"We consider the war and occupation in Iraq a grave error that hasn't solved
— but has complicated — the problem of security."
— but has complicated — the problem of security."
"Terrorism has found a new base and new excuses for internal and external terrorist action."
The thing is most "reasonable" people knew that problems would develop even with the deceptive practices of the Bush/Blair "Bombs over Baghdad" kabal. This is why we saw unprecedented worldwide protests BEFORE the war began.
To those who claimed that we should not allow others to dictate US foreign policy:
This was international policy. This reckless, imperialist excursion has made the world a more dangerous place. AND THE WHOLE WORLD TOLD YOU THAT FOUR YEARS AGO!
This was international policy. This reckless, imperialist excursion has made the world a more dangerous place. AND THE WHOLE WORLD TOLD YOU THAT FOUR YEARS AGO!
Why didn't you listen?
12 comments:
Nadir: So, the PM of Italy agrees with you. Did he also agree with the other peaceniks that one reason to not invade was that Hussein had bio-chem weapons, and that he would use them on coalition forces? That wasn't true; it least none got used. Such banned weapons maybe didn't even exist (peaceniks say now, but nobody said then).
Did this Italian PM also say -- along with all the other peaceniks, incluidng Jimmy Carter -- that Bush should delay elections there, because they would trigger violence? That was wrong, also.
"The world" told me something? Some people in the world made some claims; I listened to all of them. I just didn't agree with all of them.
You peaceniks opposed the war regardless of the facts. You opposed if there were banned weapons, because they would have gotted used.
What international laws did the US break? The invasion enforced an international law that Huessein was breaking. Several European countries, including France, and UN officials, including Kofi Anon (via his son) where breaking international laws by violating the sanctions against Huessein.
All just wars include the shedding of blood. Was this a just war? That is one question. Will it lead to peace, prosperity, and freedom? We shall see.
Nadir, with "the world" (by which you mean the lefties in the world) being so often wrong, how am I to know when to believe "the world"?
The MAJORITY of the world is against this war. Right-wing and left.
Aren't you a believer in DEMOCRACY?
If the MAJORITY is wrong you still have to go with the DEMOCRATIC decision, right?
You don't believe in DEMOCRACY anymore???
This was NOT a just war. It was a bunch of bullies attacking a malnurished, underarmed populace with SHOCK AND AWE and BRUTE FORCE!
There was NEVER any chance that this might be a just war after 12 years of US/UK decimation of the Iraqi people (both military and civilian).
You are still in denial. Imagine that that is YOUR baby girl lying dead.
Nadir: I still believe in "democracy", which certainly does not neccessarily mean simply "majority rule". Please refer me to *ANY* advocates of "democracy" who propose this "mob rule"! We advocates of democracy always include as a neccessary ingrediant a set of bedrock rules that recognize universal individual liberties which no majority can trammle, except in special narrow circumstances wherein a jury of fellow citizens determines that an individual has violated another person's liberties.
"The world" does not operate as a democracy. Thus there exists no mechanism for establishing a "vote" by "the world", unless you mean the United Nations. The UN includes many representatives who can trace their powers to "the people" of their home nations; these would be the representatives from the minority of world nations governed by "the people" (ie, a democracy). Most UN member state constitute dictatorships, and their representatives cannot trace their power back to "the people" of their home nations, but rather to a single tyrant or group of tyrants (Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Syria, Cuba, some of the former USSR states, etc.).
1. So what "world" are you speaking of? The representatives of France and the other democratic nations that violated the UN sanctions against Hussein?
2. And what UN santions did the US violate by invading Iraq?
Nadir: The US military did not attack starving people; it attacked the military force of dictator. If the US purposefully attacked any civilian targets, the responsible leaders of such attacks have indeed committed attrocities. However, even the most just wars have accidental civilian causulties.
I know that some civillians died in this war. But you are living in a fantasy world if you think that Iraq can both have freedom and prosperity, and have it without a war to wrest it away from the gangters who ran it. I know that some "baby girls" died. Some "baby girls" died in the war that ended US slavery. Some "baby girls" died in the 1960s in the war against Jim Crow. Imagine if those were your children! Would you have avoided that war, or order to save the Birmingham church girls?
