i haven't checked this out to see if i agree with it yet.
www.iraqsolution.com
Iraq solution
Iraq solution
Es gibt keinen Löffel!
Miax OOC: 'Your blood freezes as you hear the rattling death cry of Shevarash.'
Miax OOC: 'Your blood freezes as you hear the rattling death cry of Shevarash.'
I can save them the time.
1) This does nothing to reduce or eliminate the number of WMD in the Iraqi arsenal, it just changes who is in charge of them.
2) It does not hold Saddam responsible to living up to previous U.N. resolutions. In essence, it would be the U.N. saying it didn't care if the previous was followed/switching mid-stream.
3) The U.N. charter strictly forbids it to interfere with internal working of a country without an invitation to help. World Health Organization can't just enter a country and start medical aid w/out the approval of said country. The same goes for the rest of the U.N.
4) The U.N. Security Council's job is not to create democratic countries, it is to ensure the sovernty of the countries. The reason the U.N. is involved at all is Iraq invaded Kuwait, thus drawing the Sec Council in to protect the sovern nation of Kuwait. If it were to demand elections in Iraq, the body itself would be assaulting a sovern nation, and thus would be in defiance of its' own charter.
5) Further, the U.N. is not equipt at this time to form a polling system and oversee fair elections in a timely and cost-effective manner. The polling would take months in not more than a year to set up, thus happening long after any conflict would. The U.S./U.K. forces are not intent on sitting in foreign nations waiting on the U.N. to conduct polling.
So, in summation, the U.N. has no power to enact the legislation, no ability to execute such legislation, has a specific mandate against such action, and it does not solve for the intial problem of compliance with prior resolutions nor for disarmament. On the basis of these arguments, I can see nothing but a negative ballot. I am now ready for cross examination.
1) This does nothing to reduce or eliminate the number of WMD in the Iraqi arsenal, it just changes who is in charge of them.
2) It does not hold Saddam responsible to living up to previous U.N. resolutions. In essence, it would be the U.N. saying it didn't care if the previous was followed/switching mid-stream.
3) The U.N. charter strictly forbids it to interfere with internal working of a country without an invitation to help. World Health Organization can't just enter a country and start medical aid w/out the approval of said country. The same goes for the rest of the U.N.
4) The U.N. Security Council's job is not to create democratic countries, it is to ensure the sovernty of the countries. The reason the U.N. is involved at all is Iraq invaded Kuwait, thus drawing the Sec Council in to protect the sovern nation of Kuwait. If it were to demand elections in Iraq, the body itself would be assaulting a sovern nation, and thus would be in defiance of its' own charter.
5) Further, the U.N. is not equipt at this time to form a polling system and oversee fair elections in a timely and cost-effective manner. The polling would take months in not more than a year to set up, thus happening long after any conflict would. The U.S./U.K. forces are not intent on sitting in foreign nations waiting on the U.N. to conduct polling.
So, in summation, the U.N. has no power to enact the legislation, no ability to execute such legislation, has a specific mandate against such action, and it does not solve for the intial problem of compliance with prior resolutions nor for disarmament. On the basis of these arguments, I can see nothing but a negative ballot. I am now ready for cross examination.
If the U.N. is allowed to go into a country and conduct an election to decide the leadership of that country, then we are all in trouble. Given the current world hatred for george bush, whats to stop them from deciding that we need another election here? And once we do it to Iraq, we can't really tell them that it can't happen here. Such an action would grant entirely too much power to the U.N., which is an obvious hypocracy of an institution. The only thing this could do is force Bush and Chirac to agree on something; they would both veto this proposal. No leader of any nation would support an action that allows the U.N. to enter a country and conduct an election, it jeopardizes the sovreignty of every state.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
thanuk wrote:No leader of any nation would support an action that allows the U.N. to enter a country and conduct an election, it jeopardizes the sovreignty of every state.
But leaders of other nations should think it's OK for the US to enter a country and conduct an election, that doesn't jeopardize sovereignity?
Note: This is not a comment in support of any plan.
Gurns wrote:thanuk wrote:No leader of any nation would support an action that allows the U.N. to enter a country and conduct an election, it jeopardizes the sovreignty of every state.
