IMO War against Iraq senseless

pritchke · 03-10-2003, 03:45 PM

Interesting article, with a different prespective.
------------------------------------------------------------------
By TOM BRODBECK -- Winnipeg Sun

It's one thing for the United States and their so-called coalition of the willing to argue that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a menace to the world who ought to be extinguished.

It's quite another for them to bomb Baghdad without the approval of the United Nations and argue they're doing so to enforce a series of broken UN resolutions.

That's hypocrisy in its purest form.

If the U.S. and others feel they have enough justification to declare war against Iraq, whatever that justification may be, nobody can really stop them.

But I wish they wouldn't insult my intelligence by telling me they're doing so to enforce a series of UN resolutions.

That's like claiming someone has violated the Criminal Code of Canada and because police, who are charged with enforcing the law, decline to lay charges, you're going to enforce the law yourself outside the court system.

In that case, you can't say you're enforcing the Criminal Code because the Code itself lays out how it's supposed to be enforced.

You would, in fact, be breaking the law if you tried to enforce it yourself.

It's the same with the United Nations. The UN passes resolutions all the time.

But they have rules on how those resolutions should be enforced. They have a Security Council with voting members who have the sole authority to enforce those resolutions.

Anyone else, including a "coalition of the willing," who tries to enforce them is not enforcing UN resolutions, they are acting outside the UN.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say you're enforcing UN resolutions and then spit in the eye of the institution that created them.

It's one of the many deficiencies in the pro-war argument.

Another major flaw is the argument that Iraq is "linked" to terrorist cells, whatever that means. The contention is that Iraq had something to do with the Sept. 11 attacks and that it's harbouring terrorists whom Saddam Hussein could arm to attack the United States.

But when asked for evidence that Iraq was behind 9/11, the White House always fails to deliver.

The spin that Iraq was linked to 9/11 makes for good rhetoric on the talk show circuit. But in the cold, hard light of day, the claim doesn't have a leg to stand on.

It's perhaps that assertion that erodes Bush's credibility more than any other. When you don't have a strong case for action, you reach. And George W. is reaching.

The other justification for war against Iraq is that not only does Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction -- which dozens of countries do -- he's used them against his own people.

It's true, he has. He's a dangerous, murderous dictator -- one of many around the world. But what you don't hear much about is the American's complicity in Iraq's use of chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s.

The U.S. provided intelligence and arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in an effort to stave off an Iran victory. U.S. companies were exporting biological agents to Iraq which were licensed by the Commerce Department. And the U.S., which knew about the chemical warfare, did nothing to prevent them.

They gave Iraq tacit approval to use them.

The bottom line today, though, is that nothing is going to happen overnight in Iraq, except for a possible U.S.-led war.

Iraq is surrounded by tens of thousands of troops. There's a northern no-fly zone and a southern one.

The United Nations is combing though Iraq looking for and actively destroying arms. UN chief inspector Hans Blix is reporting continued progress and co-operation. The eye of the world is on Iraq and they can't attack anyone or really do anything. They're incarcerated.

Under these circumstances, I don't know how any logical thinking person could in good conscience approve of military action against Iraq, killing tens of thousands of innocent people, creating an explosively dangerous environment in the Persian Gulf and substantially increasing the threat of terrorism in the United States.

It simply makes no sense.

[ 03-11-2003, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

03-10-2003, 03:48 PM

The articleis very interesting...completely ignores all the facts, and that people are being tortured, and murdered daily by the hundreds....but the article was well written.

Timber Loftis · 03-10-2003, 05:12 PM

Actually, it was poorly written. Very poorly. Beginning with the fatally-flawed analogy: US/UK enforcing UN sanctions = civilians enforcing a nation's laws (i.e. vigilanteism). What hogwash. The *only* way the UN acts militarily is through its member nations. The idea of a UN standing Army pretty well died shortly after the UN was created.

Plus, he does not realize that the US is already authorized to use force.

Ignorance annoys me. Ignorance with a voice should annoy us all, because it provides misinformation to everyone.

Animal · 03-10-2003, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MagiK:
The articleis very interesting...completely ignores all the facts, and that people are being tortured, and murdered daily by the hundreds....but the article was well written.

So what makes it any different than any other country? Every country has commited attrocities at some point or another, slavery, internment camps, racial segregation etc... Could you provide non biased source or link that provides proof to this DAILY torturing and murdering of hundereds?

John D Harris · 03-10-2003, 09:29 PM

Interesting one question though. Does Tom Brodbreck have a crystal ball? So far no bombs have been dropped on Bagdad unless there is a conspiracy of silence going on RIGHT NOW.

