You're cheering because Saddam is 'caught'... Why?


by Adam
Tags: cheering, saddam
BoulderHead
#19
Dec15-03, 10:20 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Adam
Question: All good reasons, given that the war did happen. But do you think it should have happened at all? Or perhaps after things within the USA were fixed?
But this isn't what your original question asked. You have been been given an answer to what it was you wanted to know yet are not content.
GENIERE
GENIERE is offline
#20
Dec16-03, 12:04 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 286
Adam, I ask for laws, you provide me with principles and purposes of the UN Charter. As the US is a member of the UN, you may make the argument that the US violated the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, but not any supposed law. I can argue that the US and all its coalition allies acted it a manner consistent with the charter, while a few members of the UN Security Council did not.

My government interpreted UN Resolution 1441 to mean it directed the UN to retaliate against the regime of Saddam Hussein and remove him from power. I agree with the interpretation, your government agreed. You, obviously disagree.

If your argument were correct, than the UN was obligated under its charter to retaliate, by pacifist or military measures, against all offending nations, including Australia. Obviously no such retaliation occurred. A response to that could be that the UN lacked the means to retaliate against the economic and military might of the US, and certainly not against the entire coalition. It could also be that a resolution to retaliate against the coalition nations could not possibly be passed, so no member state brought it to the floor.

One thing that we can probably agree on is that the UN is quite useless as a peacemaking organization.
Adam
Adam is offline
#21
Dec16-03, 05:41 AM
P: 454
Originally posted by chroot
You have repeatedly implied that feel Saddam should not have been a first priority. Why don't you share that reasoning first?
I did not actually say that. Pay attention. Once again, I am asking a question about the priorities of this board's users.
Adam
Adam is offline
#22
Dec16-03, 05:49 AM
P: 454
Adam, I ask for laws, you provide me with principles and purposes of the UN Charter. As the US is a member of the UN, you may make the argument that the US violated the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, but not any supposed law.
The UN Charter IS international law. What are you smoking? International law consists of treaties, agreements and all which are agreed to by signatory parties. If Thailand and Burma sign a treaty to share fridge magnets, that is international law. The UN Charter ia international law to the signatory parties.

My government interpreted UN Resolution 1441 to mean it directed the UN to retaliate against the regime of Saddam Hussein and remove him from power. I agree with the interpretation, your government agreed. You, obviously disagree.
Actually my government did not agree. That is why our government passed their first ever vote of no confidence, for John Howard's unsupported agreement to give our troops to the USA.

I have quoted the relevent section of the UN Charter. Please read it.

If your argument were correct, than the UN was obligated under its charter to retaliate, by pacifist or military measures, against all offending nations, including Australia.
Indeed. This is one of the big problems with the UN. It's not really there to safeguard international peace and co-opertaion. It's there to safeguard the interests of the permanent members of the Security Council.

Obviously no such retaliation occurred. A response to that could be that the UN lacked the means to retaliate against the economic and military might of the US, and certainly not against the entire coalition. It could also be that a resolution to retaliate against the coalition nations could not possibly be passed, so no member state brought it to the floor.
I would bet that in the next two decades, a new organisation similar to the UN will emerge, consisting mainly of developing nations, specifically aimed at protecting their interests from the UN.

One thing that we can probably agree on is that the UN is quite useless as a peacemaking organization.
For the most part, yes.
Adrian Baker
Adrian Baker is offline
#23
Dec16-03, 12:04 PM
Adrian Baker's Avatar
P: 419
Why?

Because he was an evil monster who thought he could get away with it. (He could too when the cold war was ongoing.

Why?
I suppose the murder of Thousands of your own people is a good reason to some. A pointless war against Iran that involved a million deaths. The invasion of Kuwait, the burning of oilwells.

Why?
He inspired other ruthless men who realised thet the UN was useless and that they too could do as they wish.

Why?
He helped fund middle east terrorism and helped keep the whole area unstable. This has led to countless deaths and refused peace and freedom to millions.

Why?
Because a democratically elected goverment decided it was the best policy. Some of us believe in democracy. If we don't like what happened, we can vote them out.

Why?
Because the Iraqi people deserved better.


Why Adam do you have to ask? Why do you find fault with so many others who give good reasons?

Would you call the police for help if someone took over your house, killed your family and sold all your possesions? Shouldn't others have that right?
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#24
Dec16-03, 12:08 PM
Mentor
P: 21,999
Originally posted by Adam
I did not actually say that. Pay attention. Once again, I am asking a question about the priorities of this board's users.
No, that is not what you asked. You simply asked why we were happy he was caught (if you don't remember, the subject line is at the top of the page). For that question, priorities are not relevant.

Perhaps the wording of the question isn't in line with the intent of the thread?
GENIERE
GENIERE is offline
#25
Dec16-03, 12:40 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 286
Call them laws, treaties, principles or whatever you want. Nothing is superior to The US Constitution in determining the legality of the activities of its government and citizens.

Section 2 of the US Constitution re: The Supreme Court

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

I, perhaps erroneously, believe that in Australia the executive branch is deemed “The Government”. The legislative branch apparently disagreed with “The Government”.

You seem driven to resort to personal attacks when others offer opposing viewpoints, the archetypical leftist tactic.
Zero
Zero is offline
#26
Dec16-03, 01:21 PM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
Originally posted by GENIERE


You seem driven to resort to personal attacks when others offer opposing viewpoints, the archetypical leftist tactic.
That's your tactic too, as I recall...and certainly the official tactic of the Republican Party.
FZ+
FZ+ is offline
#27
Dec16-03, 05:17 PM
FZ+'s Avatar
P: 1,954
*Groan* Here we go again...

