01-13-2003, 01:28 PM
|
#6
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Radek:
Okay [img]smile.gif[/img]
1. UN isn't any ruler and it cannot be any ruler. It weren't devised to be some kind of ruler. UN is a place where the problems between countries should be solved and a chance for a peace should be searched for. That's the role of UN. All members of UN, including the USA, engaged themselves to obey the UN Charter. Among others, they promised not to use power against themselves and solve problems by means of negotiations. They also delegated the decision whether to use power against some country to the Security Council.
The way you phrased your first argument made it sound like you believed that the USA had to get permission from the UN to take action, which is not the case. The UN was originally designed to do what you say, however now it has been perverted into a useless, hoplessly politicized body of politicians. It no longer servers any real purpose and has become more focused on appeasement of bad behaviour much like Nevile Chamberlain in the 1930's
2. Ask yourself. Why do the inspectors look at wrong places? And, is it really impossible to tell the inspectors where to search? Must such pointer endanger anybody? You need not tell the source of the information! Why the intelligence service does not tell the inspectors something like this: "A grandma from Morrowind witnessed that the Iraq WMD are there and there. Go there and there and check it!". Who is endangered? Nobody.
Now, if the inspectors ignored such message then you would be right: they don't want to find anything. Otherwise, you will need to explain why do you think that they do not want to find anything.
They look in the wrong places because A. Saddam, will not allow them intot he correct places and B. The UN and Hans Blix are pacifistic trolls who would rather turn a blind eye than actually ever DO anything.
Please do not take this as an insult but you seem to be very ignorant of "Intelligence" matters. In the world of intelligence (spies and the like) Methods and Sources are the most closely held secrets of all. If you release the wrong information, you may get your source killed, or loose your techologic advantage. Case in point. The Enigma Machine, was a machine that the Germans used to encode their communications in WWII, but some British people broke the code....however they could not always use the information they gathered or the germans would know that their code was broken...so some times people died that could have been prevented...for the greater good. Oh and by the way, Iraq still has stockpiles of Mustard Gas that the inspectors this time knew about and found...so it is still there and can still be used.
3. The palaces are no more tabu. This excuse (not your excuse, the official excuse) is unusable now.
And yet they are not being searched [img]smile.gif[/img] I do know that there is one region in particular that the inspectors are staying away from that they should be all over.
4. I know the argument about somebody being raped. But I consider it a false argument. The international affairs are something different from inter-people affairs. The difference consists in the concept of sovereignity. The countries are sovereigns. On the other hand, the citizens of a particular country are submitted to the same law. Therefore, it is clear that it is the raper who violates the law and, moreover, that the raper must count on your punching him (you will act according to the law).
So basicly it is ok to rape ad pillage people by the thousands or tens of thousands, just not when it is done on an individual basis? Sounds pretty shakey to me
On the other hand, it is not clear who violates the law if we exchange the raper and his victim by sovereign countries. As far as both countries obey the international law, you cannot tell who is the raper and who is the victim. No country on the earth is authorized to decide it. Not even the USA. This decision was delegated to UN by all UN members - including the USA.
And yet we do it all the time, one nation denouncing another, economic sanctions are being levied all the time. It is no different.
5. Because we can? That's wrong, MagiK! Pushing Saddam out of Kuwait wasn't a US action but a UN one! It's the UN who decides how to impose the terms of victory! And MagiK, we are speaking about one and half millions of deads here. We are speaking about three quarthers of million of dead children. Yes, "you" (the USA) can let the chilren die. "You" are enough strong to force others to see the chilred die. "You" can veto any attempt to alleviate their fate. But then don't be surprised at the image of the USA in the world.
Actually it was a "Coalition" action mostly conducted by the USA and Britain. The UN "anctioned" it but did not have any role in the action. Nor would it have mattered, George Bush Sr. and Margaret Thatcher would have gone in alone if necessary. As for your casualty numbers...they are incorect [img]smile.gif[/img] Do some more searching. There were a few children killed, mostly due to unavoidable error and the fact that Saddam used civilians as human shields for his military assets. The United States, invests BILLIONS (with a capital B) of dollars into developing and purchasing weapons that do everything humanly and technologicly possible to avoid civilian casualties. US. Pilots fly more dangerous routes and troops risk their lives all in an effort to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, our men and women die trying to avoid hurting civilians...where most other armies just march right through them. So you can't lecture me about how cruel we (the US) are in our application of military might. As for the "world Image" of the US. Well when people start turning down our charity, and quit asking for our help, when they close our bases in their countries, then we will go home and let you all fend for your selves. Untill then we help when and where we can.
6. The UN should be disbanded and forgotten? MagiK, do you know why the UN were created? To prevent future wars. To create an institute of the international law. To allow solving problems peacefully. Disband? Okay. And now? Replace UN by the USA? No, thanks.
No way Jose! The US doesnt want to replace the UN. But as it exists today the UN is useless and ineffectual. So far no one has given me any list of things the UN has actually accomplished...they TRY to do some things, but actually accomplish little. I also have to inform you that the USA never agreed to be bound by "international" rule of the UN. We have a Constitution that prevents our government from suborning our freedoms to a foreign power.
|
[ 01-13-2003, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]
|
|
|
|