Animal · 03-10-2003, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John D Harris:
Interesting one question though. Does Tom Brodbreck have a crystal ball? So far no bombs have been dropped on Bagdad unless there is a conspiracy of silence going on RIGHT NOW.

If they did is the point he's making.

John D Harris · 03-10-2003, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Animal:

Quote:
Originally posted by John D Harris:
Interesting one question though. Does Tom Brodbreck have a crystal ball? So far no bombs have been dropped on Bagdad unless there is a conspiracy of silence going on RIGHT NOW.

If they did is the point he's making.[/QUOTE]Nothing personal Animal but we have a saying here in Dixie "If a bull frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt then he jumped" Meaning He doesn't have wings and he Does bump his butt. If's are well and good, but If's, are like coulda, shoulda, and woulda's unless they are Are's or Is's they are good for nothing more then intellecual exercise.

Chewbacca · 03-11-2003, 12:03 AM

It never fails to amaze me how people will shoot the messenger, but avoid discussing the message altogether, particularly if the message contrasts with their own.

It is true that the U.S. put Saddam in a position to use womd -vs- Iran. The lack of responsibility taking about the issue is highly predictable.

It is also true that alot of surveillance technology is being used to scour Iraq with scores of inspector working to get a comprehensive conclusion to the disarmament question.

Also true is the lack of evidence linking Iraq to Al-queda.

The President said it himself, invasion (war) should be the last option. A blind man could see we still have more than one option on the table.

John D Harris · 03-11-2003, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Animal:

Quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
The articleis very interesting...completely ignores all the facts, and that people are being tortured, and murdered daily by the hundreds....but the article was well written.

So what makes it any different than any other country? Every country has commited attrocities at some point or another, slavery, internment camps, racial segregation etc... Could you provide non biased source or link that provides proof to this DAILY torturing and murdering of hundereds?[/QUOTE]I'm going to try this again, the first time I had about 20 links but IE crashed before I could post.

Links:
http://www.ait-cec.com/jebhe5bbmesg/2156.html
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14292
http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/SpecialReportWaronIraq/M12Brutality Ears.htm
http://www.genocidewatch.org/TrySaddam.htm
http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistanobse...kurdistan.html
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~yahussain/...aqtorture.html
http://www.iraqcp.org/humman/00214re...%20version.htm
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr/199...xecutions.html
http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspective...rus-070302.htm
http://www.meforum.org/article/250
http://members.lycos.co.uk/trilby/index.html check out the other pages on this site.
http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/...2303%2C00.html
http://www.rferl.org/iraq-report/1999/02/8-260299.html
http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/...cs/0000295.php
http://staging.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat5.htm
http://www.arabia.com/article/print/...4758%2C00.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea.../1009irwom.htm
http://www.khrw.com/victimsoftorture.html
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/terror2...6_20011016.htm
http://library.amnesty.it/isdocs/aid...x/MDE140031996
http://www.ain-al-yaqeen.com/issues/...17/feat9en.htm
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/...COUNTRIES\IRAQ
http://www.security-policy.org/paper.../98-P39at.html
That's a start altough almost any search will turn up 1,000 of web sites about Iraqi torture. Make sure you put in IRAQI TORTURE or you'll get some rather different sites dealing with torture

[ 03-11-2003, 04:10 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

John D Harris · 03-11-2003, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbacca:
It never fails to amaze me how people will shoot the messenger, but avoid discussing the message altogether, particularly if the message contrasts with their own.

It is true that the U.S. put Saddam in a position to use womd -vs- Iran. The lack of responsibility taking about the issue is highly predictable.

It is also true that alot of surveillance technology is being used to scour Iraq with scores of inspector working to get a comprehensive conclusion to the disarmament question.

Also true is the lack of evidence linking Iraq to Al-queda.

The President said it himself, invasion (war) should be the last option. A blind man could see we still have more than one option on the table.

A similar thing could be said about people accepting the message, particularly if they agree with the message, If's have a tendancy to become are's.

03-10-2003, 05:12 PM	#3
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Actually, it was poorly written. Very poorly. Beginning with the fatally-flawed analogy: US/UK enforcing UN sanctions = civilians enforcing a nation's laws (i.e. vigilanteism). What hogwash. The only way the UN acts militarily is through its member nations. The idea of a UN standing Army pretty well died shortly after the UN was created. Plus, he does not realize that the US is already authorized to use force. Ignorance annoys me. Ignorance with a voice should annoy us all, because it provides misinformation to everyone. __________________

03-10-2003, 09:29 PM	#5
John D Harris Ninja Storm Shadow Join Date: March 27, 2001 Location: Northport,Alabama, USA Age: 63 Posts: 3,577	Interesting one question though. Does Tom Brodbreck have a crystal ball? So far no bombs have been dropped on Bagdad unless there is a conspiracy of silence going on RIGHT NOW. __________________ Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts

03-11-2003, 12:03 AM	#8
Chewbacca Zartan Join Date: July 18, 2001 Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth Age: 51 Posts: 5,373	It never fails to amaze me how people will shoot the messenger, but avoid discussing the message altogether, particularly if the message contrasts with their own. It is true that the U.S. put Saddam in a position to use womd -vs- Iran. The lack of responsibility taking about the issue is highly predictable. It is also true that alot of surveillance technology is being used to scour Iraq with scores of inspector working to get a comprehensive conclusion to the disarmament question. Also true is the lack of evidence linking Iraq to Al-queda. The President said it himself, invasion (war) should be the last option. A blind man could see we still have more than one option on the table. __________________ Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
More Senseless Violence!!!!	pritchke	General Discussion	0	03-11-2005 03:10 PM
War or no war w/ Iraq	Rageheart	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	2	03-17-2003 08:30 PM
Should we go to war against Iraq?	Rikard_OHF	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	28	03-14-2003 06:19 PM
War on Iraq!	Megabot	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	19	12-22-2002 04:42 AM
Senseless Deaths...This is like one of those Darwin Award things...	Larry_OHF	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	7	05-21-2002 07:03 PM

03-10-2003, 03:45 PM	#1
pritchke Bastet - Egyptian Cat Goddess Join Date: September 5, 2001 Location: Calgary, AB Age: 50 Posts: 3,491	Interesting article, with a different prespective. ------------------------------------------------------------------ By TOM BRODBECK -- Winnipeg Sun It's one thing for the United States and their so-called coalition of the willing to argue that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a menace to the world who ought to be extinguished. It's quite another for them to bomb Baghdad without the approval of the United Nations and argue they're doing so to enforce a series of broken UN resolutions. That's hypocrisy in its purest form. If the U.S. and others feel they have enough justification to declare war against Iraq, whatever that justification may be, nobody can really stop them. But I wish they wouldn't insult my intelligence by telling me they're doing so to enforce a series of UN resolutions. That's like claiming someone has violated the Criminal Code of Canada and because police, who are charged with enforcing the law, decline to lay charges, you're going to enforce the law yourself outside the court system. In that case, you can't say you're enforcing the Criminal Code because the Code itself lays out how it's supposed to be enforced. You would, in fact, be breaking the law if you tried to enforce it yourself. It's the same with the United Nations. The UN passes resolutions all the time. But they have rules on how those resolutions should be enforced. They have a Security Council with voting members who have the sole authority to enforce those resolutions. Anyone else, including a "coalition of the willing," who tries to enforce them is not enforcing UN resolutions, they are acting outside the UN. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you're enforcing UN resolutions and then spit in the eye of the institution that created them. It's one of the many deficiencies in the pro-war argument. Another major flaw is the argument that Iraq is "linked" to terrorist cells, whatever that means. The contention is that Iraq had something to do with the Sept. 11 attacks and that it's harbouring terrorists whom Saddam Hussein could arm to attack the United States. But when asked for evidence that Iraq was behind 9/11, the White House always fails to deliver. The spin that Iraq was linked to 9/11 makes for good rhetoric on the talk show circuit. But in the cold, hard light of day, the claim doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's perhaps that assertion that erodes Bush's credibility more than any other. When you don't have a strong case for action, you reach. And George W. is reaching. The other justification for war against Iraq is that not only does Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction -- which dozens of countries do -- he's used them against his own people. It's true, he has. He's a dangerous, murderous dictator -- one of many around the world. But what you don't hear much about is the American's complicity in Iraq's use of chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s. The U.S. provided intelligence and arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in an effort to stave off an Iran victory. U.S. companies were exporting biological agents to Iraq which were licensed by the Commerce Department. And the U.S., which knew about the chemical warfare, did nothing to prevent them. They gave Iraq tacit approval to use them. The bottom line today, though, is that nothing is going to happen overnight in Iraq, except for a possible U.S.-led war. Iraq is surrounded by tens of thousands of troops. There's a northern no-fly zone and a southern one. The United Nations is combing though Iraq looking for and actively destroying arms. UN chief inspector Hans Blix is reporting continued progress and co-operation. The eye of the world is on Iraq and they can't attack anyone or really do anything. They're incarcerated. Under these circumstances, I don't know how any logical thinking person could in good conscience approve of military action against Iraq, killing tens of thousands of innocent people, creating an explosively dangerous environment in the Persian Gulf and substantially increasing the threat of terrorism in the United States. It simply makes no sense. [ 03-11-2003, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

03-10-2003, 03:48 PM	#2
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	The articleis very interesting...completely ignores all the facts, and that people are being tortured, and murdered daily by the hundreds....but the article was well written.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)