Greg: can we have a ban on all use of the word leftist/rightist/left wing etc etc? Or maybe extend the profanity filters to cover them....
Adam
Adam is offline
#28
Dec16-03, 05:52 PM
P: 454
Because he was an evil monster who thought he could get away with it. (He could too when the cold war was ongoing.

I suppose the murder of Thousands of your own people is a good reason to some. A pointless war against Iran that involved a million deaths. The invasion of Kuwait, the burning of oilwells.
Good reasons.

He inspired other ruthless men who realised thet the UN was useless and that they too could do as they wish.
Tell me, why do you think other such people around the world are not being invaded, hunted?

He helped fund middle east terrorism and helped keep the whole area unstable. This has led to countless deaths and refused peace and freedom to millions.
While I have not seen any evidence that he funded terrorism prior to the invasion of Iraq (after which he openly offered money for dead US soldiers), it is true that every nation around Iraq found them a great problem.

Because a democratically elected goverment decided it was the best policy. Some of us believe in democracy. If we don't like what happened, we can vote them out.
The "democratically elected" bit is debatable. As for reasons, this one does not cut it at all. If 51% of people in Nation X decide "It's a great idea to invade Nation Y", that does not necessarily make it so. You're saying the decision is the reason.

Because the Iraqi people deserved better.
Yep. Definitely.

Why Adam do you have to ask?
Curiousity.

Why do you find fault with so many others who give good reasons?
Well, many don't give good reasons.

Would you call the police for help if someone took over your house, killed your family and sold all your possesions? Shouldn't others have that right?
Bush is not the police.
Adam
Adam is offline
#29
Dec16-03, 05:56 PM
P: 454
Call them laws, treaties, principles or whatever you want. Nothing is superior to The US Constitution in determining the legality of the activities of its government and citizens.
Oh, I see. You think the US Constitution applies outside the US, to those who are no US citizens. Right. Well, I'll explain it for you. It doesn't. The US constitution is for a specific geographical region, applying to a small number of people and only when within that region. International laws apply to the citizens of all signatory nations, within the regions controlled by those nations, and sometimes outside those regions as well. Get it?
Nommos Prime (Dogon)
Nommos Prime (Dogon) is offline
#30
Dec16-03, 07:57 PM
Nommos Prime (Dogon)'s Avatar
P: 383
Adam, I think your're discovering, like me, thats its quite pointless trying to have intellectual and political conversations with the brainwashed. These guys can't seem to think outside their LITTLE square they live in (be it the USA, England or Australia).
I think they truly believe that the USA and its foreign policies are good for the world. Of course, they are wrong, but they are too proud and arrogant to accept input from anybody else.
Unfortunately we are not even in the discussion.
GENIERE
GENIERE is offline
#31
Dec16-03, 08:29 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 286
Adam -
International laws apply to the citizens of all signatory nations, within the regions controlled by those nations, and sometimes outside those regions as well. Get it?
Only if a US citizen’s rights per US Constitution are not diminished.

: "We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept. We will work together with other nations to avoid complications in our military operations and cooperation, through such mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral agreements that will protect U.S. nationals from the ICC. We will implement fully the American Servicemembers Protection Act, whose provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of U.S. personnel and officials."

(a) AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.

Clinton National Security Strategy excerpt:

...In some cases, such as Operation Just Cause in Panama, we may intervene unilaterally to protect our interests.

Bush (2) National Security Strategy excerpt:

...And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.
Hurkyl
Hurkyl is offline
#32
Dec16-03, 08:30 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,101
Adam, I think your're discovering, like me, thats its quite pointless trying to have intellectual and political conversations with the brainwashed.
...
suyver
suyver is offline
#33
Dec17-03, 07:48 AM
suyver's Avatar
P: 265
Originally posted by GENIERE
...And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.
Just out of curiosity: do you think that other nations should do this too? For example, should Pakistan invade India, before the threat is fully formed? Or what about North Korea nuking the USA before the 35000+ US soldiers stationed near the DMZ decide to cross over into the North? [?]
Njorl
Njorl is offline
#34
Dec17-03, 07:53 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 875
Originally posted by suyver
Just out of curiosity: do you think that other nations should do this too? For example, should Pakistan invade India, before the threat is fully formed? Or what about North Korea nuking the USA before the 35000+ US soldiers stationed near the DMZ decide to cross over into the North? [?]
Nations should also act in their own best interest. In either case, the actions you mentioned would be suicidal.

Njorl
suyver
suyver is offline
#35
Dec17-03, 08:20 AM
suyver's Avatar
P: 265
Originally posted by Njorl
Nations should also act in their own best interest.
Does that mean that your answer is 'yes' and you think that every nation on the planet has the right to pre-emptively strike at any other one?
Njorl
Njorl is offline
#36
Dec17-03, 09:22 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 875
Originally posted by suyver
Does that mean that your answer is 'yes' and you think that every nation on the planet has the right to pre-emptively strike at any other one?
There is no sovereign authority above a nation. Nations do not have rights. Nations perform the actions they wish (and of which they are capable) and enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences. Nations make agreements to make it more clear that egregious behaviour will have unhappy consequences.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, it was not a matter of rights. It was a matter of power. When the international coalition kicked him out, it was not justice, it was consequence.

In geopolitics, might makes right. This sounds awful, however, it is important to realize that good relations and good standing in the international community is a form of might. Iraq's military power was an inferior force compared to Kuwait's good relations with the world.

North Korea and Pakistan are free to engage in the actions you described. No sovereign authority can order them to stop, or arrest them. However, they would find that the results of those actions would be terribly detrimental to their welfare.

Njorl


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Chupacabra caught? General Discussion 14
The mouse wants to get caught ? Social Sciences 17
Caught my first paddle fish!!! General Discussion 22
Bush caught and hid OSAMA ? Current Events 25
Saddam no more? Current Events 11