are you guys watching this powell shit live?

[xfer]

ah...right on. The problem being that the UN seems bent on not enforcing its most critical resolutions, which means it risks making itself irrelevant. Maybe that would've been a good tack--Powell admonishing the UN to follow through?

I think that leaves the door a little too open for champions of democracy like Syria to hammer nations like Israel for their noncompliance with other, less crucial resolutions...but maybe not.

 

[Stultus]

it [the UN] risks making itself irrelevant

 

[FrostGiant]

I just read that title again, but for some reason I laughed this time. I can't believe Powell shit live!!!!

Sorry.

 

[robina]

do you really think the syrians didn't make a good or valid point today?

in any case, i'm not saying that we should be using the tactic that these wmds/iraq are/is a direct threat, but the fact of the matter is we didn't make a very convincing argument for others on the security council; had we shown a direct threat we probably would have gotten more support. obviously, i personally don't want that support though. whatever i guess.

also regardless of however much i hate sadaam (and trust me, i despise him with the force of a thousand suns) i do not delude myself by thinking that this war is about human rights violations, nor do i delude myself into thinking that killing thousands and thousands of civilians is somehow not morally repugnant, nor do i think that they will better off when we overthrow sadaam. i mean, all you have to do is look at afghanistan to know that that's a laughable claim.

 

[xfer]

What part of Syria's response do you mean? I do know that Syria is one of the lyingest states in the world (evinced even further by their assertion that Iraq is fully complying with inspectors).

I agree with the rest of what you said, except that Iraqi civilians won't be better off when Saddam's gone. I can't imagine how it could be otherwise.

 

[VangelicSurgeon]

Originally posted by robina
also regardless of however much i hate sadaam (and trust me, i despise him with the force of a thousand suns) i do not delude myself by thinking that this war is about human rights violations, nor do i delude myself into thinking that killing thousands and thousands of civilians is somehow not morally repugnant, nor do i think that they will better off when we overthrow sadaam. i mean, all you have to do is look at afghanistan to know that that's a laughable claim.

Yeah...I don't think anyone really does think that this is not about money/oil. at least not anyone with more than half a brain.

 

[xfer]

Well, yeah, but so? Germany, France, China, and Russia's opposition to the war is also about money. Everything's about money.

 

[FuSoYa]

Regarding Afghanistan, if the overthrow of the government did not improv conditions in Afghantistan, it's mostly because the United States did a half-assed job and wasn't militaristic enough about it. In order to preserve whatever public image they hoped to have, they put an Afghani ex-leader in power and satyed behind as 'protection' but not really as an active government maker.

What they could have done is re-do the entire country instead of trying to be all "oh, we still want this to be the Afghanis' nation."

Seems more coldhearted but it would have been more likely to have worked.

 

[xfer]

Toby...

When Clinton was in power and leaned toward doing things like that, it was decried by conservatives as "meddling" and "nation-building". Now that Bush is in power, liberals scream about it as well. I agree with you, and it seems that the government should ignore the yammering and just fucking fix the shit, already.

regarding Afghanistan: The Taliban wasn't quite as murderous as Saddam, and yet the country is STILL better off under the new government--chaos and all--than under the repressive Taliban.

 

[robina]

whether or not the afghani people are better off is at best arguable. particularly considering the fact that there's a high risk of afghanistan being taken over by warlords and ex-taliban leaders again, anyway. the religious and ethnic conflicts going on there right now remain basically the same as pre 9-11.

and i was talking about the comments syria made about israel, in reference to this comment: "I think that leaves the door a little too open for champions of democracy like Syria to hammer nations like Israel for their noncompliance with other, less crucial resolutions."

hmm, "less crucial resolutions." less crucial to whom?

 

[xfer]

Well, right now in Afghanistan there's far less persecution of women and religious and ethnic minorities than pre-Taliban; I realise this is wholly because Bush wants his war to look like a success, and not for altruistic reasons, but whatever the motivations, it's a good thing. It might revert...if so, I'll be the first to criticize it.

"less crucial" to the world and humanity in general. Iraq is a greater threat to any population--Iraqis, Persians, the region, the world--that Israel is to even the Palestinians.

 

[azal]

why do I keep clicking on this thread?

 

[xfer]

politickin' with my sistas.