Remember, I am not 100% convinced that invading Iraq was the best move, or that subsequent to disarming the Hussein Baathists that building a democracy was the best move. Nor am I 100% convinced that US forces did the best job that they could have of minimizing civilian destruction. But I am not 100% convinced that this action will result in a dramatic positive chance for all of Arabia, and an overall increase in safety and prosperity not only for Arabs, but for the rest of the world, including Americans.
"We advocates of democracy always include as a neccessary ingrediant a set of bedrock rules that recognize universal individual liberties which no majority can trammle, except in special narrow circumstances wherein a jury of fellow citizens determines that an individual has violated another person's liberties."
Which, of course, is why your president has been spying on you. Because he believes in your civil liberties. Bullshit.
From:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Jayne-Kramer0920.htm
"The invasion of a single nation by another nation or group of nations is only legal under the UN Charter if such an invasion has been sanctioned by the vote of the UN Security Council. This did not happen in the case of the recent Iraq invasion, since the United States and Great Britain, led by the U.S. Secretary of State Powell, withdrew on March 17, 2003 their resolution to stage such an invasion from consideration by the UN Security Council when they realized that the majority of its members would vote against it.
Instead, Powell and others insisted that this approval was unnecessary, since UN Resolutions 687 and 1441 (the latter of 8 November 2002) had already granted this right.
However, this is simply not true. As demonstrated by a close examination of the UN Charter and these particular resolutions, there is no possible interpretation that preempts the need for a final decision by the Security Council. Because the U.S. and U.K. withdrew their resolution, there could be no decision permitting an invasion. As a result, the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and those who brought it about can be held responsible for war crimes by an impartial international tribunal, for example the International Criminal Court (ICC)."
"The US military did not attack starving people; it attacked the military force of dictator. If the US purposefully attacked any civilian targets, the responsible leaders of such attacks have indeed committed attrocities. However, even the most just wars have accidental civilian causulties."
The US attacked civilian infrastructures such as electrical plants and water treatment facilities in a concerted attempt to cripple the Iraqi people's will.
The US used white phosphorous on Iraqi civilians in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The US still uses undepleted Uranium in violation of international law.
Greek lawyers accuse Britain of 22 illegal attacks on Iraqi civilians:
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/iraq/doc/grc1.html
Pentagon Probes Marines for Allegedly Firing on Unarmed Iraqi Civilians:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196060,00.html
World Condemns US Killing of Journalists in Baghdad:
http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/61548.htm
"Remember, I am not 100% convinced that invading Iraq was the best move, or that subsequent to disarming the Hussein Baathists that building a democracy was the best move."
I and most of the rest of the world (including George H.W. Bush in his memoirs) were convinced prior to the war that the invasion of Iraq would result in a quagmire. Bush ordered the go ahead because the resulting quagmire is profitable for his associates in the oil, weapons and financial industries.
You have been proven 100% wrong.
Nadir: You make a good case about the UN illegality of the US invasion, though I have not examined the document that the neocons claim sanctioned it.
I do not think that your president is spying on you or me. To the contrary, I am certain that your president is not. I am certain that he has the resources to spy only on specified targets.
I oppose your president's program of eaves-dropping without oversight from congress and the judiciary, and you may have a case for impeachment there, or at least other recourse by the other branches.
I am also certain that Bush did not start a war in order to stuff pockets of a few of his special friends.
One of your war attrocity sources above is Fox news, so it must be correct. Another is the Chinese government, which I cannot afford any credability. I support prosecuting any US war attrocities, and I fully oppose Bush deliberately harming any Iraqi civilian infrastructure. However, at least he was doing so in an an attempt to expel a tyrant, and to "break the will" not of "the Iraqi people", but rather the tyrant's infrastructure. Bush is attempting to rebuild and expand, but various tyrants are deliberately destroying this, in the advance of tyranny rather than democracy.
These photos make a good case for the anti-US forces to stop fighting and permit the US processes to play out prior to rendering a judgement.
Post a Comment