But leaders of other nations should think it's OK for the US to enter a country and conduct an election, that doesn't jeopardize sovereignity?
Note: This is not a comment in support of any plan.
Well Gurns, that wouldn't happen until the current government of Iraq was removed via military action. Conducting an election and changing a government after defeating a country in a war is very different from just going in and setting up a new government because the U.N. said so. Thats why we declare war, because it means we intend to jeopardize the sovereignity. But to expect a country to just accept a change and not defend itself is unrealistic, and would set a precident for the UN to have the authority to do such a thing whenever they deemed it necessary, which is simply unacceptable.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
thanuk wrote:would set a precident for the UN to have the authority to do such a thing whenever they deemed it necessary, which is simply unacceptable.
Hmm, I've still got the same comment/question: So it's acceptable for the US to do it, whenever we deem necessary? Going back a step in your argument, the question is now about invading (we haven't officially declared war, not that we need to), rather than about elections.
I would expect your answer to be "Yes, whenever we deem it necessary". And then I'll ask whether it's acceptable for any country to invade another country, whenever they deem it necessary. And you'll say "No". And then I'll ask whether a US invasion because "we think it's necessary" might not be a bad precedent to set. Or rather, to re-affirm: It's not like it's a new reason for invasion.
Then we'll talk about what makes invasion really necessary as opposed to just saying it's necessary, and WMD and the chances of them getting into the hands of terrorists, the risks of a Saddam in the Middle East, and other such matters, all of which have been discussed elsewhere. Oh, good, we can be done with this thread now.
Gurns wrote:Hmm, I've still got the same comment/question: So it's acceptable for the US to do it, whenever we deem necessary? Going back a step in your argument, the question is now about invading (we haven't officially declared war, not that we need to), rather than about elections.
First you have to distinguish between the U.S. and the U.N. The United States is a sovereign nation, which is acting to defend its interests at all times, and sometimes to defend the interests of the rest of the world, and sometimes for humanitarian reason, and sometimes for its ideals, but always because of its own interests. The U.N., however, is a coalition of every nation on the planet, and is supposed to be acting for the greater good of everyone, rather than in the interests of one particular nation over another(even though this doesn't happen in practice, it has no bearing). There is no governing body to rival the U.N., whereas the United States can be rivaled by any and all countries in the world to check its power.
Gurns wrote:I would expect your answer to be "Yes, whenever we deem it necessary". And then I'll ask whether it's acceptable for any country to invade another country, whenever they deem it necessary. And you'll say "No".
Well this is where you fall into the trap. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Since we as a nation believe and act on the premise that it is acceptable for our country to invade another country, we must respect the same right of other countries. However, if we deem the reasons for another country's invasion unacceptable, we always have the option of fighting against them. We only represent our own interests, not the interests of the world. Whereas when considering an invasion by the U.N., the circumstances change entirely. To stand against the U.N., is in fact to stand against the rest of the world...it is not war between two countries, it becomes a war between a single country and every other country in the U.N.. Because of this, the U.N. has to play by different rules than an individual nation such as the United States. So it is acceptable for a sovereign nation to invade another nation when they deem it necessary, it is unacceptable for the U.N. to do so until it is ratified by a majority of the countries in the U.N..
We see this in the current Iraqi situation; the U.S. has every right to invade Iraq; they have violated the terms of the cease fire that ended the 1991 gulf war. We are justified in taking military action because of that, regardless of what the U.N. has to say about it. Whereas the U.N. is not justified in taking military action, even though Iraq has violated a number of U.N. resolutions, because a number of countries who are U.N. members(russia, france, germany, china) do not support said action.
Gurns wrote:And then I'll ask whether a US invasion because "we think it's necessary" might not be a bad precedent to set. Or rather, to re-affirm: It's not like it's a new reason for invasion.
