geht. Darüber gibt es ein ausgezeichnetes Buch von John Perkins: »Bekenntnisse eines Economic Hit Man« (jW 5.1.2005). Wie das alles genau vor sich geht, kann man darin nachlesen. - Herr Galtung, haben Sie eine weitere Prognose? Ja. Sie betrifft den Zusammenbruch des US-Imperiums. Diesen prognostizierte ich 2000 für den Zeitraum von 2020 bis 2025. Aber dann ist Herr Bush jr. Präsident geworden, und ich habe diese Frist um fünf Jahre abgekürzt, weil Bush beschleunigend wirkt. Deswegen sage ich jetzt: vor 2020. Das heißt aber nicht, daß die USA zusammenklappen. Vielmehr wird es eine Befreiung für die USA sein. Sie werden erblühen, wenn sie von diesem Imperium befreit sein werden. - Die marxistische Theorie sagt ja schon im Kommunistischen Manifest, daß das bürgerliche Produktionsverhältnis keine Gnade kennt. Andererseits ist der Weltmarkt auch die Bedingung für allgemeine Befreiung: Man muß ihn nur abschaffen. Die allgemeine These von Marx ist die, daß das Elend des Proletariats Auslöser eines Befreiungsimpulses sein wird. Wenn man das kapitalistische System als ein Weltsystem betrachtet, gibt es eine Menge Elend, vor allen in den Ländern des Südens. Doch Marx hat sehr ökonomisch und nicht über das Militär nachgedacht. Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg haben die USA beispielsweise 70 Interventionen unternommen. Meistens, um das System zu verteidigen. Und das löst Gegenkräfte aus, die nicht dieselben sind, die Marx beschreibt. Zum Beispiel die islamischen Länder, in denen sehr häufig interveniert worden ist. Heute wird im Irak interveniert und vielleicht zukünftig auch im Iran. Das löst andere Kräfte aus, als die von Marx beschriebenen. Deshalb ist das US-Imperium nicht so sehr durch eine proletarische Revolution im Marxschen Sinne bedroht, sondern von denjenigen, die nicht mehr möchten, daß man gegen sie interveniert. Und davon gibt es sehr viele. Man spricht davon, daß das US-Imperium nach 1945 etwa zwischen zwölf und sechzehn Millionen Menschen getötet hat. Und meistens, um die ökonomische Macht zu behalten. - Diese Macht ist aber eine kapitalistische und in Deutschland und in anderen Staaten ebenso existent. Die westlich-kapitalistischen Staaten bilden zusammen einen Block. Wenn sie auch untereinander konkurrieren, nutzen doch Länder wie zum Beispiel Deutschland, Spanien oder Norwegen auch einen gewissen Verhandlungsspielraum, was den Schutz ihres Kapitals durch den Militärschirm der USA einerseits und den ihrer eigenen Interessen andererseits angeht. Die Größe dieses Verhandlungsspielraums bemißt sich nach der jeweiligen ökonomischen Macht. Im Kapitalismus gibt es Konkurrenz, und es gibt sogar Zusammenarbeit. (lacht) Aber es gibt diejenigen, die sich militärisch mehr einsetzen als andere. Und das sind zum ersten die USA und als Nummer zwei Großbritannien. Es ist genau dieses Zusammenwirken von ökonomischen und militärischen Kräften und selbstverständlich auch politischen. Wir sprechen hier von Imperium. Also nicht nur von der Ökonomie, sondern von einer Koordinierung der Machtausübung. Ich möchte auch gern die Kultur mit einbeziehen. Nämlich die Idee, die Kultur der Vereinigten Staaten als eine Weltkultur zu verstehen. Eine Kultur, zu der zum Beispiel auch Konkurrenz und Zusammenarbeit gehören. Sicher trägt diese Kultur viele nette Züge, aber nicht nett ist ihre Überzeugung, daß die Amerikaner die absolute Wahrheit für die Menschheit kennen würden. Das war ja auch das Problem der Sowjetunion. Und das ist das Problem des Islam. - Eine solcher Anspruch ist nicht besonders wissenschaftlich. Sie müssen bedenken, daß die westliche Wissenschaft nicht die einzige ist. Vor tausend bis fünfhundert Jahren beherbergten die islamischen Länder die Hälfte der Zivilisation der Erde. Aber das war mehr Kunst, Literatur, Mathematik. Sie haben ja auch zum Beispiel den ersten Soziologen gehabt: Ibn Chaldun, ein Muselman und tunesischer Diplomat aus dem 15. Jahrhundert. Was also eigentlich die gute Wissenschaft ist, ist nicht so ganz klar, würde ich sagen. Die Wahrheit kann sehr schön aussehen, so wie die Demokratie. Aber man bringt dem Irak nicht die Demokratie durch Bomben und Töten. Es wird niemals funktionieren, Menschenrechte durchzusetzen, indem man anfängt, Menschenrechte zu brechen. Das geht nicht. Die islamische Wissenschaft war meist sozial ausgerichtet, die westliche hingegen war meistens Naturwissenschaft. Das ist der Unterschied. Es ist nicht so ganz klar, ob die moderne Wissenschaft wirklich weise war. Sie hat sowohl die Atombombe als auch Fortschritte in der Medizin hervorgebracht. Was aber die Lebenskunst angeht, bin ich von ihr nicht überzeugt. - Ist es nicht besser, von einem Konzern ausgebeutet zu werden, als von einem Patriarchen und seinen Schergen? Das glaube ich nicht. Interview: Stefan Valentin

Quoting Online Translation Interview (pretty bad ): "in such a way the system" the US Imperium functions is in 15 years to fall. A discussion with the peace researcher Johan Galtung Johan Galtung works for over 40 years as peace and a conflict researcher. The Norwegian Politologe took the role of a mediator in 45 large conflicts world-wide, for example in Ecuador, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. The terms "structural force" as well as "positive peace" decrease/go back to him. It participated also in the concept of the "social defense" and used themselves for a democratization of the United Nations and/or for a world parliament. it received the alternative Nobelpreis to 1987 - after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc you made a Prophezeihung: Either the Greens or the Islam would become the new enemy picture of the west. Related to the Islam you seem to have kept right. First I dared 1980 the prophecy that before 1990 the wall would break down and afterwards the Soviet Imperium. This prognosis had not operated. I think, with the hostile Islam picture did not lie beside I. The case of the Sowjetimperiums was in a certain sense a part of the forecast: If an enemy precipitates, one must have a new - at least if one thinks in such a way dichothom and apokalyptisch like the US Americans. - one thinks so only in the USA? There is the Americans, the others plappern after, because they are good NATO members and must say the same like the Americans. Thus the system functions. The analysis of dominant power is as it were the dominant analysis. If the United States operate foreign policy, and they always do, give that it two things: The long-term objective and the current pretexts for their practical procedure. Thus one must separate, which the United States actually wish and which a pretext is. I am not so convinced that they really believe in the enemy picture Islam, but the enemy picture is useful. Which concerns the objective, then this was always completely clear. There were always two objectives. First of all markets and raw materials and secondly the Militaerbasen, in order to control. Thus one could say that it concerns an economic and a military objective. Over it there is an excellent book by John Perkins: "confessions of a Economic hit one" (jW 5.1.2005). How that can be done exactly everything before itself, one can reread in it. - Mr. Galtung, you have a further prognosis? Yes. It concerns the collapse of the US Imperiums. This prognosticated I 2000 for the period of 2020 to 2025. But then Mr. Bush became jr. a president, and I shortened this period by five years, because Bush works accelerating. Therefore legend I now: 2020 ago. That does not mean however that the USA fold up. Rather it will be a release for the USA. They become erbluehen, if they will be released from this Imperium. - the Marxist theory says already in the communist manifesto that the civil production relationship does not know a grace. On the other hand the world market is also the condition for general release: One must only abolish it. The general thesis of Marx is those that the misery of the proletariats will be trip of a release impulse. If one regards the capitalistic system as a world system, there is a quantity misery, before all in the countries of the south. But Marx thought very economically and not about the military. After the Second World War the USA undertook for example 70 interventions. Mostly, in order to defend the system. And releases counter acting forces, which are not the same, which Marx describes. For example the Islamic countries, in which very frequently intervened. Today in the Iraq one intervenes and perhaps in the future also in Iran. That releases other forces, than from Marx the described. Therefore the US Imperium is not so much threatened by a proletarian revolution in the Marx sense, but of those, which would not like no more that one intervenes against them. And of it there are very many. One speaks of the fact that the US Imperium killed after 1945 for instance between twelve and sixteen million humans. And mostly, in order to keep economic power. - this power is however a capitalistic and in Germany and in other states likewise existent. The western-capitalistic states form together a block. Even if they compete among themselves, nevertheless countries use as also for example Germany, Spain or Norway a certain negotiating flexibility, which concerns the protection of its capital by the military screen of the USA on the one hand and their own interests on the other hand. The size of this negotiating flexibility is measured after respective economic power. In capitalism there is competition, and however there is even co-operation (laughs) it gives those, which use themselves militarily more than others. And those are to first the USA and as number two Great Britain. It is exactly this cooperating economic and military forces and naturally also political. We speak here of Imperium. Thus not only of the economics, but of a coordination of the exercise of power. I would like to include also gladly the culture with. Indeed the idea to understand the culture of the United States as a world culture. A culture, to which for example also competition and co-operation belong. Reliably this culture carries many nice courses, but its conviction is not nice that the Americans would know the absolute truth for mankind. That was also the problem of the Soviet Union. And that is the problem Islam. - one such requirement is not scientific particularly. They must consider that the western science is not the only one. Before thousand to five hundreds years the Islamic countries accommodated half of the civilization of the earth. But that was more art, literature, mathematics. They had the first sociologist also for example: Ibn Chaldun, a Muselman and Tunisian diplomat from that 15. Century. Which the good science is thus actually, is not so completely clear, I would say. The truth can look very beautifully, as the democracy. But one does not bring the democracy to the Iraq by bombs and killing. It will never function to implement human rights by beginning to break human rights. That cannot be done. The Islamic science was usually socially aligned, the western however was mostly natural science. That is the difference. It is not so completely clear whether the modern science points really was. It brought both the atom bomb and progress out in the medicine. Which concerns however the life art, I am not convinced of it. - isn't better it by a company to be exploited than from a Patriarchen and its Schergen? I do not believe that. Interview: Stefan Valentin

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 78): If Hans Blix KNEW there were no WMD why did he need more time?

He needed more time to re-check everything and make it absolutely certain
-

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 78): If France Knew there were no WMD why ask for more time for inspections?

because France knew that an end of the inspections by the USA would be interpreted as the inspections having failed
-

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 78): the people elected a government that developed a constitution.

The USA pushed through such "elections" twice in which due to security problems vast parts of the city populations could NOT take part. Any suggestion to postpone those elections were refused by the USA at the time. The result was a parliament dominated by rural politicians and their conservative voters. And in order to weaken the secularist part of society, the Socialist Party was prohibited, already by General Garner, then by Governor Bremer, and on "advice" from Mr Necroponte also by the "Provisional Government".
-

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 44): Sunnis lived better under him. Everyone else the vast majority of Iraq it was worse.

Outside some particular conflict areas, average non-political people, be they Sunni or Shi'ite or Christian (mostly Secularists anyway) lived normally, could go to work, could go to schools and universities, could drive around, could go shopping, could do business, and women went out without scarves or veils quite freely, people could freely consume beer and wine. While life is miserable now to ALL Iraqis, and even more so for the women
-

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 83): Everybody in Iraq has a worse live now , under saddam they at least could go out to street , to schools , etc now they stay at home because of fear to die . The Invasion just made the situation worse

Again, your assessment is based on the Sunnis experience. I doubt a Shite who had to be protected from Saddam's air-force under a no-fly zone, or a Kurd who was gassed would agree with you.