 

[robina]

i think both of those are judgement calls, and i disagree with both. when a country has a consistent pattern of breaking international law - - as israel does - - then that's a pretty crucial problem, i think.

besides, i thought we already agreed that there really isn't much of an imminent threat coming from iraq - - for anyone. if we were really worried about human rights IN iraq, we should have tackled this problem several years ago, which is just further proof that this war is only in our own interests.

 

[xfer]

International law doesn't mean shit, though. If international law said it was OK to nuke a city, that does not make it right. If international law says it's it's wrong to nuke a city, that doesn't make it wrong. It's wrong or right (wrong, obviously) outside the sphere of international law. Criticizing Israel for violating international law is like saying a serial killer is a good person after he's released from his trial because the police forgot to read him his Miranda rights--it's procedural and no more.

Criticizing Israel for its actual actions is different, though. The evil actions of Israel are a molehill next to the evil actions of Iraq.

Iraq's threat is precisely imminent, actually--it does NOT threaten us now, but it will in the future at some point. I think Bush is trying to push that it's a threat right now.

You're right, we should have tackled it several years ago. But that means tackling it now is of even greater importance, right? (if you disagree with that statement, I'd be interested to hear why)

 

[avi]

I'm with azal.

 

[robina]

i don't think the israeli officer who refused to complete his mission because he thought it violated human rights and international laws last week would agree with your analogy.

obviously "international law" just gives us a framework for what we consider "right" and "wrong" behaviour just like the system of justice in this country, however fucked up its loopholes might be. no one would say a serial killer is a good person if they didn't get convicted, and i think your analogy kind of stinks.

AND we are attacking iraq based on his violations of "international law" so you're not honestly making sense. israel's history is not so different than iraq in a NUMBER of ways, including the fact that they created nuclear weapons "illegally" (as, obviously, have many other countries). so comparing israel and iraq is not going to get you anywhere. all you're doing is further proving the subjectivity of our "principles."

it is very, very unlikely that sadaam will ever threaten US (meaning the united states) if he got his hands on nuclear weapons. so no, it's not an imminent threat.

 

[xfer]

OK, why is my analogy bad? It appears pretty sound to me.

I think it's wrong to attack Iraq based on violations of international law. If that's what it takes to get other countries involved, whatever, maybe that's why I think politics is always evil.

Again, screw illegality when it comes to nuclear weapons. Just because it's LEGAL for some countries to have nukes doesn't mean it's okay.

Do you mean Saddam won't threaten the continental United States? Or U.S. troops and interests abroad? The first is iffy; possibly, but possibly not. People say he would never do so, it would be suicide, how irrational...but everyone said that about Stasi terror groups during the Cold War, and declassified documents have proved that, against all logic, otherwise rational governments WERE passing weapons to terrorists who would use them against their enemies (Soviets and Baader-Meinhof, for example). And of course Hussein would have no qualms about enabling an attack (that can't conclusively be traced back to him) against Israel, Jordan, U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, etc...

 

[robina]

i think you are confusing what you/i think vs. what the u.s. government is stating. i'm talking about the latter; i'm discussing the way these things play out in the sphere of politics, not the way i feel about things. i don't understand why you're bringing up things like "screw illegality when it comes to nuclear weapons. Just because it's LEGAL for some countries to have nukes doesn't mean it's okay." that's irrelevant, dude. obviously there are double standards and obviously i think it's ridiculous that the u.s. is allowed to develop free and clear but we are outraged when others do. but that's not the point i'm trying to make. it's an irrelevant point.

using violations of these laws to attack one country means that that law should apply to ALL countries. that is of course the point of the law. the fact of the matter is that the u.s. is using this law to justify something that serves their interests, regardless of the fact that the law is broken all the time in other countries and we choose to let those violations go by the wayside, i.e. we choose to be outraged when some break the laws, but not others. this is the point, not whether i feel that these laws make sense in the first place.

 

[xfer]

Well, then, as weird as it may sound, maybe we agree? I'm pacifist and fully anti-violence, so I'm against the war. But operating in a world where war happens, this war is about as necessary and right as any war has been (which is marginally to not at all), so operating in the political sphere it's better for the war to happen than for it not to.

If I'm running down the street on fire and you put me out with a hose, thanks! I don't care if your reason--you wanted me to give you a reward, maybe--stinks, because I'm not on fire anymore. Same with this Iraq shit.