You are right in that it is a re-affirmation, but it is also a tenet of being a sovereign nation. The U.N. is a council of countries that exists to help negotiate and arbitrate, unbiasedly, the dealings between countries. It is not, i repeat, NOT, an end all be all world government to which all individual countries must answer to for all actions, or face reprocussions. Certainly they have a right to interfere when its member countries are effected by the actions of others; however it does not have the authority to limit and restrict the actions of a single nation. It can punish and reward, and it can take a number of steps to influence decisions made by leaders, but it cannot have the authority to override the decisions of the leader of a nation, and it won't as long as the United States is around. In laymans terms, they can tell us that we shouldn't invade Iraq, they can reward us for not invading Iraq, and they can take actions to punish us when we do invade Iraq, if they deem it necessary. Hell, they could even kick us out of the U.N., and vote to send troops to support the Iraqi army and fight against the United States if they desire(NOT ADVISABLE). But they do not have the authority to stop us from invading Iraq if that is what we wish to do, by merely telling us we aren't allowed. They will have to forceably stop us, and they do not have the will or capability to do so.
Gurns wrote:Then we'll talk about what makes invasion really necessary as opposed to just saying it's necessary, and WMD and the chances of them getting into the hands of terrorists, the risks of a Saddam in the Middle East, and other such matters, all of which have been discussed elsewhere. Oh, good, we can be done with this thread now.
Yes, and thats why we, the United States, have decided to invade Iraq. We have also requested that the U.N. support us in this action for the same reasons, and the U.N. is showing that it probably won't support such an action, which is fine(well not really but we can't really say they have to support us either, its their decision to make). What the U.N. cannot do is prevent us from taking such action, because they don't have the authority. If they want to prevent us from invading Iraq, they are going to have to use force to stop us; the power of their words is not enough. They can also choose to do nothing about it. But if the U.N. as a group chooses to do nothing, that does not mean that each individual country does not have a right to choose to act individually. I.E. just because the U.N. is doing nothing does not mean France is not allowed to actively aid Iraq in the war. If they were to have that authority, it would compromise every country, because it would restrict their ability to act alone. When the leader of your country cannot choose to do something without first asking the U.N., he ceases to be a leader and becomes a delegate, who has to answer to a higher power. The United States will never allow that to happen.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Gurns,
I agree with you that there needs to be a better justification for going to war than just because we feel like it. The amount of pain and sorrow and death that has occurred because of war through the ages is staggering. All too often war was just a means of obtaining something. Land, wealth, whatever. The strong would take from the weak, and nobody could really say otherwise. This self-destructive phenomena reached its peak in the mid 20th century in WWII. Disgusted, the world came to its senses and vowed to prevent any such thing from happening again. They decided the best way to accomplish such a goal was to form an international organization. Hence, the UN was established.
The problem is that it didn't work. Pain and suffering have not been abolished. The world is divided between countries that represent order, and those that represent chaos. Each one of them has a vote in the General Assembly. Libya gets elected to chair the council on human rights. Iran and Iraq rotate into the committee on disarmament. Its a joke. They vote in regional blocks to maximize the effect of their vote, thus giving areas with many small countries a great advantage. India, with over a billion people, has the same representation in the UN as the smallest country in the world.
Meanwhile, in the security council... the more 'mature' chamber, the pissant little countries rotating through are being bought off by the highest bidder. France launches a personal attack on America's conservative president in order to discredit his views, while simulataneously trying to position itself as the lead of a strong EU counterweight to America. Interestingly enough, France has recently signed a very lucrative oil deal with Saddam. Imagine that. On the other side of the Rhine, Germany's chancellor Shroeder uses Anti-Americanism to deflect attention from his failing economy, and accepts France's invitation to join it at the head of the EU table.
Apparently, if Cameroon, Angola, and Guinea can be bought off, and if France decides not to exercise its veto because to do so would destroy the UN, its only source of power, then America would get Security Counsel permission, which, for some idiotic reason, would satisfy people that the war is just.
The point being, the UN is a pipe dream. Yes, there needs to be a better justification for war then just because we feel like it. But some bought and purchased approval from a political organization like the UN can never be legitimate. The justification, in this case, is preemptive self-defense by a democratic country with no territorial ambitions.
I agree with you that there needs to be a better justification for going to war than just because we feel like it. The amount of pain and sorrow and death that has occurred because of war through the ages is staggering. All too often war was just a means of obtaining something. Land, wealth, whatever. The strong would take from the weak, and nobody could really say otherwise. This self-destructive phenomena reached its peak in the mid 20th century in WWII. Disgusted, the world came to its senses and vowed to prevent any such thing from happening again. They decided the best way to accomplish such a goal was to form an international organization. Hence, the UN was established.