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 83): Quoting Mrniji (Reply 80): I feel ashamed as as American for this thread., so please accept my apology But don't forget that not all Americans are like that, please! Yea thanks god !

Yes! An American apologized. The fighting can stop now. Peace is restored because an American apologized and is ashamed. Oh wait...didn't anyone tell that to the insurgents? Now, who's being naive?

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 86): I have shown him in two posts, but he remains stubborn.

Security Council Resolution 1441 gave the authority. I've pointed that out three times, speaking of stubborn. And let's talk about the UNs refusal to back up its own resolutions. How has that made the UN stronger? Has it helped in North Korea? Has it made Sudan accept UN forces? Darfur is a perfect example of why the UN resolutions had to be backed up with force. The world now knows that the UN resolution isn't worth the paper its printed on, ignoring it and stalling has allowed Sudan to continue to kill people in Darfur, while we wring our hands and call for someone to do something.

War it the violent implementation of diplomacy. The UN with no teeth behind it is impotent. Only the naive don't see that, and wonder why nothing is done in terrible places.

I'm not retreating into isolationism. I'm simply advocating what the world want from us. They want us to butt out. Hugo Chavez calls us Imperialist, Mrniji calls us Imperialist. Ok fine, but I'm for consistency, so if we butt out we butt out of everywhere. We'll let the UN handle everything, but I don't want any appeals from George Clooney that we ought to do something about Darfur. That will be a UN problem.

The problem as I see it is that the world wants it's cake and eat it too. They love it when the US is involved, yet they resent it just the same. Well if the world has co-dependency issues, they have to deal with them alone.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 89): Security Council Resolution 1441 gave the authority. I've pointed that out three times, speaking of stubborn. And let's talk about the UNs refusal to back up its own resolutions. How has that made the UN stronger? Has it helped in North Korea? Has it made Sudan accept UN forces? Darfur is a perfect example of why the UN resolutions had to be backed up with force. The world now knows that the UN resolution isn't worth the paper its printed on, ignoring it and stalling has allowed Sudan to continue to kill people in Darfur, while we wring our hands and call for someone to do something. War it the violent implementation of diplomacy. The UN with no teeth behind it is impotent. Only the naive don't see that, and wonder why nothing is done in terrible places.

The UN resolution 1441 "gave the authority"? what the.. ? Dude, why do you bother?

Kay

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 89): assessment is based on the Sunnis experience. I doubt a Shite who had to be protected from Saddam's air-force under a no-fly zone, or a Kurd who was gassed would agree with you.

most Shi'ites in Iraq were NOT living in no-fly zones and were NOT in conflict-zones. Most of the urban Shi'ites (a majority of the Iraqi population does live in towns and cities) were NOT affected by those conflicts.
-

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 89): the UNs refusal to back up its own resolutions.

what you call a "refusal to back up its own resolutions" simply was the refusal of the U.N. to support military action
-

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 89): Has it made Sudan accept UN forces? Darfur is a perfect example of why the UN

the Sudanese government now wants to talk about having UN troops in the Darfur region, a perfect example that strong diplomacy in the end works
-

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 89): They love it when the US is involved, yet they resent it just the same.

the world "loved" it in the times of President Bill Clinton when the US involvement was done with care and sense, but the world resents the "Rambo-style" involvement of Warmonger Bush. And the world resents to be classified by phrases like "if you are not with us you are against us" . Such behaviours alienate actual and potential allies alike .
-

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 88): Outside some particular conflict areas, average non-political people, be they Sunni or Shi'ite or Christian (mostly Secularists anyway) lived normally, could go to work, could go to schools and universities, could drive around, could go shopping, could do business, and women went out without scarves or veils quite freely, people could freely consume beer and wine. While life is miserable now to ALL Iraqis, and even more so for the women

Ok you're right. So the US pulls out some Baathist seizes power from the elected government and peace is restored just the way you want it. Nice secular fascist state just like before. It'll be a paradise. I'm sure your right. And If your wrong and the dictator is brutal and kills people we have no right to get involved, that's been proved to me, thank you ME AVN FAN.

I'm advocating a withdrawl and you people don't want it.

Can SOMEONE please explain this to me. What's the plan?

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 89): Security Council Resolution 1441 gave the authority. I've pointed that out three times, speaking of stubborn. And let's talk about the UNs refusal to back up its own resolutions.

OK, now let a Law major speak - a short lecture for you:

Ways to interpret law:

The first and utmost important source is the textual interpretation. I.e. read the text in its full grammatical sense and interpret it literally. Here, we have the words "Serious Consequences".

Literally, serious consequences does not mean "armed attack". An armed attack must be enforced by the criteria as in Art. 51 of the UN Charter (see also the preceding chapters, and the rules of customary international law).

Let's just assume there is an ambiguity in the words "serious consequences". The one side means armed attack, the other doesn't. In order to solve that ambiguity, you will look at the accompanying documents of the debates for the resolution. These documents CLEARY reveal the opposition of (in particular) France, China and Russia towards the war. Hence, even using the second approach it is absolutely clear that UNRes. 1441 does not provide an authorization for an attack. You can also teleologically interpret a law, but that is only the ultima ratio, when all other means of interpretation fail (as the aforementioned two and the "placing in context of other laws).

In other words: before making assumptions, do some research, otherwise you make yourself mockery in public and on anet (as it is here and has been implied by others). Your opinions are quite dangerous for peace and integrity in the world.

In my leisure, I am at present reading a wonderful book on methods of research. It contains a chapter how "vernacular narratives" can explain phenomenons, albeit not always representatively. Representation anyways is a difficult utopian ideal in the world. Why am I saying this? For me, it is a phenomenon how stupid we Americans can be in voting (reelecting) for someone who has brought the world to the brink of a disaster, indulging in in the killing of HT0000 innocent civilians in the name of god, the people and humanity (reminds me again of "killing for peace is like fucking for virginity"). As I said before to AirxLiban (a good friend of mine), just to underline, not all Americans by far approve what has happened. You, however, give an excellent role model - or, to use my point before, vernacular narrative - why people like Bush (and Cheney) can be empowered for pursuing imperialist objectives.. Thanks a lot for this excellent lecture and illustrative example, (and nenertheless for a morning of amusement)! Now it is easier to understand for me the phenomenon Bush!!!  

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 92): So the US pulls out some Baathist seizes power from the elected government and peace is restored

you are prejudiced. The Ba'ath Party re-integrated into normal politics will participate in the next elections and will get more than 30% and presumably have the next Prime Minister, for instance their present party-leader Izzat Ibrahim el-Douri. An alternative scenario however will see a general of the armed forces taking over, banning ALL parties for an interim period and reviving law and order, before re-starting democracy. In either way, the Imams will be sent back to the mosques in favour of a division of religion and state.

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 93):

You can lecture all day. Regardless of the reasons for going to war, it's legality etc. there is one going on in Iraq. The issues from 2003 are now consigned to the history books. And will provide me and other historians years of wonderful debate, and it will never be resolved just like the missing aircraft carriers from Pearl Harbor is never resolved. However, arguing the war's UN legality doesn't stop a truck bomb. The anti-war movement wants us to leave. I've explained that I now want to us leave.

I proposed a solution.

You said we " can't just bomb and leave."

I'm asking you now for a second time what do you suggest?

Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 79): This exercise in shoving democracy down Iraq's throat and the extent to which people are dying and the country is moving 10 years backwards every passing day is directly a result of blunder after blunder by an arrogantly ignorant occupying power whose inability to do anything about the situation serves only as a stark reminder of its own multiple failures.

Might you please suggest another political system that offers a better future for a country that has been in the grip of a dictator for 30 years ? You make your comments from under the protection of a system that was at one time fought for no doubt . Why do you assume conflict is not the beginning of the future for Iraqi democracy ?

Funny the act of regime change and the installation of a democratic government is seen as arrogant by the the world. Why is this ?? Seems to me it is the ultimate compliment to the people of Iraq that we see them having the intelligence to elect people who offer them the best future. Our objective is to empower the people of Iraq to guide their own future ! Why would the world not support this ? It would be one thing if we propped up a dictator or assigned a "king". But this is not the case !

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 56): don't. I think they went in to 1. Finish off business between Saddam and the Bushes; 2. To win re-election in 2004, based on the war on terror, and blending it, through fear and paranoia, with WMD's in Iraq, and 3. To cement a place for Mr. Bush in the history books. That's why we went in there. That's not good intentions. That's devious.

1. Do you mean finishing Saddam's punishment for the invasion of Kuwait ? I guess we should have just let Saddam have Kuwait ... then the people of Kuwait could live under the peaceful harmony that was the Saddam regime.

2. NO .. The war in Afghanistan would have been enough to secure reelection if this was the case. Very limited view of the world Falcon... Do you really view your government as being this evil ? If so that is very sad IMHO. If this is true then why the overwhelming Dem support for the action in Iraq ... or were they duped by the president as well ? If so then did we really want power in the hands of people so easily fooled.

3. Guess 9-11 was not enough huh ? I wonder if people of other countries have such a view of their governments. It is amazing that you would rather trash your own government with baseless BS than see the possible positive outcome in Iraq. I maintain that it is still the equivalent of swimming down stream to just see the bad and go on about it. It takes courage and a positive view of the future to maintain hope.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 95): I proposed a solution.

UALPHLCS, here's another solution: why don't you focus on another subject? Because without wanting to look at the US's mistake in 2003, and with a lack of information and understanding, and a considerable amount of prejudice displayed by yourself, nobody or very few are interested in the solution you are proposing, rather they would like to elighten you on the position you have adopted on this world affair using as a sole source of knowledge the back of a Kellog cornflakes box.

And please don't tell me you have studied or worked in anything that has to do with Iraq, because the problem would not be the lack of knowledge, but the person.

Kay

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 94): An alternative scenario however will see a general of the armed forces taking over, banning ALL parties for an interim period and reviving law and order, before re-starting democracy.

Ah yes that's a much better scenario because as we all know when the military seizes power they relinquish it. History has proven that.

Can anyone else see the inference fallacy in ME AVN FANs argument. Anyone from Pakistan maybe?

Quoting Kay (Reply 97): Because without wanting to look at the US's mistake in 2003, and with a lack of information and understanding, and a considerable amount of prejudice displayed by yourself, nobody or very few are interested in the solution you are proposing,

How does naval gazing at how the US got into Iraq save lives?

What's prejudiced about wanting to get out and let the Iraqis fend for themselves. It's what we've been told they want. I'm having a hard time bridging the disconnect. I really don't understand how we can "get out" and "not get out because we made this mess" message that I've been getting since I started this thread.

There has been all this dancing about the issue with the UN debate in 2003 and Bush said what when, Iraq was better off before, UN resolutions, Darfur, blah blah blah ad infinitim. None of which has stopped the car bombs and IEDs.

What will stop them. A US troops withdrawl. Quickly. Declare we won, completed our mission, and resonable argument can be made that that is the case and leave. Let the chips fall where they may. If our help is no longer wanted, if it was never asked for, as was brought up in this thread, we have no right to impose our help, so we leave.

But I don't hear any reasonable alternatives coming. Anyone?...Anyone?...Bueller?

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 95): The anti-war movement wants us to leave. I've explained that I now want to us leave.

at least progress right here !  
-

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 96): dictator for 30 years

just for the record it was from 1979 to 2003 which makes 24 years
-

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 96): to elect people who

first, the USA sent home the policemen, and only recalled them when crime was getting out of control
second, the USA dissolved the armed forces who before had controlled the country, but failed to replace them
third, the USA ensured that the largest Party of the country got banned, thereby helping their fundy friends
-