The problem is that it didn't work. Pain and suffering have not been abolished. The world is divided between countries that represent order, and those that represent chaos. Each one of them has a vote in the General Assembly. Libya gets elected to chair the council on human rights. Iran and Iraq rotate into the committee on disarmament. Its a joke. They vote in regional blocks to maximize the effect of their vote, thus giving areas with many small countries a great advantage. India, with over a billion people, has the same representation in the UN as the smallest country in the world.
Meanwhile, in the security council... the more 'mature' chamber, the pissant little countries rotating through are being bought off by the highest bidder. France launches a personal attack on America's conservative president in order to discredit his views, while simulataneously trying to position itself as the lead of a strong EU counterweight to America. Interestingly enough, France has recently signed a very lucrative oil deal with Saddam. Imagine that. On the other side of the Rhine, Germany's chancellor Shroeder uses Anti-Americanism to deflect attention from his failing economy, and accepts France's invitation to join it at the head of the EU table.
Apparently, if Cameroon, Angola, and Guinea can be bought off, and if France decides not to exercise its veto because to do so would destroy the UN, its only source of power, then America would get Security Counsel permission, which, for some idiotic reason, would satisfy people that the war is just.
The point being, the UN is a pipe dream. Yes, there needs to be a better justification for war then just because we feel like it. But some bought and purchased approval from a political organization like the UN can never be legitimate. The justification, in this case, is preemptive self-defense by a democratic country with no territorial ambitions.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth
Goddamned slippery mage.
Goddamned slippery mage.
Actually, I was being somewhat serious -- or perhaps hopeful -- when I said "all of which have been discussed elsewhere. Oh, good, we can be done with this thread now." But thanks, Thanuk and Corth, for your thoughtful comments. Some of which have not been expressed, and others expressed but not as well, elsewhere on the BBS. Someday, perhaps, I will get all my thoughts in order for an equally thoughtful response.
Code: Select all
Number Time Name Country
43 03.06.03 11:57 pm Saddam Hussein Iraq
42 03.06.03 7:33 pm dayna taylor United States of America
41 03.06.03 6:30 pm Lindsay Zink United States of America
hahaha I rule
-g
<I>When a man lies, he murders some part of the world
These are the pale deaths, which men miscall their lives
All this I cannot bear to witness any longer
Cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home?</I>
These are the pale deaths, which men miscall their lives
All this I cannot bear to witness any longer
Cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home?</I>
You're all wrong. The real answer to Gurns' question is: Because we can. We can preemptorally invade and occupy another nation, and no other nation can currently do it to us.
Sure, we have other reasons for invading Iraq. Some of them are even plausible. But underpinning them all is the Bush administration belief that, since we have the ability to enforce our will around the globe, we also have an inherent right to do it.
Your homework for next time: Can you think of any disadvantages of having unlimited power and actually using it? In your response, consider the long-term effects of 19th-century European colonialism on global stability. Also reflect on the legacy of Western powers re-shaping the Middle East, vis a vis the division of the former Ottoman empire and the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
Dr. Mp
p.s. Ask me about ways you can earn extra credit during my office hours. Co-eds only, please.
Sure, we have other reasons for invading Iraq. Some of them are even plausible. But underpinning them all is the Bush administration belief that, since we have the ability to enforce our will around the globe, we also have an inherent right to do it.
Your homework for next time: Can you think of any disadvantages of having unlimited power and actually using it? In your response, consider the long-term effects of 19th-century European colonialism on global stability. Also reflect on the legacy of Western powers re-shaping the Middle East, vis a vis the division of the former Ottoman empire and the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
Dr. Mp
p.s. Ask me about ways you can earn extra credit during my office hours. Co-eds only, please.
To tell you the truth, the "Iraq solution" is a foregone conclusion. You don't deploy 250,000 US soldiers halfway across the globe with all their equipment and whatnot if you aren't going to use them. The real question is how soon we will have to wait before taking the next step and causing regime change in Iran. Because we can, of course, and because for the good of the world, it should be done.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth
Goddamned slippery mage.
Goddamned slippery mage.
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests